New Battlefield 4 Gameplay Trailer Stars the Xbox 360 Beta Version, Still Looks Quite Good

The Battlefield 4 beta has been fed to those that preordered the game, but if you still didn’t and want to check out how the game will look on Xbox 360, the gameplay trailer just released by EA DICE is for you.

[ape007]

An 2005 system CAN DO THIS, this game requires 3GB of VRAM on PC as opposed to 256 MB of VRAM and it looks like this, unbelievable, this is exactly like if N64(1996) did DOOM 3
(2004) intact with lower GFX.

This led me to believe that "optimization" is really much more deep than we EVER thought

I think almost anything can be done on any good PC, companies just want you to buy better graphics cards while it can be done on older ones. Business...

Conclusion: PS4 and Xbox One will have great graphics for years to come, I believe what PC elitists think about next gen consoles is just a myth based on how 360 almost done the supposedly "measuring stick" of gaming GFX Battlefield 4.

[TwistingWords]

But that 256mb of RAM isn't providing, 64 players, 1080p, AA, hi res textures, 60fps, higher FOV etc.

And no the game doesn't require 3gb of RAM, I'm on 1.5gb GTX580 and its running fine at 1080p

Myth busted.

[Kurylo3d]

nor is it giving high quality texture resolution up close.. the ram probably comes from all the textures and high resolution shadows.. Yes from far away it will look similiar.. dont see why it wouldnt lol.

[fullymoated]

I think ape is just pointing out how good games can look 8 years into a console cycle, and that games on the new consoles are going to be great for years to come. I agree.

[ape007]

i get what u say, you're 100% right but the difference on paper is supposed to be 5 times more than the actual result, i i mean the differnce between MGS 1 and MGS 2 on paper is waaay less than BF4 pc vs BF4 Xbox 360 i hope u get i mean

[0ut1awed]

@ TwistingWords

For the most part you are right about the VRAM although 64 players has NOTHING to do with the VRAM.

Also I think your 1080p at 1.5gb claim is bogus unless you have a lot of settings back downed. I use 2.7gb maxed at 1440p. You need over 2gb at least even for 1080p. Proof...

http://gamegpu.ru/images/re...

Also using 1080p as a example for pc games is a bit underwhelming these days. 1440p is becoming the new standard for PC gamers and almost always the main res for benchmarks. You can get 1440p monitors that run at 120hz, look extremley better than the TN panels in most 1080p monitors, and are super cheap. There is really no need to invest in 1080p anymore unless you really want 3d. Although as a guy that owned a $700 3d monitor for a year I can tell you that it is NOT worth it

@ ape007

Consoles get optimization, PCs get horsepower. That's how it always work. There are a infinite amount of combinations of PC hardware that devs have to develop for. It's amazing that they are able to get games running as good as they do.

On the flip side there is only one piece of hardware for the millions of people buying the console version.

It's really just logic but you speak the truth. Take my 780, 3930k, and 16gb of ram for example. If a good dev like say R* took a whole team and developed for it specifically, I bet it could probably easily look like what a top of the line game will look like in 10 years.

[TwistingWords]

0ut1awed - Well I never said I was getting 60fps, more averaging at 40-45 and why would I run it anything past 1080p when even at 1920x1200p it starts to dip below 30fps?

And 64 players has nothing to do with VRAM? Oh right, they are void from any rendering I see? Not to mention the added geometric processing required with the extra use of vehicles and particles, okay understood now buddy.

Besides 1 little screenshot of a graph isn't proof of nothing with beta drivers, reference cards and a game beta; and yeah I have a 27" BenQ 1440 monitor, like I said there is no point pushing it even past 1200p if it dips too much, thanks for the advice.

[0ut1awed]

Okay what about the FPS? I never mentioned anything about fps, simply VRAM usage.

And sure, your right about the 64 player to VRAM link but it's still kind of negligible compared to other factors in the end imo, Especially given the fact that nothing has changed in that aspect since BF3 yet I use almost a whole extra gig in BF4.

Also with results like that why not sell your BenQ and 580 and get a Korean 1440p and a better gpu? You could probably do this at little to no cost to you. Although I don't know who would buy a BenQ monitor with those Korean IPS ones around. It just seems stupid having 1440p and not being able to use it.

[EastBayPunk]

Not bad.. but not great.. I'm satisfied enough though

[BigShotSmoov007]

Yeah, it's a beta so we can't expect it to be the best looking game we've ever seen, but it's fun enough to get by.

[boneso82]

Played the beta on ps3, it runs much better than bf3 and looks better, still gonna wait until ps4 to buy it...

[sandman224]

It looks great on 360/ps3, but it better look a heck of a lot better on Xbox one and ps4.

[BigShotSmoov007]

That's what I'm waiting for, I can't wait for the 22nd.

[PCfanboy]

20FPS on xbox360 & PS3
i play on XBOX It looks like shit

[GamingTruth]

your eyes are shit

[venom06]

while Domination on the 360 is fun, this will be AMAZING @ 60FPS and 64 man servers on the next gen consoles..