Sections

Battlefield 4 ultra settings footage shows environmental destruction

Monday, 5th August 2013 00:43 GMT By Brenna Hillier

Battlefield 4 is making use of Frostbite 3 to power some pretty special graphical effects; check out the amount of dust and debris on-screen in this showcase of the shooter on PC ultra settings.

Frostbite is pretty portable, so you can probably expect other versions to look relatively similar, but it’s pretty unlikely the PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360 versions could manage so many objects and effects on-screen.

As well as the PC and current-gen versions due at the end of October and early November, the latest DICE outing is also headed to PlayStation 4 and Xbox One. It will be interesting to see comparison footage of ultra PC versus the new consoles.

Thanks, PCGamesN.

Latest

31 Comments

  1. silverstorm

    Man that looks beautiful. Will be upgrading my graphics card when the game releases. Wonder if a 9970 will be able to run this at max settings.

    #1 1 year ago
  2. Tyrantsoul

    Am I the only one that didn’t find this that impressive?Maybe it’s because I had enough military shooters this gen to last a life time.Kinda irritating that we go into “next-gen” with the same old headliners.

    Oh well.

    #2 1 year ago
  3. Mike W

    I didn’t think it was impressive at all.

    #3 1 year ago
  4. treborr

    Games should have no HUD more often. (In specific game modes of course)

    #4 1 year ago
  5. Mazzei

    @4

    Hardcore mode have very few HUD elements.

    @2

    Wait for the beta. I wasn’t amused with Battlefield 3 until i got my hands on the beta, pre-ordered instantly.

    Even if im sure Battlefield 4 will be the 3rd one but improved, i will still wait for the beta.

    #5 1 year ago
  6. apollyonbob

    So interesting comparison between the actual official video:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3nJY7n8KaOY&feature=player_detailpage&t=95

    And the same section in the video you posted:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=bAKhveRTIGQ&t=59

    This video does not seem to be the thing you say it is. It does not look like it’s even close to ultra anything. (Especially not ultra hardware as evidenced by the screen tearing.) Who is Threatty? Does he have some kind of official connection to EA/Dice?

    #6 1 year ago
  7. A2ra3l

    You obviously don’t understand screen tearing. It is when the framerate is higher than the refresh rate. Which means they are getting alot of fps. So in other words their hardware is too good for the games current settings. I doubt though that this what ultra will look like on the finished game. They still seem to be missing some textures/ looking a little plain. The bf3 beta I think only went to high as a max setting. Even if you set to ultra it would still be at high

    #7 1 year ago
  8. Crusina

    #6

    Threatty and all the other youtubers who got videos are just popular Battlefield players.

    Secondly this is from Pre-Alpha. What DICE demonstrated was the most up to date version, what we are watching here is an old version of the game.

    So obviously Ultra is not really Ultra (you can see all the placeholders, glitches, etc if you watch the videos) and what DICE showed was a lot better.

    also, the skyscraper has collapsed which covers the entire map in a dusty grey.

    #8 1 year ago
  9. lubu

    Ultra settings ? Ultra Low ?

    #9 1 year ago
  10. smartalves

    This is just one percent or less of the players. It should be fine for SP but on MP I don’t think that will be the general settings. My 7870/Phenom BE x4 is going to last to play BF4. I have friends with SLI that play with 1280 or 1600 for high FPS and they usually kill me more often than I.

    #10 1 year ago
  11. johanconer

    Guys plz help me i want to play battlefield 4 in ultra high settings in my PC but im not sure able to that game on my PC cause I think my system requirements are not enough for that game.plz check my system requirements given below that I can able to play that game with ultra high settings or not

    i had Intel core processor: i 3 550@ 3.20hz
    Ram: 4 GB
    Graphic card:nividia gtx 660
    And window s 7 with 64 bit

    #11 1 year ago
  12. Idle

    @johanconer…. Im no pc wizzard but i dont think you’ll be getting ultra with these specs. you’re above minimum requirements but not at recomended. my specs are > amd fx 4100 @3.6hz (stock speed) radeon hd 7850 oc edition 8GB windows 7 64bit and I think I’ll be getting between medium-high settings at around 40-50 fps (I hope). so you can probably expect the same sort of performance.

    #12 11 months ago
  13. nollie4545

    God that game looks awful, why are people still buying this shit?

    The maps look too clean, there is no texture or interest in the floors or walls, and the gameplay is just comedy, is that supposed to be hardcore mode, people running around like sonic the hedge hog on roller skates, where is the realism and the gritty part, you’re supposed to be in a warzone??

    Seriously, if this is what you guys think constitutes a realist shooter then you’re beyond help.

