Battlefiled 4 anti-fud thread. PlayStation 4, Xbox One, PC.
- Thread starter Plainview
- Start date
- Status
I never understood why people made a huge deal out of Battlelog for server browser, is it stupid? Yes. Is it a deal breaker? IMO, absolutely not.
In Battlefield 4, you can easily access Battlelog from within the game. As you have seen in the screenshots, there is a Battlelog button in the upper right corner of the HUD, which gives quick access to your online friends, your assignments, challenges from friends (called “Missions”), and more. The Battlelog overlay also gives information on your squad mates, where you can easily add them as friends, and more.
The new option also lets you join a different server while playing a game. You simply pull up the server list and click join on whichever server you want — no need to exit the game and go to Battlelog (on PC).
http://bf4central.com/2013/09/new-details-battlelog-bf4/
Me neither. Even as somebody who would prefer an in game server browser. The battlelog method worked fine and 99.5% flawlessly. I only had one small issue once where it just wouldn't load up maps. Which in all honesty, was massive step up from the in game server browser in BF2.
I want to see MP footage on X1, cause Jack Frags didn't have that and the IGN video was probably an old build too, since both versions looked underwhelming there.
Yeah it's all a huuuuuuuuuuuge conspiracy to make the X1 look better, because DF has always favoured Xbox right...? Oh wait.
Maybe just maybe...they have their 360 set to Expanded Reference Level and yes that crushes blacks for some displays.
About the Xbox One MP, it's worth mentioning that we will see 32 vs 32 player matches broadcasted live on November 1st, 10am PDT. If there are game crashes and stuff like the PS4 version, we will see it all happen live.
Yeah I really don't get it all. Blacks are crushed in the X1 shots, and the sharpness is up. That's it. You can do that on any monitor. I know some people actually prefer it, for some unknown reason. But it is a simple correction. I can't see DF going out of there way to make one console look bad.
Okay so, performance drops during heavy action on consoles? Not surprised. So with all details now in hand.
XbOne 720p with framerate drops
PS4 900P with framerate drops
no MSAA
Ok, so this is better than PC @ 1080p and higher, Ultra settings, 4xAA and a framerate only determined by the hardware you have? I don't think so, I don't think so at all.
It's an admirable try by DICE and they are only working with that they have but anyone that believes this is better than PC running and whatever you want it to is smoking the finest cocaine available on the planet.
Qbert has already proven his aged rig can run the game better than next gen consoles.
Last edited:
It was supposed to be an accurate comparison. Jackfrags footage is the most comparable as he didn't mess with monitor or console sharpness/contrast/color level settings between versions. Even that isn't totally accurate because it's mostly PS4 multi compared to X1 single.
I never said DF did it deliberately, it could have been an error. However, people aren't going to trust DF if they keep making simple and obvious mistakes like this.
Last edited:
Yep. First time we're going to see direct footage, except of course for the offscreen videos, but those can't really be properly judged. If the aliasing doesn't terribly annoy and destroy the overall IQ i think it's all good.
Oh I agree. If you look at Frag's footage, and IGN's, the blacks arent' crushed in the X1 version, so I'm not sure how the "premier" compare site could make such an error.
From what I had read DF used their own capture equipment and didn't adjust the settings, everyone else was giving elgato capture equipment. Either way, not really an excuse
PC version will always be the best version unless dev's completely botch a game, which doesn't happen too often.
There is also the possibility of them using the newer build of the game as well, so thats worth possibly keeping an eye out for.
Well it's not really that, but it was console fanboys saying that you needed a mega rig to run the game, which is totally not true as Qbert was running the game just fine at Ultra/High settings at 40-60 FPS I believe he said at 1080p with 2xAA and 110% scaling res scaling which actually makes it higher than 1080p native render. I believe he also said that he has a AMD Phenom 2 X4 8GB of RAM and GTX 660
Well, they're completely stretching themselves thin... Launching on 6 platforms in a single month. EA is nuts.
Thats pretty damned good to be honest and good to see that the game scales well.
Thats pretty damned good to be honest and good to see that the game scales well.
