Battlefield 4 on PS4 comparable to “Medium” settings on PC, like “night & day” difference to current-gen version
If it's medium settings, then there is 0 excuses to be made for it not being 1080 p, other than laziness, and focusing too much on current Gen.
especially considering killzone running at 1080p with 60fps, I am guessing they didnt get a lot of time with next gen consoles sadly.
KZSF does not have vehicle warfare, destructible environments or 64 players. You obviously don't have a clear understanding of tech.
Killzone doesn't have 64 player maps with destructible environments, land, air, and water vehicles either all at the same time. I wish people would stop using Killzone as a benchmark for BF. Two different games and Killzone is made for one platform by first party devs who had more time and better tools than 3rd party devs. That being said...it's the beginning of a gen cycle with lower end consoles still being developed for. When the next gen consoles are better optimized and more familiar...I'm sure the next Battlefield will be a better product than what we see now.
Yes, let's compare two completely different games and expect equal results in all areas. KZSF is a "soft 60fps" which means the framerate will fluctuate down below 60fps. And KZSF isn't doing all the stuff Battlefield 4 is doing. The scale, the physics based destruction engine, the large player counts, the vehicles, etc.
@sklorbit you can't compare KZSF with BF4 the scope of the latter is bigger. @HammadTheBeast remember this game still a launch tittle for the new consoles.
Killzone has a fraction of the player count, with no destruction model at all in the game. Why do people insist on saying "oh this game isn't next gen if it doesn't do this. Oh if that other game can do it, then nobody has an excuse." You cannot just wildly make direct comparisons like this, especially when you have zero experience with software development.
Not only that, but this is one guy making first hand comparisons using the PS4 gamescom demo. I think it's safe to say that a demo that only supports 16 players is a significantly cut down version of the game. Why don't we just wait for release before we start jumping to conclusions. Would that be so hard? ... I rescind my previous statement.
Killzone doesn't have as much going on in game as Battlefield does. Much more being processed in a BF game.
the witcher 3 will be on the same lvl as high setting on pc .. so i guess DICE needs to drop the act and admit the fact that they put 120% into the pc version
"the witcher 3 will be on the same lvl as high setting on pc" This is what console gamers actually think.
Planetside2 dose 2000 players and will run on high end PC settings. if any gamer that can afford a $2000+ high end PC he should get one, but for those who can't BF4 will look great on the PS4/XB1 don't trust Scot Low anyway he has been fishing in his last few articles and tweets.
I've been playing a lot of pc games lately. The jump from Medium to Ultra or whatever is not a big difference usually just adds little touches that take a big hit on performance but don't make the game much better looking. What i'm looking forward to the most in the new consoles is Draw Distance, better resolution, and anti-aliasing. Current gen games already look great, in my opinion, but its hard to see because of these issues
Resistance 2 had 64 players on the ps3,so it wouldn't be impossible on the ps4.
@Dante "This is what console gamers actually think" It's what CD Projekt Red thinks. But they're only making the game, so they're probably wrong.
Guys stop comparing KZ to BF4. KZ has less players, smaller maps, probably very little to zero destruction, maybe 1 vehicle, etc. KZ has more im common with COD thatd why it can run at 60fps @ 1080p.
well if it is on medium setting and maybe 60 fps its gonna look real good as it does on pc.
@ My_Name_BTW_Is_Dante The only way a game on console could look like PC on high settings IS if the game is developed with poor level of visual quality -OR- developers haven't made any graphical improvements to PC version over console version.
i read its 720p.
There is no excuse to tone this game down AND scale down the resolution. One or the other I would (maybe) understand, but not both. The PS4 has 6 cores available. Those should easily be able to run the physics and animations - if they don't want to push those the GPU just yet. Listen to Guerrilla's interview. KZ is designed for "48" characters (24 players + 24 wasps (or whatever those are called)) - almost same requirement on performance. Vehicles or not should not make a big difference. because of the scope, a lot of detail can be toned down in the distance - which actually reduces render load close ups - you could also expect players spread out far more than in KZ which again means less to do in one spot. The scope should not have an impact. Draw distance isn't an issue - 8GB GDDR is plenty to work with. Just because we are so used to those limitations in current gen does not mean this should be the norm on next gen. If it's "low res" it should have the best lighting Frostbite can deliver, but sure doesn't at this time. There is no point of physic exact wind simulation of palm trees if the rest looks like...I won't say it... The only thing I could maybe accept is that this is a launch title and Dice will figure it out eventually. Deferred rendering got introduced far after PS3's launch - compare Bad Company/BF2 to BF3.
Lame excuses. Microsoft is buying off EA to not publish games for the Wii U and doing the very minimum for the PS4 and giving everything for the Xbox One. However, they made that alliance Before E3. Meaning that the DRM restrictions were still in place. EA only cares about money, and if they see they can make more money off of PS4 gamer, then they will bring those games to the PS4, just like they did with Mass Effect in the past.
Killzone SF has better graphics than the BF4 on consoles. And its not like we aren't going to see more impressive games than BF4 in 4 years on consoles...
This is why I'm not excited for Battlefield 4. This is lazy game development. No excuse that this game shouldn't be played on or near max settings aside from the lower frames and resolution which is expected for consoles. The game doesn't impress me even on max settings on PC.
KZ only runs at 60 fps in the MP mode
http://www.youtube.com/watc... If that doesn't impress you then nothing should impress you.
Killzone isn't running 1080p native at 60fps. Not through that campaign, that's fact.
@jayswolo and @theWB27 The reasoning you both argued was the same old reason for the current gen, but this is next gen and next gen specs is comparable to a hign end gaming pc at the moment, if not better because consoles have custom components. It only appears that the much beloved, worshipped and much hyped frostbite engine is actually crap.
I didn't know so many programmers frequented N4G.
Turns out the PS4 is a supercharged PC. It is a supercharged "low-end" PC equal to a medium setting PC.
KZ:SF, has a player cap of 24, BF has 64, so it's pointless comparing the two.
I don't trust DICE. Purely because they said that their frostbite engine wont run on the Wii u. Yeah right. It'll run on an 8 year old console with 512MB of RAM but can't run on a console with 2GB? I call bullsh*t
Killzone is not running 60fps in 1080p in the singleplayer part. It's running in 30fps, in multiplayer it's graphics are downscaled and running at 30fps.
@ minimur12 It probably would run on a WiiU, but I think DICE/EA/most 3rd party publishers don't think the WiiU has the sales to justify the cost for the game. Nintendo kills with it's 1st party software, but 3rd party publishers really don't sale. BF4 will probably run in a resolution something higher than 720p, if DICE is saying it's comparable to "medium settings on PC." I also heard talk about upscaling to 1080p. All in all it will be an amazing game. Who would've ever thought a BF game would run at 60fps and 32v32 on a console?