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?
BF is crap another generic murican shooter... They want to rush everything so they can sell... BF3 released in late 2011. You need to tell me they worked on the so called "new" engine for only one year? lol a new engine takes minimum 4 years. Not fooling me DICE... You just want to rush things so u can sell more... Because u know you have hordes of sheep gamers want to play your generic brand just like COD (another generic crap)...
Well, does that argument also apply to Forza 5 being 60fps and Driveclub being 30? Or in this case it's, you know, perfectly comprehensible?
killzone single player mode is 30FPs 1080p, Multilayer mode is 60FPS 1080p maybe.
@ WarThunder Ding ding ding we have a winner. This game is being rushed to compete with another rushed game: COD. Also this is the first wave of next gen games and no one truly knows what these consoles are capable of, not even the devs themselves. This is not about being lazy, its about market share and the fact that the devs don't have the necessary experience with the hardware to take the most out of it.
Really surprised that they cant do 1080p. They should be able to even sacrificing some LOD. Wonder if it's because of Xbone. MS could demand parity again.
KZ has bug all going on compared to Battlefield. BF4 has 64 players, massive maps, jets, tanks, the whole shebang. You go enjoy your little Killzone, I'll be enjoying the better game in BF.
one more reason to prefer Killzone over this s***!
LOL just look at the comments above me. No need to repeat anything.
Then go assist the engineers working at DICE then Hammad. Show them how not to be lazy devs since you seem to be able to determine how a game should be made just by reading a few quotes on the interwebs. @Sklorbit: You and EVERYONE who uses Killzone as a reason for why Battlefield 4 should run 1080p60 are ironically, showing just how gullible and uninformed you are.
This is depressing me alot! according to this these new consoles are really underpowered a new generation of consoles should match pc on high settings then as the years go by the pc out performs it like ps360 but it looks like these new machines are not what they are made out to be. Well I have faith in mark cerny as he said the consoles true power will come out 3 to 4 years down the line when devs get to know the hardware fully.
Battlefield on medium settings, if you've tried it on PC, is nowhere near what Killzone's MP trailer showed graphically. I know, there's physics, lighting, vehicles, and the new dynamic water system available, but I'd hoped they'd target 1080 60 fps. With the graphics card that the PS4 has, it should be possible. On a normal PC, you'd be close to that level of performance with the same card, but not quite, so for a specially optimized version, I'd hope they'd get it. Then again, nothing's confirmed yet, so we'll see.
I for one agree with seanpitt23 and HammadTheBeast . I talked about this before . I don't think BF4 is using all the ps4 power , that would be lame . The developers are either not used to next generation and need time to learn or limiting the game to port it to this generation or they are just lazy and don't want to make effort to make it 1080p or all of them lol Yes , sony and ms chose kinect and cheap hardware to apeal to people in present instead of bringing the best tech to shock us. But i still think both can do much better then BF4 . BF4 is just a launch game..
Then again, it was people like you who loved comparing Battlefield to Modern Warfare.
You will be surprised when Dice will use KZ:SF as an example again to improve their next version of Frostbite on PS4. They did the very same when they were the first 3rd party studio which actually introduced deferred rendering in BF2/3 when this technique became so successful with KZ2 and 3. Because exactly this will happen down the road.
EDIT: Are we reading this right? Its worded kind of strangely... is he saying the PS4 is like medium settings, or the PS3 is? the medium settings thing comes in when comparing the ps3 and ps4 version directly, and how much better the ps4 version is?...kind of lost...
We learned this gen with multiplats being ported to the PS3. That Developers are LAZY!!!!!!!! It didn't have shit to do with the Cell. Who ever disagrees Go play the Last Of US!
Different games with different designs with a totally different multiplayer aspect that has a greater number of players, destructible environments, vehicles, more weapons and weapon customizations. You guys really need to stop leaning on LOU for every argument.