    #13 11 months ago
  14. Panthro

    @13

    Its not marketed as a simulator though, if anyone thinks its realistic then yeah they are very wrong.

    If people want realism, like I do I play the Arma series.

    I love sneaking up on a couple of players in the woods and taking them out with one shot each to the torso… Battlefield is to fast paced and arcade-like for me anymore.

    #14 11 months ago
  15. Ireland Michael

    > games have hyper realistic graphics and elaborate physics
    > “god that game looks awful”

    Spoilt brats.

    #15 11 months ago
  16. Panthro

    @15

    Yep, gamers sure do not know what the word ‘awful’ means anymore…

    Go play ‘A bugs life’ on the PS1, that is a game you can call awful.

    Also aids is awful, and this game isn’t anywhere near as bad as aids.

    #16 11 months ago
  17. nollie4545

    Oh we are sorry for voicing an opinion, didn’t realise you were the pope and world leader of video gaming who shalt not be argued with. Quite what makes me a spoilt brat when I’m a potential paying customer for this product I have no idea. You’re in the exact same situation so that makes you a cock of the highest order but you don’t see me mentioning it.

    The game looks shocking, I do not see how this moves the game on one iota. I don’t see anyone claiming they are impressed with it.

    THERE IS MORE TO MAKING A GREAT GAME THAN GRAPHICS AND PHYSICS.

    #17 11 months ago
  18. Panthro

    @17

    I think hes just referring to the effort that probably went in to create the visuals and physics just so someone can say they are terrible.

    I know its your opinion and you obviously don’t like the game (I’m not a massive fan either) but you’ve lost sight of what the words ‘awful’ and ‘shocking’ mean.

    #18 11 months ago
  19. nollie4545

    It is ‘shocking’ considering this is supposed to be a next gen game. Maybe I am too used to high end ridiculous fidelity PC games but I wasn’t impressed by it at all.

    Still, the video alone is enough to make most 12 year olds have a wet dream, and they’ll go and get their mom to buy it and it will sell.

    #19 11 months ago
  20. Panthro

    + the video was recorded in early august, the game probably has had a lot of improvements in 3 months.

    And its a multi-platform game, which means something entirely different to what that meant last year… They had to spend time on the PS3, 360, PS4, X1 and the PC, that’s a lot of work dude.

    #20 11 months ago
  21. Ireland Michael

    @17 You’re probably free to express your opinion. As am I.

    As Panthro said, it was a general comment on the complete lack of appreciation gamers have for the amount of effort (in the tens of millions of dollars range) that is being pumped into games, and the broad dismissal of that effort.

    The “spoilt brat” comment comes from the fact that certain elitists group’s view on graphics is so completely laser focused on advancement that anything even a microsecond behind the technological curve is suddenly “awful”, oblivious to just how far we’ve come in less than a decade and incapable of appreciating anything that isn’t hardware-cloggingly high fidelity. It’s an incredibly short sighted attitude.

    Just as a reminder, here’s Battlefield 2, circa 2005: http://www.the-nextlevel.com/previews/pc/battlefield-2/battlefield-2-a.jpg

    The graphical bar for me was set with Okami on the PS2 personally, and to this day I have yet to play a better looking game.

    #21 11 months ago
  22. nollie4545

    Errrr. I couldn’t give a monkeys how many dollars or man hours were pumped into this game. At the end of the day no one buys games based on how long or much they took to create, the same is true of most consumer products.

    The game looks awful for a supposed next gen game and the video only serves to remind me why I don’t buy or play this kind of shit any more.

    I couldn’t give a rats ass if BF4 suddenly becomes a paragon of graphical fidelity, I really could not. I didn’t buy Crysis 3 merely because it looked good. If you’re the kind of person who is buying games because they look nice or because EA spent 100 billion or something on making it, then thats your own loss.

    #22 11 months ago
  23. Ireland Michael

    @22 “Errrr. I couldn’t give a monkeys how many dollars or man hours were pumped into this game.”

    Clearly.

    “At the end of the day no one buys games based on how long or much they took to create, the same is true of most consumer products.”

    I do, if its clear at the end of the product that a lot of love and care and attention and effort went into the products. And while it’s not as much an advancement over BF3 as it could be, its a damn sight way above the likes of a Call of Duty.

    Bad Rats is awful.
    Road to Hell is awful.
    The War Z is awful.

    This isn’t even close to “awful”.

    #23 11 months ago
  24. Panthro

    Quite clear he doesnt know what he wants.

    He argues about the game not moving forward because of the graphics etc…
    Then he says he doesn’t care if BF4 becomes ‘the paragon of graphical fidelity’

    If not, then why are you even commenting on how the game looks at all…

    Rip it apart with the things you see wrong with gameplay and don’t clutch at straws just because you see an opening to attack a game you don’t like.

