Dice trolled us all -_- (BF4's disappointing visual quality)

Well, it turns out, most of the per-release marketing trailers I've seen were inaccurate

this scene

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EEqfeanWAZk

actual in game footage

Very disappointed, don't get me wrong, it's still one of the best looking game out there, just nothing next gen worthy. when it come down to detailing, this game is not a legitimate challenge to crysis3, not even crysis2.

Image quality is terrible, at least take a picture from a native source, then directly upload to here.

It seems Gamespot is making clarity less, open these in a new tab.

the only trolling here is this thread

ty for trolling, now GTFO.

first time use GS's upload? no? blurry up the actual image is nothing new anymore. you have to click on image to see the original quality

Yup i condoned it in my post underneath ;)

I'm not the one masturbating to cryengine every night claiming it to be the messiah. Call me back when crysis 3 is doing half of what bf4 is in an online match.

lol! Cryengine? and this thread is about BF4's graphic and its false advisement. and keep waiting, you wish the world would notice you exist

This. BF4 is the best looking game I've ever seen. Metro and Crysis 3 were amazing looking games but to me BF4 looks better than those.

You're quite pathetic. All you do is post non-game devkit cryengine screens and fawn over it, and then make this sensationalized thread to get attention, knowing full well BF4 is the most visually stunning game of its scale and type. That aside, I'm too busy actually playing the game to shed tears about how a developer owes me 'teh foliage' and needs to live up to my fantasy standards.

Mate, it doesn't really matter if the game looks like Crysis 4. If it's anything like Battlefield 3's SP, it will be 4 hours of your life wasted.

Maybe they should concentrate less on graphics and more on gameplay.

Wow, son you need help, for real, you are forever so sensitive whenever the word Cryengine 3 pops up like it's grabbing your balls. last time I posted anything related to CE3 was 2 month ago.

attention? lol look at your post count and look at mine, like I even need to explain myself.

"most visually stunning game" sigh....like you even know what you're talking about, at least study some basic concept in rendering and shade creating before you try to wasting my time. yeah, I will let you when the world gonna give a flying poop about "your standard" from your low end PC, before then you should keep "busy"....now.

BF3s singleplayer was an absolute borefest. I would rate it with MOH: Warfighters as some of the worst I've ever played this gen... No wait, actually MOH:W was way worse. Still, BF3s wasn't good.

BF4s singleplayer however is surprisingly really good. There is a lot of freedom in some of the levels, and you can compliment that freedom with the weapons you choose.

So far I'm really enjoying the singleplayer and the graphics only further my enjoyment.

By no mean BF4 is an ugly game, but you should watch the per-release trailer in my linkd and compare to its in game footage. it's not even close

to its credit, it does features some high end effects, BF4's film style DOF is the best I've ever seen from any game, but the detailing is VERY unprofessional and lacking. chessy, character models, low polygon assets all over the place. cheap lighting effects

it's nothing compare to crysis3(even on medium setting) and crysis2 and overall detailing is even below metro: LL

well because, HBAO, flim grade DOF and 30% effects you see from SP aren't available in MP. I currently having a blast in BF4's MP, probably the most fun I had from any FPS's MP. but that's not the point.

I don't have problem with entertainment value provided by BF3/4's SP, actually I thought they were decent. but I do have problem with false advising on their visual features, after all the "next gen visual enhancement" propaganda, the actual game's overall detailing turns out to be worse than crysis2,

and my friend, graphic feature is the reason why BF sells(can you image a new BF without its unique destruction?) believe or not, most R&D cost from majority video games goes into graphic development.

I knew it was bf3 with a slightly new box

@GameFan1983:

Ah, I see. You are talking about Multiplayer. Well I haven't played that (yet). But the singleplayer does have some pretty amazing effects: like that storm in that airport level blew me away (pardon the pun). And the singleplayer has some pretty high-end character models as well.

Don't see any point in it. Waste of money and resources imo.

BF4 has nothing new to share in graphics, it's like comparing Call of Duty games since Modern Warfare

Word. I played the BF4 beta purely as a graphical benchmark - and then realized I could've just benched BF3 and it would've been nearly identical. The game is far behind Crysis 3 in the graphics department, but it's hard to fault it considering its scope and orientation towards gameplay.

BF4 is the best looking game on pc, for both single player and multiplayer

The guy above me obviously doesn't realize the beta had numerous features not present. BF4 actually looks a LOT different than BF3.

the BF4 beta didn't use final graphics, or performance

I never understood it as a next-gen game or next-gen graphics. it's still an Xbox 360 and PS3 title. In that sense, I don't know what you were really expecting. BF4 does seem more dynamic. The map scale is improved and there's more going on in them than BF3. In that trade-off, slightly improved visuals is sufficient for a "this-gen" title (BF4).

you do realize half the visual features were removed in the beta, right? Like, half the textures and effects were gone.

I was talking about BF4 has great MP but very disappointing graphic (both SP/MP) tessellation is nowhere to be seen on any assets, building and characters, cheesy modeling, low res texture on 70% stuffs presented, low ploygons, and bad looking effects I.E fire, smoke, dust etc. once again, BF4 did nothing amazing graphic wise if wasn't for it's DOF and high volume particle, character wise as I already explained, see first post, all the marketing trailer presented on TV/internet was completely fraud. in game character models are downgraded with far less polygon.

