Video Games: Grinding To Oblivion

[kungtotte]

No, it isn't.

[fuseprime]

Isn't 30+ FPS enough for games??

Yuck!

Kungtotte.

I agree, but IIRC, the BF3 Beta had its issues also. Hopefully DICE can work out the problems and perhaps I'll chalk it up to just being a Beta.

I'm sure there will be better maps. You're right that getting C is frustrating. If you don't get it first, than it's more or less pointless to try. The 5-man squad is great, kind of wish you can "merge" multiple squad and create a sort of "platoon". But, that'd be asking a lot.

[Ser Rodrigo Belmonte]

Lol u guys are just spoilt. I honestly can't see the difference beyond 40 fps. And I've played COD MW2 on 25 fps and it was perfectly fine.

[Ser Rodrigo Belmonte]

Lol u guys are just spoilt. I honestly can't see the difference beyond 40 fps. And I've played COD MW2 on 25 fps and it was perfectly fine.

[Guest]

Lol u guys are just spoilt. I honestly can't see the difference beyond 40 fps. And I've played COD MW2 on 25 fps and it was perfectly fine.

http://boallen.com/fps-compare.html

http://frames-per-second.appspot.com/

[Jabronius Maximus]

I can run bf3 on ultra at about 40-44 fps on 1080p, and that is way more than enough. Hell I struggle to tell the difference between high and ultra, let alone frame rates. But that's probably because I rarely game on PC these days.

[TheEvilKing]

Of course we're spoiled, such is the perk of having a good PC instead of a console, but it's definitely very noticeable.

[Howdyphillip]

http://boallen.com/fps-compare.html

The first shot at 15fps looked exactly like a square bouncing and turning circles...

What is remarkable is that at 60fps it looked exactly like a square bouncing and turning circles

[kungtotte]

You really can't tell a difference, Howdyphillip, or are you being argumentative?

[Fez]

You really can't tell a difference, Howdyphillip, or are you being argumentative?

I see a huge difference between 15 and 30, but I can't see any difference between 30 and 60.

[Werthead]

There is a difference between 30 and 60, but it's less noticeable (and this will vary by how good your eyesight is).

Remember that TV used to run at 24fps, and that was perfectly fine for almost everyone. However, a passive image several feet away is rather different to an active video game image a few inches away. You can tell the difference at higher speeds. It's a case of diminishing returns at higher rates though: you don't notice that 120fps is twice as smooth as 60fps, just a bit smoother.

As a rule of thumb, anything above 30fps should be more than 'good enough', especially for singleplayer. For multiplayer with different people running at different frame rates, it can make a moderate gameplay difference so it's best to get it as high as possible.

[Jabronius Maximus]

Well see that's the thing, I play my PC games on my big screen at a distance of 10-12 feet, so I can't tell differences between different frame rates. And because I'm on my big screen, there's probably a bit of input lag anyway (it doesn't have a dedicated gaming HDMI input like some units have). So increased frame rates probably won't have as big an effect for me.

[kungtotte]

If you're playing it on a TV and it's not a 3D TV, chances are it doesn't even have a refresh rate that's high enough for framerates over 60 FPS to make sense anyway.

[KiDisaster]

I see a pretty big difference between 30 and 60 personally. I don't mind playing certain games at 30fps as long as it's stable. When it fluctuates is when it becomes unplayable for me. Too much stuttering. I'll turn down graphics options until I get a stable 60fps in most games though.

[Jabronius Maximus]

If you're playing it on a TV and it's not a 3D TV, chances are it doesn't even have a refresh rate that's high enough for framerates over 60 FPS to make sense anyway.

Well it's a plasma, so it has that standard 600hz subfield refresh rate or whatever. Either way, I won't notice the difference when fps goes over 40.

[Merentha]

I've played the beta pretty heavily. Personally, I think that the map, which has problems, is actually pretty good. Its the first real BF map that features two tanks and an APC per side that doesn't turn into a massive armorfest all the time, even if it is a little more armor-heavy than I'd like. Its still a good map to show off a little bit of something for everyone. Armor, helis, boats, and decent infantry combat, all in one place. That's rare. The buildings create some really cool dynamics with the helicopters, too. As people get better at the game, too, I expect the map to stabilize, though it is pretty much a loose clusterfuck right now. (A tip, by the way: if the other team has C and you can't dislodge them, just blow the whole damn building up. and prevent them from raining paradrops all over your flags). I did have a few games where the lines spontaneously stabilized between B/C/D with heavy fighting over those three while boats and helis kept trying to push for a backcap or to flank the armor, while engineers cleared the shore. Its a very different map from the rest of the BF series, and a fun change. Keep playing, I had a lot of similar complaints and grew to like it, though I'll admit I haven't played since they opened the beta to everyone.

Another tip if snipers are getting you down: the support class gets basically the PK74 rockets from 2142, called the XM25 Airburst. They're pretty much custom-made for messing with useless rooftop wookiees. Give it a try.

As for performance, its actually much smoother on my machine than the BF3 beta was (same machine) and the BF3 release was miles better performance-wise, except for, oddly enough, loading times. So yeah, it is actually a beta, they are stress-testing a lot, and their last major release did bring some major performance enhancements at release.

Commander mode is sort of in the beta. Its there, but currently only DICE employees can be COs. Every so often they'll hop on and test something, apparently, though I have never experienced it.

edit: Also, if rooftop snipers are really that bad, remember that they're pretty much useless up there. Chances are really low they'll actually kill you, and if they leave their precious post to cap a flag, you get plenty of time to see them coming and set up a decent defense. Finally, while the XM25 is a good way to clear off roofs, at release we'll have Commander Tomahawk missile strikes and supports with mortars to further help. There's definitely a place for set battlelines on this map once people get over their obsession with being Vasili Zaitsev.

Has anyone tried out the Battlefield 4 beta yet? If you do, be careful because they changed all the controls. Switch to Veteran in the controls menu if you want to keep the BF3 controls.

Is this a console thing? The controls are pretty much the same on PC.

[fuseprime]

Merentha,

Yeah, it is. I WISH I had a PC that can handle Battlefield, but I don't. Actually, the last time I played BF on a PC was Vietnam at a LAN center (do they still have those?). I'm playing the Beta on 360, but will have a PC esque experience (so they say) on XBone. Consoles don't hold a candle to PCs when it comes to these type of games.

[Poobah]

Kinda surprised noone's mentioned this - Pokemon X and Y are coming out this weekend (and it seems like half the world ha already managed to get them anyway, based on Reddit) - is anyone else gonna jump on the nostalgia bandwagon?

[TheEvilKing]

I didn't see the issue with snipers or that C tower in my brief play of the BF 4 beta, they seemed pretty easy to deal with using choppers.

[KiDisaster]

They're the first Pokemon games that have come out in a while that I'm at interested in actually. I don't have a DS though, dunno if I can justify spending the money on one just for one game but then again I've been wanting to play the new Fire Emblem too. Maybe I'll see what a used 3DS goes for this weekend. Or see if there's a bundle that saves some money.