There is a huge benefit/difference to analyzing actual footage instead of peeping still shots, especially at 60 FPS. Mosaic patterns and jaggies are far more noticable because they shift and crawl across the screen. You don't see a huge difference in those BF4 Digital Foundry still shots, but watch the 2GB 60 FPS footage files and it's much more noticeable. It's completely wrong to say there's "no benefit" to watching the game in motion, especially when it comes to framerates.
In that IGN comparison vid the guy said the PS4 version was "locked at a smooth 60 FPS with the odd minor hiccup", "if you demand the highest fidelity the PS4 version is the one to buy". Doesn't sound like a major framerate issue to me.
So why are impressions varying so much? Some people just can't tell framerate or resolution that easily, or the viewing distance might be an issue, etc. I'm not accusing anyone at Polygon of bias, I just think their impressions are out of whack.
In that IGN comparison vid the guy said the PS4 version was "locked at a smooth 60 FPS with the odd minor hiccup", "if you demand the highest fidelity the PS4 version is the one to buy". Doesn't sound like a major framerate issue to me.
So why are impressions varying so much? Some people just can't tell framerate or resolution that easily, or the viewing distance might be an issue, etc. I'm not accusing anyone at Polygon of bias, I just think their impressions are out of whack.