GB : DICE developer Johan Andersson had some interesting titbits to deliver on twitter, regarding how they made Battlefield 3 on the PS3.
Hmmm.... Now I can go around talking smack like the guys making issue of the SPE lighting.
lol. Sub-HD is a bummer though. :(
16 pixels less. OH GAWD THE HORROR!!!
It's more than 16 pixels. It's 16 times a certain horizontal figure.
yes kaveti, but you can't see them on a big screen tv (even the best ones). it's always funny to see people of the "hdmi not needed, bluray not needed, cell not needed, etc" exagerating things they can't see when they are playing, like all the multiplatforms differences. (sometime on poor quality tv = more funny) [email protected], alias qwerty, and other dumbpcfantroll (old xbox ones most of the time), 720P is more than enough with good animation, textures, etc on a good tv...(1080 would be better, but you can use high resolution you want , you can't transform old looking pc games, like most of the production, to the best consoles exclusives)..even if you are right, battlefield would be the best on pc (but not "another league", just the same game, with better resolution, aa, etc)
@Anti-Fanboyer It is 16*1280=20,480 However, I still think the change is very minimal. 1280*720=921,600 921,600-20,480=901,120 901,120/921,600=.977777 So BF3 on the consoles runs at 97.7% of 720P. That is pretty damn close to 720P.
game is still gonna look amazing so...
Pixel counting never mattered. It didn't matter in Halo Reach or Call of Duty or Alan Wake. Those games looked and played great despite the compromise. Now that it's someone's favorite game, it's REALLY doesn't matter.
@kikizoo Actually, the bigger screen the TV has the MORE you will see those missing pixels..
@kikizoo Actually the pc version will have way more graphical features that the consoles cant handle.. its not just upping resolution and textures sizes...
It didn't matter in MGS4...
@BlackKnight Thankyou! It's all about perspective. yea sure it's 20k pixels, but it's out of nearly 1 million. Really not that big of a deal.
if they miss any pixels at all then that means the screen isnt displaying an image at its native resolution which instantly means it looks a lot worse. It physically isn't possible to scale an image without blurring unless it is a scale to the power of 2 but like... it hardly matters anyway, we are all used to slightly-sub-hd already.
If you can see the difference between 20,000 pixels, you don't have a life to speak of.
"if they miss any pixels at all then that means the screen isnt displaying an image at its native resolution which instantly means it looks a lot worse." Unless they crop 8 lines from the top and 8 lines from the bottom, like Insomniac did with R&C. It adds a little to the performance of the game by rendering less pixels, while keeping it at native res. It's just like watching panoramic cinema!
@DaTruth Yes, but most games just upscale and make it look gritty/blurry.
and even blurrier when the up-scaling is done via software like the PS3... I don't know what where Sony thinking to not include hardware to up-scale the games, I mean, they really thought all games were going to be 1080p or something?
@kingdoms not really, one is a major issue and the other is a little old hud. :P
I feel, as long as it looks good, why do people keep talking about specs and tech stuff?
Like any hobby, there are some who like going into detail and knowing the facts. Just like a mom wants a car that can get her to stores and school and have room for the kids.... While a young guy wants to know what the 0-60 time for the car, the HP, the torque, max G's on a turn, turn radius, etc. Some people take the hobby to a level of research and knowledge and details, not just practicality. Personally, I love the details in games, be it resolution, shadow resolution and filter type, lighting system, motion blur type and precision, and well.....I could keep going on.
Well said, BlackKnight. It's the same when it comes to all the sales arguments, honestly. People always go "Are you seeing a check from Sony?" or "You must be a Microsoft investor," but it has nothing to do with that. People on this site are from all over the world; I don't know if they do it the same in other places, but here we tend to have a lot of brand loyalty. Take cars, for example. If we're speaking domestic cars, I'm a Pontiac guy. I don't care that they're not made anymore. I love Pontiacs. I'm on my third, and I love it like my first. I wish I could have them all(except the Aztec, but we're gonna pretend that doesn't exist). I have great respect for other GM brands, as well. But I hate Ford. HATE. Yes, they make some nice vehicles, even a few I find attractive. But they're Fords. I have to hate them.
Wow..... This has nothing to do with your PC but yet you are still here trolling. I'm telling you to stop... Now.
Hmm...thats part of deferred rendering approach(BF3,GTA IV,KZ3,Crysis 2 etc.).You store information about frames in g buffer(depth,z-depth,lighting precision etc.) which is back buffer memory.It makes for much cheaper lighting and its complexity(adding couple hundreds light sources),but it takes ~20 mb.Thats why DICE can re use alot of things from memory,they have it g buffer. More info. http://www.guerrilla-games....