And here goes another one. Yea let's take a game from an in-house studio with access to everything they need, be it time, money, or tools, and compare it to a game from a third party dev, with no obligation to go out of their way to cater to the one platform with foreign architecture, and then let's call them lazy. Let's ignore the hours of hard work the dozens of people put into the game, and let's disrespect their first hand knowledge of all of it, just because your overzealous instant gratification of your little hobby wasn't massaged the way you wanted. I cannot believe it is 2013 and people are still playing the lazy card. Please educate yourself. You would be doing everyone a favor, yourself included.
@xfan then play KZ3 on 3D TV then let's see what u hve to say the
@KwietStorm I'm not agreeing with badboy776 on calling third party devs lazy but your perfectly fine point have one flaw. Those devs have all obligation to go out of their way and cater to all platforms they are developing for, foreign architecture or not. Let's try and not invert things here, no one twisted their arm to develop for PS3, they deciced multiplatform was good business. But don't misunderstand what I'm saying as catering to fanboys and their pissing contests, I'm talking about calling devs out for badly optimized games, untested games, uncomplete games or outright broken games. Not some extra pixels or effects. Other than this point, I completelly agree with you. People are so self entitled they think developers need to expend extra time to get every little pixel extra so they can use as "console war ammo"... That's pathetic! Of course devs should be concerned about doing their best (even graphically if possible), but it should be about delivering a good experience (their vision if you will) to everyone they are serving, not about endless and pointless comparisons. It's really sad people will try and pin the lazy card on DICE now, just when they are finally adressing the real problems with BF3 on consoles (low player count so maps were empty, low framerate so gameplay was a bit off, etc). Oh but you want ultra settings and 4k res on a 400 dollars console just so you can rub it on the face of your PC elitist friends? Boo the f'ing hoo. As long as the game is good enough I can't care less how it compares to other games or versions.
Um, you do realize that developing for ps3 was much harder because of the ridiculously hard compared to the other consoles right because of the complicated hardware. Delusional fanboy. Obviously a first party studio is gonna be better at game development for a specific console than third party studio.
bishop-br, I agree and then I don't. I seriously don't care how this game plays on the PC. If I wanted that, I'd simply get it on PC. I want the best possible game which pushes my console to the max. If this means adjustment of game play so be it. It worked well with BF2/3. I don't call them lazy. If anything, they gave in to pressure from (PC?) fans and EA - to make sure to release with last gen and keep the version on par with PC. Wrong strategy in every front. A bit more time (spring release?) would have had an impact - on tech and gameplay. This is a rush release to make sure they can release with PC/current gen that's all this is. Plenty of shooters out for release. Gives me time to see how it'll turn out. Not jumping onto this at launch.
Both the PS4 and X1 are grossly underpowered to play this game at ultra 60fps. Simple. Build a bridge or a PC and get over it!
KwietStorm- Hate to break it to you but 3rd party game studios have MORE incentive to work hard and put out a solid product, especially since they don't have the massive financial backing of a parent company in the event a game is a flop. If small developers screw up, they go bankrupt. The best example of what i'm talking about can be seen every day here in SoCal where multiple large scale freeway construction projects are underway. The 605/405/22 interchange has been under construction for three+ years now and estimates are they wont finish for another two years because the vast majority of the work is being done by unionized government employees aka CalTrans. These lazy bastards get paid huge money, take a 15 minute break every hour, 2 hours for lunch, get full medical/dental/pensions, and on the rare event you drive by and they're actually working... it's typically one or two guys with five or six standing there watching. See... they don't have to work hard because their corrupt union contracts make it almost impossible to fire anyone, but more importantly... government employees don't give a rats a$$ about deadlines, cost overruns, etc because they think taxpayers will keep perpetuating the insanity. And to further emphasize my point, every time these freeway projects have to do a complete shutdown for 12-24 hours due to removing a bridge, etc... they ALWAYS hire a private contractor. Just like with 3rd party devs, these private contractors don't have the luxury to work slow because they actually have strict deadlines to finish the work and have to compete with other companies who will gladly take the job if they don't perform. long story short... F*ck Government Employee Unions. And small game studios have the best games. It's only when they get bought up like Bioware did after they finished Mass Effect 2 did they screw up an amazing game series. Ea sucks.
