Bam Bam Baklava
Member
So much negativity. Hopefully the game delivers, and all this is just bandwagon dogpiling bullshit mob mentality stuff.... Hoping.
False hopes and broken dreams.
So much negativity. Hopefully the game delivers, and all this is just bandwagon dogpiling bullshit mob mentality stuff.... Hoping.
So much negativity. Hopefully the game delivers, and all this is just bandwagon dogpiling bullshit mob mentality stuff.... Hoping.
False hopes and broken dreams.
Im watching some beta footage maxed out on PC, and i cant tell if its the engine becoming dated, or if its just this game that looks stale as fuck, visually/aesthetically, in its current beta state anyway. I remember being blown away with the first BF3 frostbite gameplay presentation they showed, im not sure that its the engine but maybe not enough time spent on adding more detail to the maps, shit looks sterilized or something..
No, it's not bullshit. That's a direct feed screenshot.
That said, what you're getting at without actually realizing it is the factor of view distance and display type.
The type of display you use combined with the distance from which you sit can increase or decrease your perception of visual artifacts. I can admit that, from my normal viewing distance on a good plasma, the game looks better than those screenshots suggest. That has no bearing on what the system is actually outputting.
This is why image quality tends to be more important on the PC front - most people play PC games in front of an LCD monitor. Sitting that close to an LCD display is the most difficult of situations for managing good image quality, I've found. You need better anti-aliasing and higher resolutions to compensate for the viewing distance and display type.
As a reverse example try playing a game on a nice CRT PC monitor. You'll find that higher resolutions suddenly become less useful due to the nature of the display. 1024x768 with 4x MSAA on a CRT looks absolutely super smooth and clean. It's really quite striking, really, just how different it looks.
Still, when analyzing the visual output of a game one must place all platforms on a level playing field. Analyzing output from a system on a monitor against PC output is the only way to understand how they compare.
That said, in the case of BFH, the shimmering and sub-pixel artifacts visible on thin objects are bad to the point that you'd have to stand a good 20 feet away not to be bothered by them. :
720p?! Does that game have crazy visuals or something?
Even on PS4 with the higher resolution the game is ugly as sin. The beta actually made me think that BF4 might have looked better in parts.
No, it's not bullshit. That's a direct feed screenshot.
That said, what you're getting at without actually realizing it is the factor of view distance and display type.
The type of display you use combined with the distance from which you sit can increase or decrease your perception of visual artifacts. I can admit that, from my normal viewing distance on a good plasma, the game looks better than those screenshots suggest. That has no bearing on what the system is actually outputting.
This is why image quality tends to be more important on the PC front - most people play PC games in front of an LCD monitor. Sitting that close to an LCD display is the most difficult of situations for managing good image quality, I've found. You need better anti-aliasing and higher resolutions to compensate for the viewing distance and display type.
As a reverse example try playing a game on a nice CRT PC monitor. You'll find that higher resolutions suddenly become less useful due to the nature of the display. 1024x768 with 4x MSAA on a CRT looks absolutely super smooth and clean. It's really quite striking, really, just how different it looks.
Still, when analyzing the visual output of a game one must place all platforms on a level playing field. Analyzing output from a system on a monitor against PC output is the only way to understand how they compare.
That said, in the case of BFH, the shimmering and sub-pixel artifacts visible on thin objects are bad to the point that you'd have to stand a good 20 feet away not to be bothered by them. :\
He's probably referring to the many controversies surrounding the American police force and the militarization of law enforcement lately (ferguson being the most notable example). Some people think it is a bit tasteless to release a game like Hardline at a time like this.
Personally I just consider it a rather unfortunate coincidence, not like EA could know it would become a rather controversial topic when they started development on this.
If you're using a display with minimal fade between same-frames, there's literally no difference between "60Hz AABBAABB" and "30Hz ABAB." For all practical intents and purposes, it's not "half refresh" in the same way that it would be on a CRT or mildly flickery LCD or whatever.Replied before. It doesn't depend of the technology. It's inherent to half refreshrate images.
Resolution is locked. EA has come forward in saying the resolution will be the same as BF4.Any chance the final game will have better resolution/graphics?
If you're using a display with minimal fade between same-frames, there's literally no difference between "60Hz AABBAABB" and "30Hz ABAB." For all practical intents and purposes, it's not "half refresh" in the same way that it would be on a CRT or mildly flickery LCD or whatever.
720p?! Does that game have crazy visuals or something?
Any chance the final game will have better resolution/graphics?
I don't know why so many in here are shocked.
1080p AND 60fps is going to be incredibly rare on these consoles. They simply aren't powerful enough.
For me Bf4 looked much better it also had better AA. Bf4 also had destructible environments and Levelolution. Considering these downgrades I would expect more.
The Halo 3 campaign absolutely does deliver a mostly solid 60 fps. There are a select few areas that have performance issues (the beach landing stage before heading into the forest as well as the point where you face multiple Scarab crawlers within that compound just to name a couple). Where did you encounter performance issues in the campaign?
I can try to take a look later. This was just a smaller scale piece so I didn't delve too deeply into those aspects as I was mostly concerned with performance and image quality.
