Printable View
BF4 at the moment is supposedly will not hit 1080p and is only a little higher than 720p but DICE is more concerned with it running 60fps (very good choice). They still have plenty of optimizing to do, so it is possible they hit 1080/60, but I'd rather have 720/60 than 1080/30.
If I remember correctly, you were arguing in another thread for improved realism in games (physics, locales, simulating the real world).Quote:
Originally Posted by Opaque
It seems to me that the overtextured environments that you're against here are what get put into the more "realistic" looking games. Whereas WoW (to use your example) throws "realism" out the door in order to colorfully and stylistically create a visual world. Blizzard seems to do this with all their games.
I may be completely reading you wrong, so apologies if that's the case.
Question: is realism, even with decreased fps/other tech drawbacks >>> stylized worlds with faster/improved tech specs?
Nothing takes away from realism than a crap framerate. But with the PC, you get both, so yay
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElCapichan
I want physics that work like the real world and AI that acts like it's actually intelligent.Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Meach
As far as visuals go I think looking good is what's actually important. I don't really know how to explain this well. To me a game that runs at 60fps, has smooth edges and has an art style that is good looking will always be a smarter way to do things than to have tons of choppy looking over textured crap. You could have a game that looks like WoW in terms of style choices and appropriate texture use but still have great physics and AI. The two don't have to be mutually exclusive. Really though, if a game can run at 60fps and have smooth edges go nuts with your textures, but to make games that run like shit and get all muddy because of design choices is inexcusable to me. Example I was talking about earlier:
http://i.imgur.com/qETqLOQ.jpg
In motion that whole environment blurs together into complete garbage because it's running at 30fps with no AA. They could have smoothed some edges out and doubled the frame rate if they didn't have so much needless camouflage bullshit going on and it would have been a better game for it.
No. No, man. Shit, no, man. I believe you'd get your ass kicked sayin' something like that, man.Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Meach
Is 60 fps really important? I don't even think I'd know it if I saw it. What game is 60 fps and what is 30 for a comparison? Like, common ps2 era games. Besides, does the frame rate even matter when the tv is lagging the way HDTVs do? I've kind'a resigned to accepting that games can't twitch anymore due to that universal lag, so how is that super-fast visual update even of any use?
Go play Unreal Tournament 99 on PC then play any Gears of War game on Xbox 360.
Frame rate matters.
Just checked Gears on Youtube and the motion seemed fine (the colors on the other hand...Jesus Christ the game needs some). I didn't bother checking Unreal since I don't think Youtube does 60 fps.Quote:
Originally Posted by jyoung
this is kind of a shitty comparison because ut99 is a good game and gears of war X is a bad game (substitute X for 1 to 3)Quote:
Originally Posted by jyoung