• 66 results
  • 1
  • 2
#51 Edited by JouselDelka (966 posts) -

@gnatsol said:

doesnt B4 mp on PC offer more than 64? I thought it was in the hundreds..... Am I crazy?

Having not really played much Battlefield, 64 doesnt sound like it would fill up the gigantic levels properly. IDK....

As a big Battlefield fan, I wasn't too harsh on DICE for neglecting/not including cornerstone Battlefield features in BF3, because they had a lot on their plate and they developed a new fantastic engine from scrtach. The formula being Team A vs. Team B with 64 players and a couple of jets was acceptable, as long as they delivered a top notch next gen online shooter, and they sure as hell did.

Now, having made crazy monies off of BF3 and had a year or two to develop BF4 on a ready-to-go engine, I expected much more in this game than just scripted map changes, commander and spectator mode, and 3 factions instead of 2. One of those things is the player count, since freaking BF2 itself had 128 player mods made by modders..

You can say I will be disappointed in BF4 for only bringing back BF2 features and adding small things all around rather than adding serious ass big-balls shit like having three 32-player teams fight each other on one 12-flag map.

In my mind, they won't push it that far because they're lazy and they know they can get away with the standard formula. But BF4 will still be the best multiplayer game in the world, so that's good enough for me.

#52 Posted by Cold_Wolven (2227 posts) -

I'm not all that surprised considering the player count and map sizes and DICE striving for 60fps, I will also say that games will do it better than BF4 for next gen consoles 2-3 years from now.

#53 Edited by Nethlem (420 posts) -

@alexglass said:

so it will take at least 3-4 years for PC games to start ditching rasterized graphics in favor of ray tracing. Then we can cry.

Yes "at least 3-4 years" till we simply just ditch all rasterized graphics, just like that!
How about we wait at least until Intel figures it shit out with Larrabee, before doing such bold moves?
I imagine it kind of unhandy to have ditched all rasterized graphics, in favor or ray-tracing, when you have got no affordable hardware, that could actually run that stuff.

@alexglass: "Never" might be a strong word but he does have a point, especially with this Generation. Consoles always had one thing going for them: They subsidized the hardware trough licensing fees on software, that (and the large batches of production) allows them to sell their hardware below actual worth. That's an advantage the PC can never compete with out of principle.

But this Generation something new also started happening: ISP/Cable providers selling PS4's with their dataplans and these PS4 will probably be heavily subsidized trough those data plans. So now the Console Manufacturers have found another revenue stream from, which to subsidize their hardware, lowering the entry barrier into the "console space" even further (at least for people who don't care).

#54 Edited by AlexGlass (688 posts) -

@nethlem said:

@alexglass said:

so it will take at least 3-4 years for PC games to start ditching rasterized graphics in favor of ray tracing. Then we can cry.

Yes "at least 3-4 years" till we simply just ditch all rasterized graphics, just like that!

How about we wait at least until Intel figures it shit out with Larrabee, before doing such bold moves?

I imagine it kind of unhandy to have ditched all rasterized graphics, in favor or ray-tracing, when you have got no affordable hardware, that could actually run that stuff.

@alexglass: "Never" might be a strong word but he does have a point, especially with this Generation. Consoles always had one thing going for them: They subsidized the hardware trough licensing fees on software, that (and the large batches of production) allows them to sell their hardware below actual worth. That's an advantage the PC can never compete with out of principle.

But this Generation something new also started happening: ISP/Cable providers selling PS4's with their dataplans and these PS4 will probably be heavily subsidized trough those data plans. So now the Console Manufacturers have found another revenue stream from, which to subsidize their hardware, lowering the entry barrier into the "console space" even further (at least for people who don't care).

Why do we need to wait on Intel when we have engines like Brigade moving it to Nvidia GPUs and Otoy? They're running it on a couple of Titans now and have a bunch of optimizing left to do. I don't foresee 9-10Tflops costing more than about $500 3 years from now. And that's just the first serious attempt by a couple of guys. People are getting demos up and running on much less than that as well.

#55 Posted by Dalai (7034 posts) -

Battlefield 4 will not look better on my PC because I don't plan to buy Battlefield 4.

#56 Posted by jacksmedulla (279 posts) -
#57 Edited by Tru3_Blu3 (3211 posts) -

DICE just doesn't know how the use the consoles' hardware, I'm assuming. Nevertheless, I agree with him.

#58 Posted by BeachThunder (11994 posts) -

High definition menstruation!

Online
#59 Posted by BigJeffrey (5026 posts) -

To bad I won't be playing it there , I'll max it out on my Xbox

Online
#60 Edited by OurSin_360 (921 posts) -

@athadam said:

Yeah but can the same PC (the one that runs BF4 better than PS4/XB1) out do the consoles, 4-6 years from now?

I don't think anyone actually believes that consoles could ever graphically beat PCs, but it comes down to a value proposition for most people.

Well, yeah it will. Thing with PC gaming is you upgrade to get the highest grade graphics available, but most games are designed for lower to the highest end hardware. So yeah, the same pc today will beat a ps4 or xbone, however it won't compare to a high end pc 4-6 years from now at all. It'll probably be the lowest settings (which will still look great probably)

#61 Edited by RedLoopz (136 posts) -

Why....why is this even....its OBVIOUS that the PC version is going to be better than the weak consoles. OMG. Why....why even...nevermind

#62 Posted by JouselDelka (966 posts) -

To bad I won't be playing it there , I'll max it out on my Xbox

All them brightness settings

#63 Edited by ryanwhom (290 posts) -

Dunno why this would surprise anyone. Consoles arent made of magical components that arent availible for PCs. They're made of the exact same stuff. One can be upgraded and one cant, so one version will have more visual options. This isnt rocket science.

#64 Edited by Deranged (1837 posts) -
#65 Edited by DrGreatJob (129 posts) -

@zekhariah: 4K will never be standard for PCs. You will never require that much resolution, even when sitting close to a PC monitor. 4K is a standard designed for very large screens (like huge TVs in public places.) While I do not doubt that it will be supported on PC, it won't be considered standard.

#66 Posted by GERALTITUDE (3349 posts) -

So so sick and tired of this PC/console garbage. Wake me up when it's over.

#67 Edited by BigJeffrey (5026 posts) -

@jouseldelka said:

@bigjeffrey said:

To bad I won't be playing it there , I'll max it out on my Xbox

All them brightness settings

Volume Setting Up

CONTRAST UP

Online
#68 Posted by JouselDelka (966 posts) -

@jouseldelka said:

@bigjeffrey said:

To bad I won't be playing it there , I'll max it out on my Xbox

All them brightness settings

Volume Setting Up

CONTRAST UP

Oh shiiiiii I might get a sex box now

#69 Edited by mbkgen (37 posts) -

YES!. This also means i need to upgrade my PC though hehe

#70 Posted by TheManWithNoPlan (5594 posts) -

That's disappointing, but not surprising.

Online