I'm sorry I'm not well versed in the technicalities of all this; does this mean that there is a delay on the HUD after the frame? If so, I doubt the delay is noticeable at all so its not a big deal. Anyways, *wooosh...this goes over my head*
No, it just means that if the HUD is rendered last, it won't be affected by the post processes. Those include the blur filter (if there is any), anti-aliasing PPs (MLAA, FXAA; whichever it is) and so on...
Ah cheers mate. Makes sense now :)
Rendering the HUD last is quite a common thing to do. At the very basic level, when you're drawing stuff on the screen, you want to go from back to front or weird things may start happening (like walls that are behind glass will appear top of it rather than behind it). Since absolutely nothing is in front of the HUD, it makes sense to draw it last. Furthermore, when you're upscaling the game, as many modern games do (from some weird internal resolution up to 720p), you don't want to upscale the HUD because text especially looks really weird, even if it's only upscaled by a small amoumt. So the common technique is to draw the scene, upscale it, then draw the HUD on top of it.
I'm glad they're making it for PS3 properly, not just porting it over.
whats a buffer? lol.
Where the frame information is stored before it is transferred to the screen. Games are rendered in layers. If you displayed a game with no buffers (which I'm not sure is even possible), you'd see everything pop in, in order from background to foreground. You'd see shader and lighting passes accumulated, textures filter and all sort of other stuff. The buffer is there so that when it comes time to display that frame, you get the entire frame.
Thanks, was wonder ding the same thing as leogets.
A buffer is like when you order your #2 to have someone killed, but the #2 gives the actual order to the buttonman. That way the button can never say you gave the order because it came through a buffer. Watch The Godfather II.
"buffer" refers to the ladies who keep male porn stars hard between takes.
You're thinking of "fluffer".
Fuck if I know what they are talking about
as long as the game looks as good as shown, i don't give a shit if it's sub hd or whatevver! Give me the game and il play the crap out of it!
All 7 SPU's that make up the PS3's CELL CPU prosesser better be fully utilised and better be pushed to their limits DICE, or else. OR ELSE, you hear me DICE. The PS3 in general better be pushed to its limits, its advantages better be taken/utilised fully.
game developers only have access to 6 spus and 1 ppe 1 spe is reserved for the OS remember ?
Hmm No. The PPE isnt reserved for the OS. 1 Spe is reserved. Developer have access to 8 Threads. 2 for PPE and 6 for the Spes. The Spes are streaming cores ALMOST like Gpu cores kinda a crossover between CPU and GPU with high single precission performance and compared to a common Cpu core a simpler Instruction Set. programming Games for Spes/Gpu only is ALMOST like programming a game just for a graphicscard. Dont you remember ? The early games partially used only the PPE and treated the Cell like a 3.2 GHZ Single Core. Half Life 2 for example.
I don't think the answer is platform specific, and this bit of information has 0 news value, it's just a minor technicality. He doesn't say "We reuse the memory on PS3", he just says "We reuse the memory". The PS3 is wrongfully added as the question is PS3 specific, but the answer may not necessarily be PS3 specific. This is just pushing the limits for news linking, trying to extract some value of a small tweet.
resolution is over exaggerated. i played a few so called true 1080p games and they were nothing special. same as 720p if you ask me.
There really isn't much of a difference unless the game itself pushes the graphics. The Witcher in 1080p looks pretty okay in a lot of areas; Lair in 1080p, although on the "lowly" PS3 actually looks better a number of spots because of the detail.
Totally agree, but when a dev nails both (i.e. Wipeout hd), it is impressive. Not to mention locked at 60 fps.
just imagine uncharted 2 but clearer hd makes things look more crisp.
When the PS3 was coming out all the Sony fanboys insisted that 1080p was a huge deal. The new standard in gaming, the future, the way games were meant to be played. Now it's not a big deal that BF3 is sub HD. LOL? Well I agree with you Sony fanboys, it's 1080p gaming or bust. Thats why I'll be playing this on my PC.
even some PC gamers can't get 1080p; I am almost willing to say that it approaches 30% if not more. I still think 1080p is a huge deal, and the PS3 already achieved it in numerous games, but it's up to the developer, it's not like the console can't do it or that it's never been done.
your PC cannot run games in 1024x768. don't lie to yourself
Exactly!!!! It's seems to be a major problem amongst "graphic whores" hell Red Faction armaggedon shows as 1080p on my tv and the game is blurry as Hell
That's probably because your TV is set to 1080p. Doesn't mean the game is. Red Faction: Armageddon is actually sub-hd. "We're basically looking at a 960x540 framebuffer on both systems - a hefty drop from the native 720p res found in Red Faction: Guerrilla" http://www.eurogamer.net/ar...