How does laziness translate into the resolution the game runs at? Because obviously to you the limitations of consoles don't exist. So many people love to talk out their ass.
PlanetSide 2 runs on max on PS4, and imo that is more visually impressive than BF4 from what I've saw (plus the map is huuuge)
Huge, sparsely populated maps.
Exactly this. Planetside 2 runs 1080p on PC equivalent 'highest settings' on PS4. DICE should have moved to next-gen ONLY and got to grips with the systems and optimizing the code for those systems rather than developing on some ridiculously expensive PC and simply downscaling and upscaling the effects, player count, etc. until it functions on the other platforms. That's not how a proper port should be done. You have to rewrite code and reroute information properly for the system or else you get a crappy unoptimized version of the game (Orange Box for PS3 anyone?). You should be simultaniously developing for each individual platform (though I know this takes up more time and resources). PS4 is capable of incredible things which we've already started to see. I know BF4 on my PS4 will be fun but I'm not expecting great things in the same way I am with next-gen specific and PS4 exclusive games.
2000 players, about 100-200 different surface infrastructures, and Hossen, the new map, has TONS of trees over the surface, each with their own physics.
Planetside 2 does not look nearly as good as BF4. It looks plasticky with quite fake-ish lighting and yea its very sparse. Having trees here and there is nothing. Does not have the intensity in action nor density of graphics BF3 and 4 have.
@ Destrania Ain't a PC owners fault you don't have a high end rig m8 that's your own issue. As far as DICE goes they have made PC games all along so why should they exclusively make games on Console esp when the gameplay is to be found on PC. I'm a big fan off console and there's shooters i will play on Console only but they where made for console not PC first. Halo killzone etc when it comes to competitive FPS proper shooters IE CSS Battlefield Quake UT COD4 its always been PC as a one stop for me. Consoles have there pluses but so do PC. Sooner people release this the better.
Unoptimized code is unoptimized no matter what way you slice it. Plus, this is just some random guy saying this stuff and the game's release is still 3 months away. Jeeze people. btw, I have a decent PC that I play games on a lot. I know how advanced PC's are and will be. However more often than not I'd rather play games on my console, though everyone has their own preferences.
What are you smoking? Planet side 2 is a 2 year old pc free to play game nothing exciting about it graphically sorry to burst your bubble lol.
^uh, totally agreed...you guys are complete crack heads if you think maxed out PS2 has ANYTHING on BF4 visually...hell even BF3 on ultra is miles ahead of planetside 2... its NOT bad development on Dice's part...I've purposely waited on a gpu for BF4 in my recent PC build...I want to see what the best card is for the game, and save money with the AMD deals coming with it... so for the time being, i'm only running games on my AMD richland A10 apu...yes...thats integrated graphics...I can lock in about 28 fps 1080p with everything maxed out on PS2...and no discrete gpu whatsoever...there is a reason the PS4 can run it maxed out, too...because its not that technically impressive of a game...yeah yeah, big huge maps and lots of shat going down at once...but a true display of what can be accomplished in real time rendering, it is not...at least, anymore...
planetside 2.....are you joking?
@HammadTheBeast "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." They turn down the resolution to get it to play at medium settings, 60fps lol. current gen not hurting pc though? nope. Just admit ps4 is not as beast as u want to believe. Get ps4 for exclusives and pc for games like this. @PlayStation_4 nah bf4 looks better than ps2 and that levelution!! Skyscrapers falling, weather changing, 64 players, destruction and high end graphics... consoles ain't ready man. I would tell all ps4 gamers to get killzone. man pc is ahead so much and it gets worse next year with gddr6. I applaud DICE for not holding back pc. I said nothing wrong. truth hurts.. get that infamous looks awsome...