Without high end DOF, somewhat decent reflection and bloom effect, BF4's true face (in some area, even worse than BF3)

So technically, yes, BF4 isn't what you expected it to be despite it being on current gen platforms Xbox 360 and PS3.. and then continue to compare it to Crysis 3; which has excellent graphics but the game is utterly boring. So is BF4's campaign. Again, gameplay will always take precedence over graphics.

Complaining about the BF4 graphics? Really???

Battlefield 4 looks amazing...

Yeah, most of the surfaces in the beta were just grey with no textures. As for the effects, are the environments more destructible in the retail version? The only thing that I was disappointed with was the lack of building destruction...

than you haven't played any games on PC since 2011, or you aren't paying attentions to the games you are playing, I can easily pull 5 games that are far superior graphic wise.

on PC, crysis3 medium setting>crysis2/metro:LL>the rest. for a high profile game like BF4, core characters' polygon build is 8k peak(that chinese lady has the highest ploygon) where's crysis2 from 2011 is 15k-20k, fire and explosion only look half decent in mid-long distance due to low res and cheap effects, 80% textures are 512/256, some 1k from first mission, but none 2k in any SP mission (any given crysis3's texture res are 2k/4k) if wasn't for the DOF and bloom, and the impressive destruction. BF4 is out of place among it's 2013's competitors.

same thing when Farcry3 first came out, after 3 weeks when everyone has a cool head, they start seeing what's up with BF4's graphic. tree, rocks, water, characters, lighting and other effects, they are just bad.

When DOF is present "OMGZ! GRAFIX KINGZ" then when DOF faded....!

Nice to see you care more about pleasing your graphics orgasms than playing a damn game

He already said that he enjoys the game. He's only complaining because the graphics apparently were falsely advertised in the trailers, which is a legitimate complaint imo. Ubisoft pulled off the same shit with FC3.

I didn't play the game yet myself, but judging from gameplay and screenshots it doesn't look as good as I was expecting.

at ultra, it looks pretty damn good. Even in multiplayer

Proof? All I see is supposition. I don't see a single reason why they wouldn't have 99.9% of the graphics together in the beta. Most developers try to keep it closest to launch state as possible so they can optimize the game further. Beta tested dozens of games, and absolutely zero have ever received significant graphical upgrade once reaching launch. And it makes sense why it's been this way: Why would they have people test a game in an incomplete state? Wouldn't they want all those "missing effects and environments" to be tested on people's systems?

DICE themselves said the beta wasn't final graphics

Did you play the beta? Almost every surface was just grey with no texture applied...

The game is revolutionary from Physics n destruction standpoints , i really don't get what ur sayin ....it's one of the best looking games i've ever played!

Hang around the bf3 and bf4 reddits, the devs themselves post there very often. They used a very old build for the beta, with missing textures and destruction. The full game, which you obviously haven't played and will resort to making things up, has fully fleshed out textures, effects, and destruction. Almost every building can e ripped down, ground deformation is in, everything is a lot grittier and detailed and a hell of a lot smoother. They use betas to iron out small last bit tweaks they can do. We're not there to test their graphics for them.

The game looks very good and it would be completely stupid to say otherwise. Note that it looks good and not THE BEST.

@8-Bitterness:

But it's the only game that uses graphics for gameplay u know the destructions can change the way u play ....

ONE of the best !

You are think the graphics are not very good? whuuut?

This game never looked that great. Some of the heavily scripted SP scenes looked nice, but the MP just looks okay.

Are you talking about action, number of players, etc, on screen? It'll be awhile before that happens, because Crysis 3 is doing more graphically. It would cripple even the most high end PC's if you got Crysis 3 level graphics doing that kind of thing.

That's exactly my point. TC here always loves to fawn over cryengine 3 by posting breathtaking beautiful screenshots. But it's an empty level...he's the only one in it. Meanwhile im in BF4 with 66 people producing nearly as stunning visuals with a kickass game and gameplay as well. TC acts like somehow dice owe it to him to have 'teh foliage' when it is utterly insane to expect or demand that in a game of this type. Calling it disappoint and that the devs "trolled him" is why this topic made me roll my eyes.

Again, it's an xbox 360 and PS3 title.. there are so many limitations. The fact that it looks that good for a current-gen title is enough explanation.

I think BF4 looks pretty damn incredible. Also the fact that it efficiently deals with aliasing using MSAA 4x + SMAA is a win in my book. It also maintains that compatibility when using Crossfire or SLI, unlike Crysis 3.

Lol I love how most people don't have reading comprehension skills on Gamespot.

What are we supposed to see on those screenshots ?

Gamespot shrinks them in size, compresses them and then blows them up so all the detail in them is GONE. Those screens look like crap, while playing the game myself it looks gorgeous.

I guess they improved destruction, like the one in back to karkand, and worked on game balance. Apart from that it's bf3's visuals. I still think bf2 water looks way better than Frostbite water