Its not, maybe my tv is confused because it can notice Uncharted 2 at 720p, Wipeout HD at 1080p, God of War 3 at 720p.... Even Bad Company 2 is visually crisper than Red Faction Armaggedon and its at 720p........ So whats the deal?
I don't care that much about the resolution as long as it performs well. I am getting two versions of the game: PS3 for playing with my friends and PC as eye candy and to make new friends. The game will be awesome anyway! On each platform!
This game will look great on both consoles. I don't think anyone who's downloaded the gameplay videos to watch on their console has an issue with the graphics right? What's far more important to this game looking great on both consoles is that it should play absolutely great on both consoles. Unlike a certain other popular multiplatform fps...
PEEEEEE CEEEEEEE FOR THA WIN
I'll play this also on my PC.. Can't play FPS using gamepad only
Why is playing grand theft auto san andreas on my Laptop, soo Annoying, and also playing dirt2.... only need the <^> its soo boring, i cant do it without my ps3 or 360 controller hooked up.... Some games are suited for PC just for the mouse being faster and upgrading the games but, every PC gets outdated in a few months and those CARDs go for a good $500 abd finding ways to cool it off or power such beast.... Dont mind waiting for the PS4 all the games are at least able to work, some games run like butter , but then these newer better ones crap as hell, wish there was a setup where it gaurateed to run at least on par with consoles' i understand it has better graphics and mods... But cant sony release yearly packages to upgrade the consoles and the games will run on low setting for those who dont upgrade, there has to be a possibility for a system designed this way, probrably spend like $120 for a newer Windows version, $1,000 for a kinda decent start up computer, $200 Blue Ray Drive, $250 good Monitor, Upgrade parts like $400 every year or two, then after 3 or 4 years it hits it wal where it gets cheaper to buy new than keep upgrading l and have to buy a new PC .... And Never Phisically Owning most of my games off steam, so 10 years down the road if steam dies, i spent hundreds of dollors on "MY" games that i cant access cause the servers have been pulled or whatever
there is so much wrong with your post @Bull5hifT... You still don't need to upgrade your PC, that is nonsense. I'm playing with a rig that is two years old now and I still can play all new games, mostly in 1080p - not everything maxed out, that is true, but still at very high quality. The PC cost me far below $1000 (it was at $750) at the time. For 1000$ you can get a decent pc with the blueray already integrated. A monitor is even more reused, you don't need to buy a new one every time you buy a new PC. $400 a year for your PC? You are def. doing something wrong there. Steam will probably give you a standalone version of the game _if_ they go down (which is VERY unlikely) - they mention it in their TOS - and you know, you can access your Steam-Games without the server being reachable... Steam has an offline-modus. And if you care so much for a retail copy - why don't you get yourself one? Games that only release on Steam and are only available there are very rare.
@HenryFord- I have a similar situation with a PC that is a couple years old. The idea of turning up to 1080 or higher is pointless to me when you have to turn down the textures, shadows, decals, lighting...etc. That's all the stuff that you actually want to see in 1080p, not just bare hi-res models. And low res shadows look ugly in 1080p, much worse than low res shadows in 720p because the lack of detail is hidden. I'd rather play in a lower resolution with the effects details maxed. 1080p is best when your rig can actually max everything.
mm what does this mean?
This is normal because since they mentioned they were going to use MLAA they merely do this so the HUD doesn't get blurred. Also PC fanboys in this article are complete freaks. Honestly why don't console gamer have the right to enjoy Battlefield 3? I mean sure the game will be best on PC but that doesn't mean that console gamer don't have the right to enjoy it.
I swear some people are stupid on this site. When PS3 was made, it was due to be more powerful then two 6800ultra's, which at the time was very good indeed. Now 1080p with BF2 graphics would have been fine. And even slightly more. But considering the PS3 is trying to do what PC's are doing now, Better lighting, shaders, mlaa etc. I'm not surprised they are running out of memory. The drop is fine by me, i can actually play both. I'm playing DEADISLAND on PC atm. 580gtx And i ran it on another PC with a 1900xt and it runs [email protected] 1280x720,lol.
This means nothing to me.
Because of playstation 3's fast & flexible memory architecture & combined memory bandwidth per second... http://www.yostuffs.com/200...
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.