    ‘These graphics suck’
    -2 minutes later…
    ‘I don’t care if BF4 has the best graphics ever’

    #24 11 months ago
  25. nollie4545

    Yawn…

    I am quite sure I know what I want. I am certain that only the most sad or inane video game player/buyer would be concerned about how long it took to develop a game and bring it to market, or by extension, how much it cost company X.

    I am ripping the game apart. I stated, quite clearly, that the ground and walls looked far too bland and the more I look the more hideous it becomes. The devs have clearly focused on particles and pieces of random shit flying around in the wind, and so on, and appear to have neglected the essentials like the environmental details. That is fine of course if you are a numb skull blaster whose attention will never stretch to the map.

    For a next gen game, it looks pretty rough, bland even. Apart from the character models, and weapons, and some of the effects involved (which do look a bit overblown) I’m far from impressed.

    How that sits with your holier than thou stance as you sit on your pew in the hallowed church of EA is not my concern. The game looks awful. It seems to be suffering from the reverse of what you see in Crysis 3, where the devs cram so much detail in it looks a tad overblown. Here you have the reverse.

    Maybe no one plays this stuff for the environments? lol

    Sorry Irish Mike, I know how much you love your butthurtfilled games, and can’t bear critcism of them, but if you are defending the content shown in that video, thats fanbois delusion of the highest order. Fucking Halo 2 had nicer environments…

    #25 11 months ago
  26. Panthro

    How am I ‘sitting in the church of EA’ I stated earlier I wasn’t a fan of battlefield…

    I was just pointing out that your over reacting, which you are.

    #26 11 months ago
  27. nollie4545

    Over-reacting? You’re one of the two clowns trying to defend the indefensible. I sincerely hope that the game has moved on since that video was made.

    #27 11 months ago
  28. Panthro

    Saying its awful is an over reaction.
    Was the footage really ‘Extremely bad or unpleasant’?
    You could of just said the textures lacked the detail you thought games in the next gen were supposed to have and your point would have came across clearly, judging from your other posts you obviously are just a ‘anything EA does is evil or retarded’ sheep.

    #28 11 months ago
  29. Hcw87

    BF4 is not a next gen game. It’s a cross gen game, so ofcourse it doesn’t have the same visual fidelity as for example Killzone Shadowfall.

    BF5 (OR BC3) on the other hand most likely will, especially if it’s next gen/PC exclusive.

    Also, there aren’t any other FPS games coming out in the next few months that looks any better than this (except for the NEXT GEN ONLY Killzone).

    This trailer also showcases one of the more bland maps, wait until you see some of the outdoor forest type maps before passing judgement.

    #29 11 months ago
  30. Ireland Michael

    @25 Sorry Irish Mike, I know how much you love your butthurtfilled games, and can’t bear critcism of them”

    While I’ve enjoyed both Battlefield 3 & Bad Company 2, I don’t have any huge investment in the franchise.

    Simplifying things down to nothing more than personal bias is a very easy way to avoid the main topic of the conversation. Anyone whose been here for more than five minutes knows I have no platform, developer or publisher preference, and that I have no interest in brand loyalty.

    “but if you are defending the content shown in that video, thats fanbois delusion of the highest order.”

    I’m defending technological accomplishment. Even if its not the greatest looking, highest fidelity game in creation, it’s still fairly impressive, and continues to inch us even closer to photo-realism. I would much prefer to appreciate what’s good about it instead of obsessing over what’s not TEH CUTTING EDGE.

    I don’t need something to be top of the range to be impressed by its artistry. There’s a word for that kind of attitude – snobbery.

    Like I said before, Okami to me is still the best looking game ever made.

    “Fucking Halo 2 had nicer environments”

    Halo 2: http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/18mrkwbyabcpfjpg/original.jpg

    BF4: http://i.picpar.com/G5w.png

    #30 11 months ago
  31. nollie4545

    Snobbery, no publisher preference, ya ya ya.. heard it all before. How the fuck you can be a graphics snob I have no idea.

    I can’t quite see what the hell you are on about: ‘technological accomplishment’, show me where? Oh you mean blue tiger stripe camo on the weapons.

    You’re banging your gums about a game which looks less than impressive in the video, so unless you are a butthurt fan boy, then obviously you were on the threads about Crysis 2 and 3…

    I do own BF2 and All the crysis games. I am not an automatic anti EA bandwagon rider (although they don’t help themselves), but if this is what we’re supposed to be raving about god help us all. Photo realism!!? Are you suffering from myopia or something??

    You can’t bitch about some technological achievement then concede its not actually that good looking… lol

    #31 11 months ago

Comments are now closed on this article.