Go play the beginning of Mission 8 The Covenant. You can't miss it. It stutters once you gain control.
1080P x60fps on the new consoles any day now guys...
Mean while, enjoying 1080pUltra settings at 120fps on PC.The game doesn't look that impressive.
1080P x60fps on the new consoles any day now guys...
Just sounds like lazy devs trying to cash in on a big name franchise. Embarrassing...
Wow, what a mess. How long do these consoles have to go? Till 2017? Longer? Was this the first console generation which was underpowered by that much? I know most were outdated pretty fast, but with that gen it feels like they were never...on date.
So... 1.5 years after console launch, full suite of development tools throughout the process, final hardware to work on for 2+ years, no rush to hit launch, a 6 month delay and SDK improvements abound for both consoles..
and they manage to release a less visually impressive game at the same IQ settings for both consoles.
Way to go guys, way to go.
:slow golf clap:
While I am very much opposed to the "lazy devs" argument, the main issue with this game's visuals isn't a hardware issue. The issue is that no matter what platform you're on, this game looks worse than the last game in the series on the same engine and it has less going on.Yeah it's lazy devs. Not a large scope game being squeezed onto anemic hardware or anything, like bf4.
Wow, really? Like BF4, what exactly?Yeah it's lazy devs. Not a large scope game being squeezed onto anemic hardware or anything, like bf4.
I agree, and I would also add that games look smoother at a smaller viewing distance as well, which is why 120fps is such a big deal on the PC, and for VR. IQ is a huge factor when you have so much screen in your face.No, it's not bullshit. That's a direct feed screenshot.
That said, what you're getting at without actually realizing it is the factor of view distance and display type.
The type of display you use combined with the distance from which you sit can increase or decrease your perception of visual artifacts. I can admit that, from my normal viewing distance on a good plasma, the game looks better than those screenshots suggest. That has no bearing on what the system is actually outputting.
This is why image quality tends to be more important on the PC front - most people play PC games in front of an LCD monitor. Sitting that close to an LCD display is the most difficult of situations for managing good image quality, I've found. You need better anti-aliasing and higher resolutions to compensate for the viewing distance and display type.
As a reverse example try playing a game on a nice CRT PC monitor. You'll find that higher resolutions suddenly become less useful due to the nature of the display. 1024x768 with 4x MSAA on a CRT looks absolutely super smooth and clean. It's really quite striking, really, just how different it looks.
Still, when analyzing the visual output of a game one must place all platforms on a level playing field. Analyzing output from a system on a monitor against PC output is the only way to understand how they compare.
That said, in the case of BFH, the shimmering and sub-pixel artifacts visible on thin objects are bad to the point that you'd have to stand a good 20 feet away not to be bothered by them. :\
I play on pc. Your framerate/resolution distinction is only damage control about what you're used to. A 30 fps game will look juddery with the double image visual glitch no matter the refreshrate of the tv.
While I am very much opposed to the "lasy devs" argument, the main issue with this game's visuals isn't a hardware issue. The issue is that no matter what platform you're on, this game looks worse than the last game in the series on the same engine and it has less going on.
Annualized franchises need to die.
But saying it's the hardware's fault is bollocks and something the same PCgaf always try to push.
People keep buying them though. They are not going to die as long as they sell.
Depending on your point of view, it's the hardware's or the developer's fault. It's possible I suppose that the developers could have made the game to run at 1080p/60 on both platforms if they were willing to cut things like effects, map size, player count and so on. Would people accept a console version of Hardline that is significantly gimped compared to the PC one but ran at 60 fps and 1080P? Maybe. But it's not our call, it's the developer's call when developing a game for a specific hardware configuration. I believe they made the right call as the general audience doesn't seem to be that good at discerning resolution differences.
Frostbite 3 is a visually impressive, versatile, lightweight and scalable engine. Visceral is an experienced studio. How do we reach the conclusion that the game is unoptimized? I find this "optimization" debate to be quite toxic and rather insulting to the developers who make these games. Developers can't make low-end console hardware magically perform better than it normally does? "Unoptimized piece of crap". Developers add visual effects and options that go well beyond the console ones but the game can't run maxed at 60 fps? "Unoptimized piece of crap". It is extremely frustrating. But then I guess everything is a 'narrative' these days.
Compared to bf4 though it's a mess and 900p. The consoles being low end is opinion but they certainly are not high end. Also maybe they just didn't have the time they wanted. I'm OK with the 900p trade off due to the hardware for this type/scale of game and running 60fps but I'm not OK with how bad it look's especially that it's doing less than bf4. I blame the amount of time they have as the hardware can produce better results.
What is its competition? What other can provide better visuals and more expansive environments with that many players and destructibility at 60 fps?
People really need to stop with that "lazy devs" shit. Fine, you aren't impressed with the graphics(they aren't impressive, but the framerate is mostly smooth) but you really think the developers haven't put a ton of work and man-hours into this? Come on now, that's an obnoxious criticism.
Why is that an obnoxious criticism? If no one can seem to tell that the developers have put "a ton of work and man-hours into this" then that criticism is perfectly valid.