Everyone is demanding a solid 1080p 60FPS from next generation games, but in some cases, developers are seeming to struggle to meet these demands from the gaming community. It’s a good job they’ve not taken hostages…
Battlefield 4 is back in the spotlight this time, following on from a little controversy at Gamescom and the PS4 build which was shown behind closed doors. It’s all quite confused even a month later, but the figure I was told on the show floor at Eurogamer Expo and have seen posted across the internet, is that that the PS4 is currently able to do a so-called 900p60, or 1600×900 at 60 frames per second.
However the latest storm is swirling around the Xbox One version of the game, which has been on show at Tokyo Game Show and Eurogamer Expo, and is also not currently hitting that idealistic 1080p60 target. Anecdotally, the game simply did not look to be 1080p when I played it at EGX, but when I followed up on this, I could not get a figure of what it might be.
Game*Spark did manage to get one at TGS though, and this was picked up on and translated by DualShockers, with clarifications and re-translations flying around on NeoGAF. Simply put, an EA rep stated that the game on show was running at 720p60 for Xbox One but that they aim to be able to match the X1 version to whatever the PS4 is able to achieve for the various next-gen launch dates.
Some people have interpreted this as meaning that the PS4 version might be neutered to match the Xbox One, but my gut feeling is that this wouldn’t happen after the various statements that have come out in the past and the negative backlash this would cause.
At this stage, almost every part of this story can be taken with a pinch of salt, with several layers of hearsay and anecdotal evidence at every stage. We’ve reached out to EA for a comment this morning, and will hopefully have some form of clarification in the near future.
Source: Game*Spark, DualShockers. Via NeoGAF.
TheShepanator
I’m not too fussed. Within a year I reckon almost all new releases will run at 1080p at 60Hz.
DJ Judas
This must be coming from an insistence to have all settings whacked up to “ultra”, as the hardware should be able to handle 1080p@60.
The more stories I read like this, the more I want a couple of preset graphics options available to console players.
Although, if anything I’d guess the PS4 and XO are bottlenecked by the CPU in the case of BF4.
Stefan L
There is the potential for some bottlenecks to appear, depending on what code is being processed by what part of the system. This is much like how it was on the PS3, where developers were able to gradually shift more and more work onto the SPEs and get more performance.
So it can’t really all be blamed on the CPU or GPU or any one thing, but finding the right balance across the board. The game also won’t be running at “Ultra” settings, most certainly not. It has potential to look fantastic, but considering how well BF3 scaled upwards to accomodate top end rigs, BF4 will push that even further.
DJ Judas
We’ll be able to make a more educated guess tomorrow when the Beta is available, but going by how well relatively ageing hardware managed at least high settings in BF3, the new consoles should be able to manage pretty decent settings, unless the engine is suffering from multi-plattedness and not accommodating for a relatively slow CPU.
The reason I say this is that (while a PC isn’t directly comparable) to maintain around 60fps on a three year old GPU at high settings, a 4.2Ghz processor churned at least 65% utilisation across all cores to maintain the frames. Now, I know that the console CPUs are newer architecture and Frostbite scales very well across multiple cores, but the slow core speed, unless heavily optimised, is most likely to be the base-level bottleneck in the system, more-so the less optimised for the system it is.
Kennykazey
Although next gen standard should be 1080p, 900p isn’t bad for a launch title if the detail is stunning. The problem is, launch titles can set a standard for resolution and if 900p becomes fully acceptable then many devs won’t bother doing 1080.
It’s right in the middle of 720p and 1080p in case anyone wonders and it looks way more detailed than 720p, but doesn’t have the beautiful crispness and clarity of full HD.
boeboe
If it wasn’t for PC gamers jacking off over their high resolution monitors instead of the gameplay, PS4/X1 peeps would get on a lot better. That and digital foundry. And Ironically if you compare the resolution of their games and the resolution of their lives… Also note no-one is talking about 32v32, why? Because PC players have had that for years. Get a grip people! Compare graphics to PC and the PS4/X1 are already dated before they’ve released!
