Some people will literally moan about anything. Seriously, you're ****ing about the next instalment and you have seen nor heard next to nothing about it?
@Rubio: Yeah, I was talking to a friend after seeing footage of that new Killlzone game (for the PS4) when Sony was doing the PS4 announcement in February. We were watching the stream at the same time, and he mentioned seeing a lot of comments from people complaining about the new KZ game's graphics.
Apparently, the complaints seemed to come from people who were watching the stream in SD (or less than maximum settings) instead of at 1080p. I kind of facepalmed. Half the time I wonder if people who start threads like this realize what their resolution settings are (EDIT: and/or take into account the settings being used on the system running the game demo). When I first switched from SD to an HDTV with 1080p, the difference was like night & day.
Honestly, this does not look very next gen to me, and is quite underwhelming. When Crytek, EA, Epic Games, etc. were showing off demos of their coming games in 2005 for next gen, I was quite taken aback, as were most. Killzone 4 even looks better than this, and it seemed like a very small step up from current gen.
Now that we recently found out through an accidental dev tweet that ME will be using this engine, what do you guys think? For me, there is definitely potential, but perhaps we are reaching a plateau in terms of graphical beauty. Thankfully BW games have more focus on story than crappy Call Of Fieldy Modern Battle games...
The best equivalency current gen would be ME1-Gears1.
Thoughts?
Battlefield 4 is not next gen...its being released for current generation consoles and they are the lowest common denominators.
Also the final game will likely look worse than the pre-order hype trailer, the same was true of Battlefield 3, they did a pre-order hype trailer called "Fault-line", now play it on the PC with details maxed today and you will see half the stuff in video didn't even make it to the game.
Fact is, current gen consoles are limiting factor for Battlefield 4.
Finally, an engine is just a framework. Consider what Bioware, Obsidian, and CD Projekt separately managed to do on the Aurora engine--there was a huge difference between the artwork, texture quality, and effects created. Just because DICE can get this current level of detail out of the Frostbite 3 engine doesn't mean the Bioware devs will get anywhere even close, for all we know Dragon Age: Inquisition could look worse than Witcher 2 running on DX9.
My guess would be money. Bioware had to pay Epic to use the Unreal engine. EA has the rights to Frostbite through DICE. So EA can have any of their studios use Frostbite without having to pay extra. Its not a bad idea and Frostbite is a nice engine in its own right.
It also cuts the cost to develop the engine or rather divides the costs on multiple games.
And EA also probably wants to establish the Frostbite Engine as a next-gen-engine with more than one game.
Honestly I don't care that much about the engine, they are using. Bioware games never were about good graphics, specially if you look at ME2 or 3, that look rather bad on PC, because they didn't even got HD textures. A good engine doesn't automatically mean good graphics, let alone the point, that other things are much more important about Bioware games than how good they look.
Retour en haut