Imagine if it's true what Ascalaphus said yesterday, that DICE is making the resolution to match with PS4, would that automatically mean less/no aliasing? Some folks told me the aliasing is all because of a lower res....but doesn't it all have to do with anti-aliasing tech?
Right. They're launch games. X1 tools were supposedly behind PS4, so we're seeing that in these ports. Next year, I'd assume everything will be running at the same resolution. Having a dev crank out five versions of the same game on different hardware isn't exactly easy.
Yeah, it runs well enough. I do get some dips, but not as bad as I expected.
I'm thinking of trying to install Win8 before upgrading anything, as I've heard the game runs better under Win8. I don't mind dips to 45 fps, but if I can get more without upgrading hardware....even better.
Oh i definitely expect that too. If it's all an tools issue and its fixed sometime soon...who knows..maybe even a patch to fix BF4 resolution.
1. I'm not convinced that the sharper look of the X1 version is solely due to capture hardware configurations. I'll have to see the two for myself to verify.
2. Even with an unfinished review copy of the game, the X1 version looks virtually identical to the PS4 version. There's more aliasing, but it's a case of 'bad' and 'worse', not 'great' and 'bad'.
3. While the differences seem to align well with the raw specs delta, it also implies that (likely) the X1 platform is simply too 'hot-off-the-press' for developers to properly take advantage of the custom hardware, etc, because when the custom hardware is properly used, I'd expect a smaller delta... reminds me of the PS3/X360 launch when the PS3 had to run Madden at half the frame rate of the 360 version, and still dropped more frames (implying the 360 was more than twice as powerful, which is obviously not true).
Bottom line, though, even if the delta didn't shrink (which it likely will), this isn't a delta the layman will notice or care about... so it's actually a clear win for Microsoft either way. Either the delta will get smaller and even the highly critical will have a hard time determining a clear winner (like with last gen), or the delta won't shrink but it won't matter because only 1 out of every 50 gamers or so will be able to notice or care.
So really, no elephant in the room, no 'big issues' for Microsoft, no big difference, no big deal.
Where the differences will be obvious and noticeable will be in the way the OS's behave, in the interaction models, and in the services. I think MS will have a clear victory across all of those, and look forward to the reactions from the world.
2. Even with an unfinished review copy of the game, the X1 version looks virtually identical to the PS4 version. There's more aliasing, but it's a case of 'bad' and 'worse', not 'great' and 'bad'.
3. While the differences seem to align well with the raw specs delta, it also implies that (likely) the X1 platform is simply too 'hot-off-the-press' for developers to properly take advantage of the custom hardware, etc, because when the custom hardware is properly used, I'd expect a smaller delta... reminds me of the PS3/X360 launch when the PS3 had to run Madden at half the frame rate of the 360 version, and still dropped more frames (implying the 360 was more than twice as powerful, which is obviously not true).
Bottom line, though, even if the delta didn't shrink (which it likely will), this isn't a delta the layman will notice or care about... so it's actually a clear win for Microsoft either way. Either the delta will get smaller and even the highly critical will have a hard time determining a clear winner (like with last gen), or the delta won't shrink but it won't matter because only 1 out of every 50 gamers or so will be able to notice or care.
So really, no elephant in the room, no 'big issues' for Microsoft, no big difference, no big deal.
Where the differences will be obvious and noticeable will be in the way the OS's behave, in the interaction models, and in the services. I think MS will have a clear victory across all of those, and look forward to the reactions from the world.
I'm not sure how a multiplat game running at a lower resolution with a lower framerate is a "clear win" for Microsoft. Frankly, I think it is pretty embarrassing. They had the 360 out a year before PS3; if someone were to tell me the system having the worse performing multiplats at launch would be Microsoft, I wouldn't have believed them.
I'm sure things will even out, just like they did for PS3/360, but having an inferior product than your competitor, while charging 100 dollars more, isn't a "clear win."
I'm sure things will even out, just like they did for PS3/360, but having an inferior product than your competitor, while charging 100 dollars more, isn't a "clear win."
- Status