Rant over.
boeboe
And not forgetting graphics cards manufacturers *cough* Nvidia
Kennykazey
Ironically, you’re the first person to bring PC into this. People will argue no matter what, it’s in their nature.
boeboe
Hah, true that. Though the point I’m making is if it wasn’t for PC gamers, this article wouldn’t be considered ‘news’.
TheDemocrodile
I think the issue here isnt that we PC gamers jack off over our resolutions, its that brand new consoles should have the ability to achieve 60HZ 1080p right off the bat.
It’s something that has existed for many gamers for a long long time and to hear that it may not be consistently achieved is a headscratcher when people like myself have gamed at that res for years.
It’s an issue that deserves to be talked about, not only for those looking for a new console to buy but to PC gamers too as (once again) we find ourselves already looking at the prospect of inferior ports.
Why should people be talking about 32v32? Dont you guys have M.A.G ;) it isnt exactly new news mate.
Incidentally i found your line about PC Gamers preferring high res to gameplay a little insulting, what other group of gamers regularly attempt to keep the old classics running on new iterations of Windows? Where was Minecraft created first? Enough with the tired stereotypes.
boeboe
You have to agree PC gamers love talking about their resolutions and when GTA5 comes out thats all you’ll talk about.
I think PC games like Crysis have sold you guys out in raising the bar too high so that when inferior ports come along they look even crappier. This is when I hoped more PC gamers would look beyond the graphics and enjoy the gameplay regardless. You still get high fidelity titles such as BF4. I get that the bigger the noise you guys make then devs might listen and you’ll potentially get better ports in the future BUT only if more people move to PC.
I guess then my (crazy) theory is the more people criticise console graphics then more people will be converted. Note gameplay doesn’t change just graphics. Who would benefit from such a move. Exactly the manufacturers of the hardware. So now the console community are arguing amongst themselves. Cant be the only one thinking this is all business at work?
The other option would be to stop highlighting how console gamers are having an inferior experience and complain to the devs not indirectly through us. Make a petition, you guys are good at those.
TheDemocrodile
Don’t mention GTAV, its far too depressing not owning it ;).
Crysis? Ancient history there and irrelevant to most PC gamers today, if it werent for poor optimisation the game wouldn’t be spoken of in the terms it later became associated with (“Will it run Crysis” meme).
You speak of it in terms no gamer would speak of it “raising the bar too high so that when inferior ports come along they look even crappier”.
Its not that it looked so good it put everything to shame at all, in fact when i speak off inferior ports i mean precicsly the same thing PS3 gamers went mental at with Fallout 3.
Glitches, poor textures, crashes etc, not its overall appearance.
If anythings scrutinised about the ports the most it would be the simple fact that it was easy for Devs to do better, for many years the PC was the lead platform of development and then games were ported from there, when this was switched over it was like a form of abandonment, as if the effort no longer mattered.
Converting people to PC is one of the most stupid things a PC gamer can do, not many people like evangelists extolling the virtues of a machine over something they are already invested in, i dont see many companies arguing about how you should be switching to PC, all i see is dick-waving between Sony and Microsoft in the battle for pre-orders!
The last thing they want is for people to change to the PC and the impending Valve assault on the living room.
At lot of PC gamers do highlight the inferior nature of consoles and its a shame, it gives us a bad name, we are all lovers of games at the end of the day, whether you game in the ancient walled garden of the console or with our Once and Future King – The PC.
*Incidentally BF4 was developed the old fashioned way – PC first, hence why its so beautiful :P
boeboe
Touché salesman! Fair enough with the Crysis point I wasn’t aware of that and point taken with Fallout 3 type functional issues. I don’t think you were the type of PC gamer I was aiming at since I don’t feel like I’ve been physically assaulted! I still think its a conspiracy and that Nvidia staff are sat on their computers trolling Ps/Xbox threads on N4G. Hang on, Microsoft make computer software..software which PC gamers use..maybe the X1 is designed to put people off consoles and onto PC by showing PS4 fans what gimping games feels like. Sorry if this brings up bad feelings!
However I’m off to play The Last of Us with a side helping of Crash Bandicoot 2 because I don’t care about graphics at all : D
TheDemocrodile
Don’t worry, i scare the usual PC elitist by being, you know, reasonable.
