Please view this video at 1080p on your main gaming monitor or TV. If necessary, you can use this direct Youtube link to do so.
As rumour and conjecture continue to swirl around the Xbox One and Playstation 4 versions of Battlefield 4, the Open Beta kicked off last week on PC, PS3 and 360. I took to the PC version to try and see what all of the fuss is about for the next-gen releases. The story goes that DICE are rigidly sticking to 60 frames per second for both the next generation consoles, and in order to make this happen they’re currently having to cut the resolution back.
In this video, I’ve used the PC build to show what that kind of compromise would look like, should 720p and the so-called 900p resolutions be what is releasd. Naturally my video is an imperfect example, with my PC running at nowhere near 60Hz and equally only trying to record at 30Hz. Additionally, video compression will have been added in several stages of the editing process, but for our purposes it will generally serve to show the difference that running at less than 1080p can have when upscaled to 1080p.
Let us know what you think in the comments below. Is 60Hz a deal-breaker for you, or would you rather have 1080p30?
My PC’s specs are an Intel Core i5 3570k overclocked to 4.2Ghz, 8GB RAM, and a Radeon 7850 1GB. I was running on the “High” graphics preset, in 1080p with only post-processed anti-aliasing, 1440×900 – my “900p” equivalent – with 2x MSAA and finally 720p with 4xMSAA.
MikLSP
I’m already sick of hearing about frame rates, why has this PC geek obsession invaded this generation of consoles?
I honestly don’t mind if a game runs at 30, 60 or somewhere in between as long as it remains stable at that. I’m more likely to notice drops in frame rate which lead to poor response and lag than a game running a steady but lower frame rate to begin with.
If the game needs to be at 30 fps to run at full resolution without slow down then so be it, better that than poor resolution and frame drops.
Stefan L
Simply put, it’s a topic which many people are talking about. So I felt that this was a good way of looking at what it can really mean beyond the kneejerk reaction that something needs to hit a certain frame rate, or else.
MikLSP
Sorry, I didn’t mean that as a slight against the article, it is a good demonstration and talking point.
I was rather remarking on the new found and unnecessary obsession across the industry. :-)
Kubr1ck
Let’s not forget those of us who get motion sick after a few minutes of play. Higher frame rates for me make for a much more comfortable experience.
I’d gladly sacrifice the higher res for a nice smooth 60fps. CoD: Black Ops is a great example, I could only play for about half an hour before needing a rest, Black Ops 2 gave me no problems at all.
It’s not just about having the best specs, frame rate does matter to some of us.
The Von Braun
Sorry Stefan-not having a pop at your article per say, just venting my frustration at how much milage has been devoted to hardware not even out yet and fixation on factors i don’t see as a game breaker and yet no-one seems to question why ‘Next Gen’ so often means ‘Past 3 Gen’s’in terms of A.I routines, ideas, gameplay….
bunimomike
Agreed. Sick to death of it. It’s like we have nothing else to pick at and simply must need something to get worked up into a froth over.
A little bit of maths shows you that Sony had roughly £200 for the graphics card side of things in the PS4. Xbox One probably very similar. Since when were they going to compete with the powerhouses that can be built from PCs?
My mate’s 680 was £850 or so and that’s just for the graphics card. His machine will run anything and I should bloody hope so too. What I’d like to see is a far more positive tone where we’re celebrating the fact that a £349 console can run games anywhere near the resolution, frame-rate and detail that the PCs can. What’s even better is the console games (and graphics engines) will be optimized and refined to buggery and back. Let alone the wonderful exclusives both consoles will be festooned with over the life-cycle.
double-o-dave
Well said – We should celebrate what a £350 console can achieve, especially when you consider how cheap that actually is compared to console prices in the past. At a glance I thought MikLSP was being a bit picky but now you both put it that way, you’re both right. These are game/multimedia consoles way under the £500 mark with exclusives etc, not £800 spec’d up PCs.
bunimomike
The top end Steam box, I could understand. However, I’ll take a PS4 any day of the week over the competition as it’s all about the games. Hell, look at me on PSN right now. Just played Walking Dead 400 days (DLC). Going to buy Rain and Puppeteer. Wonderful titles (some exclusive, some not) and not a care in the world what’s running at 1080p. I didn’t even realise Flower wasn’t (on the PS3). If you’re looking at resolution on Flower you may well have missed the point completely!
With over 2 million pixels to render (which is over double the amount of a 720p picture) I’ll have a staggeringly pretty 720p any day of the week. Sure, I’d love everything to be 1080p and at 60 frames per second but we seem to have lost a lot of metaphorical perspective on things as of recent.
boeboe
Here here!
The Mysterious Phantom Bear
I’m nowhere near a framerate/resolution geek, I dropped out of PC gaming many, many moons ago however I think 60fps is vital for an online shooter.
Of course a solid 60fps with no resolution compromise is ideal but depending on how much you’ve got going on it’s going to be difficult to achieve on both the Xbox One and PS4.
I expect BF4 will run at a solid 60fps on both with less liberties being taken on resolution/detail on the PS4 version. I’m happy with that. I’ll be paying £350 for the intregated and convenient nature of a console. I don’t expect it to outclass a PC that’s running dual Titans and costs 6x that much.
It’s all about expectation. Hell, I tolerate BF3 on PS3 and still have a great time, isn’t that what it’s all about?
