Battlefield 4 Graphics on Xbox 360 are awful?

PhoenicianWarrior

Distinguished
Oct 2, 2013
45
0
18,530
I just bought Battlefield 4 today for my Xbox 360 and the graphics on multiplayer are just completely awful. I'm honestly not sure what the problem is but Halo 4 and COD Black Ops 2 run at better graphics than this.
 
This comes as a surprise?

Really?

You run a Late 2013 game which is capable of having the best graphics of any game on the market (as of this moment) on a machine that is nearly 8 years old...

How is this a surprise?

Xbox 360 graphics have been bad since Mass Effect 1, Assassin's Creed 1 (+- 2007), 6 years later the graphics can only worsen.

There is a reason next gen consoles are coming out my friend, your post's subject is the reason why.

I suggest you get a pc if you want good graphics because the next gen consoles might disappoint oyu as well...

Actually they don't run better graphics since Battlefield 4 has the best graphics of any game out there right now, your statement is inaccurate.

What you mean is my Xbox makes those games look better because they have less requirements.

Now the only reason they look better is because the texture quality is set to medium, and it's also optimised to look better from a farther distance (meaning that if you could zoom close up it will still look horrible).

Unfortunately there is nothing you can do, this is not the game's fault. My game looks brilliant on my pc and I am running ultra on a 660Ti PE...

(CPU,Ram ect. are top of the line so they assist in getting 59fps (not a full 60 but I'm happy)

If you live in the US. I suggest getting a $1000 pc (you can get a really good rig that can play nearly any game on high-ultra for that price)

I can suggest the parts too, but as for your post that is the Xbox 360's old hardware. You can't really blame it, I mean it's ancient. I am actually surprised they made a version for it.

Had they not the game might have even been more graphics intensive
 
Thank you for you letting me know...I kind of figured that it is outdated, but I thought since they launched it on the Xbox 360 that it would perform better, but I guess not.

Speaking of PC, I have:

Motherboard: ASUS M5A99FX PRO R2.0

CPU: AMD Phenom Black Edition QuadCore 3.8Ghz

Graphics Card: ASUS HD 7770 1GB GDDR5 DirectCu V2

PSU: Corsair Bronze ed CX600 watt

RAM: PNY ddr3 1333Mhz

Will that suffice?
 
What is your OS? Windows 7 64 Bit?
Do you have at least 8Gb of Ram?

The 7770 is a little worse than the 660 which is the recommended BUT it will suffice indeed, if you are considering an upgrade anytime soon I suggest getting the 7850 or 7870 the 7870 could play BF3 on Ultra so it might do a good job of doing close to the same in BF4.

Or you could just wait a bit longer new stuff will be out soon... you want a GPU with at least 3GB of memory though so that 1GB is holding you back.

When did you get that pc? If it was 3 years ago or so I would suggest considering a new 1 or at least an upgrade (by upgrade I mean keep the box/chassis, PSU, Harddrives, keyboard, mouse, headset, monitor and even the Ram) replace the hardware inside the chassis.

A nice Sabertooth 990FX
Radeon 7870
AMD FX6300 (8350 if budget allows)
(old ram as long as it was 8GB of 1600Mhz, your Mhz is right but I am not sure if you have 4GB or 8GB)
You might need to do a clean install of the OS since it's a new motherboard...

That upgrade should last you another 3 years, then after the 3 years you might just need 4GB of Ram and a new graphics card (which is really not that expensive.)

At least Xbox 360 runs Battlefield 4 man :) I am surprised it can even run it to be honest.

Potato>Xbox 360
Toaster with Blu Ray drive> PS3
 
Yeah I have 8GB 1333Mhz RAM, running on OS win 7 ultimate 64bit. Honestly I just built the PC a few months ago (low budget) so it's fairly new hardware. The components you mentioned are quite similair to my components all but the graphics card of course. Perhaps a new GPU will fix my problems for the time being?
 


Sorry, but I have to STRONGLY disagree with Chris there. Well, only with part of what he says anyway. It would most certainly be beneficial to have a 64 bit OS, but not needed. And yes, the 7770 IS going to be what holds your system back. But it will be playable for sure, you might just have to dial the settings back some. So if you are going to put any money into upgrading your system, that is where I would start. But seeing as you just built the system I would hold off on doing even that. And I would recommend holding off on getting any 78xx series card as, at least in my opinion, the performance upgrade would be too similar and wouldn’t justify the price of a new card.

Ok, to the point of where I disagree. The FX 6300 performs no better in gaming benchmarks than the Phenom II x4 965. Their performance is nearly identical and the FX 83xx series does not do much better. To the average user the differences between the three CPUs would go completely unnoticed. Telling him to spend money on a new motherboard and CPU just to have him get something equivalent just does not make any sense.