Nice conspiracy! May i add to it by pointing out that both new consoles are powered by Nvidia’s arch rival AMD. Maybe you could say Nvidia have a reason to bad mouth……… ;)
Good plan, i remember CB2 good times there, im off to play Teleglitch, quite possibly the most unfair game ever. Have a good one.
Motalla
It will have 1920 x 1080 60 Hz no problem on my pc!
Kennykazey
OK.
funkyellowmonkey(ps3 id)
lmao, long as the framerate is consistent that’s enough for me! lol
Wardy-77-
It’s all gravy
bunimomike
**My comment is about the attitude to gaming as oppose to one single title**
It’s easily become the more tiresome topic I’m reading on the likes of TSA over the past few months. Once we’re over 720p things are looking pretty damned lovely. Then we have the genres where 60 frames per second really doesn’t make much difference. Finally – and here’s the kicker – there’s the fact that development time goes into shit like this when I want them to spend more time getting rid of:
• hilarious facial animation
• lack of mo-cap
• bad voice acting
• puppet elbow (which I’ve seen as recently as last year in a game or two)
…and god knows how many other things that are far more important. However, let’s all waste our time chasing figures and numbers because people think that’s where it’s at when it comes to graphics.
Pa-bloody-thetic.
The Von Braun
Totally agree.I am sick to the back bloody teeth of all this OMG it’s on a next generation console, but gasp! it’s not running at 1080P and 60 FPS, quick, someone fetch mother!!!! type fussing, it’s getting to be utterly pathetic.
Is it the 1st time a next gen console has had actual games running at a lower resolution than developers had either hoped to hit or public thought they were going to get? NO.
Atari showed off AVP (Jaguar) at higher resolution and much faster frame rate (60 FPS) than final game ever made (and it was still bloody fantastic in final form), they managed this as game at that point had no controller logic, sound, A.I etc etc, so it was’nt a game, but a tech demo.at that stage, so as you put game world factors in, performance took a hit.
The PS2 era, Sony claimed 75 million polys a second, downgraded that to 66 million, but system was so starved of Ram etc it struggled initally with textures, Dolby 5.1 only played in cut-scenes etc etc.
3 of it’s best looking games at the time: ICO, praised for it’s looks and art style, well techno fans, it ran at 512X256 at 25 FPS and out put a low resolution progressive scan image, yet it’s still regardes as a classic to this day.
Both MGS2 and MGS 3 ran at 512X448 and used the PS2 hardware to upscale the image to 640X448.Does knowing that suddenly make either game a lesser one for you?
Turning to the 360:
Project Gotham 3 was’nt true 720P, it rendered at 1024X600 and used the hardware to upscale the image. Perfect Dark Zero was’nt 720P and if it’d been 1080P it’d still been a flawed game.Halo 3 was 640P, Alan wake was only 540P, but Lair on PS3 was 1080P, did that make it a better game? no!.
The press really need to stop clinging to the 1080P, 60 FPS skirts here and start asking if we are going to see next gen A.I from games were expected to pay £50+ for, if we are going to see a return to decent length SP campains, an end to the era of release it unfinished, day 1 patch it etc etc.
If it’s running at 720P with a fixed frame rate, no screen tear, jaggies etc, runs decent physics and animation and is bloody good fun, i’d say it was delivering VFM.
If your that concerned about the 1080P, 60 fps sky falling on your heads, honestly a console is’nt what your looking for, try the PC!.
DammeCold
Oh well that is it then, BF4 officially crap on consoles yeah?
Most games this gen have been 720p and still been great looking, I really don’t care for 1080p if it means a drop in the actual effects, draw distance and above all – gameplay!
I’ll also take booting up my console, inviting friends into my game and chatting with them (via one seamless platform) over using Origin + Steam Chat, MSN or even Skype (whichever combination eventually works). PC gaming can look pretty for sure, but in my experience it takes tidying up too much of a cyber mess to eventually get there, meanwhile PSN / LIVE gamers are putting in some (mostly) hassle free gaming.
Kreisash
Can I just mention that some who say that gameplay is king have probably been guilty for slating the Wii/Wii U for not being HD/having amazing graphics. (I’m playing a probability game here, but I bet I’m right.)