Voolar
So, Dice are suggesting 720p for XB1 and 900p for the PS4…? There was quite a difference there. I saw it running on the XB1 at EGX and it looked pretty sweet. I’m not convinced I’ll see much difference when I’m getting my arse kicked in multiplayer though. As MikLSP says, a steady framerate is key tbh…
Stefan L
DICE have stated that the PS4 version was running at this 900p in their offices, following on from Gamescom. I don’t believe they’ve said anything officially about the Xbox One version, but through hearsay this is said to run at 720p. All the time 60Hz.
DJ Judas
The beta currently is a bad example of how it will run upon release. At least I hope that’s the case based on how poorly it runs, no matter what the fps is capped to there are frame drops every 5.5 seconds, which is really jarring.
It’s a little unknown how much more grunt they’ll be able to get out of consoles if they’re using Mantle also. I think it’s safe to say that the console experience will be much smoother than that of the beta currently.
Stefan L
Yes, the beta is an imperfect source, but in terms of showing the difference between resolutions rather than stability or final performance, it’s not bad.
They will be able to get a lot more performance out of the consoles, where they can code “closer to the metal”, so to speak, and better access the raw performance in more specific and delicate ways.
Galiophaurus
From what I’ve seen on the video …I would rather have 1080p30
Eldave0
Shooters and Driving games (basically any game where reaction speeds are crucial) need to run at 60fps, else its just a clunky mess. As such I’m happy to take a resolution drop on Battlefield for an improved frame rate.
MikLSP
I understand that higher frame rates aid quick reactions but what is more detrimental; a maximum of 30 fps but one that never drops or 60 fps that drops frames and slows down at the crucial moment?
Eldave0
True. I’d argue though that, if a company is making a title at 60FPS, it shouldn’t be released until they can reach that milestone and maintain it. If they can’t the game probably isn’t worth checking out anyway.
double-o-dave
I’m not sure whether it’s down to the beta or just the effect or textures they’re using on that specific level, but some of the walls and floors/roads look bland as hell. I noticed the random cars parked around the place (on the PS3 beta) look no better than the ones in Rainbow 6… Basically, like they’re made from cornflake boxes covered in grey paint with octagonal wheels. I’m hoping it is the beta and maybe just this level as the other ones look great in the vids I’ve seen.
The Von Braun
MikLSP nailed it with the 1st post.
I’ve no idea what’s happening with this site and this sudden hang-up on what resolution and frame rate, key titles may or may not run at on next generation consoles.
How many more examples are going to be given before people grasp the basic fact that no, your sub-£500 console, being a fixed platform, is not going to match a decent PC geared up for gaming and if you want those PC resolutions and frame rates, you need to be investing in a PC.
I don’t see any articles on what sort of A.I we should expect from next gen consoles, what sort of VFM the games will be offering up, what ground-breaking new ideas, concepts we can expect, just more and more about the stuff the PC heads at work talk about.
I’m a gamer, have been for years.So, developers will have to compromise on a PC hardware in a box, console next-gen, so what? as an Xbox and DC owner i’m used to that, but if it means i don’t have to under go all the hassle i had when i was a PC gamer and all i ‘loose’ is some resolution and texture detail, you’ll get no complaints.
Arcade conversions to Dreamcast had a drop in textur quality from day 1 (Powerstone for example) they still looked stunning and played like a dream.
Developers:just use the hardware wisely, deliver a stable, playable game and you’ll have delivered.Please don’t try and put all the focus on the game engine and not the game for fear of being marked down in the press, it’s bad enough now seeing games designed by checklist (it must have online play, it must have co-op, it must have…)
boeboe
Agree. I’m hoping once the next-gen consoles are released all this will go and we’ll be back to games. Though as long as theres PC gamers there will always be these dumb comparisons.
I’m most looking forward to a faster UI, so when I click the middle button to see what my friends are playing I’m not left waiting for ages. Nice and smooth.
zeroTRoN
The PS3 Beta version looks terrible . I was suprised actually, the BF3 Beta looked & played so amazingl . The Shanghai Map is terrible also. I just run for two minutes , only to get cut down as soon as I get to an objective :/
double-o-dave
Like I said above… The PS3 beta, graphically looks pants. I did notice that textures were still loading on objects I was running past which doesn’t help either.
Starman
Can’t help but be disappointed in the next gen consoles when, after hearing thing like “10x more powerful” we now regularly hear that devs are having to compromise on frame rates etc..
The Von Braun
@Starman-Has’nt it always been this way though?.
Marketing just love these sort of meaningless phrases, i can remember as far back as the primitive 8 bit days where tape inlays boasted of game being coded in ‘100% machine code’.I had no idea what machine code was, but this used 100% of it, so must be good, right?.
Bench marks then became things like CPU speed (MD had faster CPU so did ‘Blast processing’, yeah but SNES has Mode 7!, etd, then it was (false) numbers of polygons per second claims, with machine doing nowt but rendering plain polygons, all of same size, no lighting etc…
now it’s crap like X40 performance using power of the cloud.
Phrases change, marketing angle does’nt.Fact is as a console gamer, your console was never going to match the coin-op with twice the ram, dedicated custom chips etc, but it cost far less.
when consoles became PC hardware in a box, your graphics card was the same as your mates, optimised for games, but old hat by time you bought the machine.
You paid your money, made your choice, same now.
Starman
Yeah fair points. With there being an 8 year gap between this gen & the upcoming one I was just expecting more. The last few gens the improvements were more noticeable.