Really your whole system is good less the graphics card. That is the only deficiency that I can see. It is the only financially wise upgrade I could recommend, at least as far as gaming performance would go. So save that money you would spend on a CPU and motherboard and get a GTX 760, GTX 770 or HD 7950 or HD 7970. Those are really the only four cards I could recommend you upgrade to.

 


Alright now let's fast forward it to next year (since Watchdogs has been delayed).

Rome Total War 2, Battlefield 4 & Watchdogs will NOT run optimally for someone who wants to see good graphics sempifi, so while what you said is true, I was suggesting it out of a person who wants to enjoy good graphics point of view. After he mentioned he just bought the rig new, I just gave him some advice for the future.

That being to buy a medium rig next time and just purchase a entry level current gen GPU of the year he purchases the pc. (in less detail than I am saying now)

Please tell me how the system you are recommending is lagging err I mean faring in RTW2, BF4 on ultra...

The moment Watchdogs is released that CPU will be obsolete on any setting above low or medium with no shadows. (Then you might as well stick to Xbox 360 graphics)
 


Chris, here are some benchmarks to prove my point: http://www.bf4blog.com/battlefield-4-retail-gpu-cpu-benchmarks/

I will grant that the FX 6300 averages 88 FPS while the (Phenom II 965 can be approximated as higher than that of the Phenom II 955) so somewhere above 71 FPS. Both of which are higher than 60 HZ making the performance difference irrelevant unless we are talking about 120 HZ displays. But irregardless of that...

Now lets look at the GPU benchmarks at 1080p: The 7870 which you recommended averages 37 FPS while the GTX 770 averages 50 FPS. Seeing as both are slower than even the slowest quad core CPU tested the GPU is the limiting factor. So yes even in BF4 a solid quad core CPU is sufficient. So for a person who "wants to see good graphics" spending money on a marginal CPU upgrade doesn't make sense when the GPU is the limiting factor.

And as for your statement about Watchdogs, I don't really care about that game so I have not followed it at all. But I severely doubt that a Phenom II 965 would bottleneck the system if it were paired with a 7870 or a GTX 770.
 


You see to you 17 FPS are not allot to me (I like my maths) it's a 24% increase that is huge. So yeah for you 88 ain't that much more than 71 but 24% yeah that's something...

I personally play on a 120hz Display... (so from my point of view... 😛)

We aren't talking about a bottleneck we are talking about performance.

Now while the 770 is a great recommendation did you see the price difference between the 2?

http://www.amazon.com/Sapphire-Radeon-GDDR5-Graphics-11199-03-20G/dp/B007JCNOY6

http://www.amazon.com/Gigabyte-GDDR5-2GB-WINDFORCE-Graphics-GV-N770OC-2GD/dp/B00D3ES1Q0

So if you want to recommend a good card keep it within the same area. If you want to recommend a card in the $350 price range then at least let me do the same (I was trying to be practical because for the money the card I suggested was still allot better than his currently is)

http://www.amazon.com/ASUS-RADEON-280X-PCIE-CTLR/dp/B00FT2KSVK

http://www.amazon.com/ASUS-R9280X-DC2T-3GD5-Graphics-Cards/dp/B00FT2S4BG

http://www.amazon.com/Asus-R9280X-DC2T-3GD5-V2-Radeon-4DisplayPort-PCI-Express/dp/B00G64H7P0

I suggest the 1st 1

Games like battlefield 4 are made for multicore CPU's especially AMD CPU's like the FX 8 core's so whatever you have been told you are under a misconception with regards to that...

The games performance increase is very noticeable, in fact someone coming from a quad core to a 6 or 8 core will immediately pick it up and never go back...

However let's agree to disagree and just say we both gave valuable advise, albeit very different views.

To some 24% increases in FPS are not important to others it is.
 


Chris, You will NOT be getting 71 or 88 FPS since the GPU is the bottleneck. Until a better GPU is purchased upgrading the CPU is pointless.

And since you missed my point I was not comparing a HD 7870 to a GTX 770. But I was stating the fact that in both configurations, the limiting component of the PC is the graphics card, not the CPU. Thus, wasting money on a new CPU would not make sense since it would not yield any notable improvement. And YES WE ARE TALKING BOTTLENECKS WHEN SUGGESTING PC BUILDS OR UPGRADES. If not any advice given is bad advice. Think big picture man! 😉
 
Uhm we were both talking about the suggested upgrade GPU's which would've gotten those fps...

You got confused there :)

obviously his weakest component is the GPU I even said that a couple of times but you cannot ignore the fact that he will have to upgrade his dualcore pretty soon also.

My suggestion OP don't upgrade anything. Give it a year and see what happens (price wise)
 


The problem is, that with the parts you initially suggested he could have bought a GTX 780.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814161404
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813131877
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819113286
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814130918

Also, he has a quad core CPU. Phenom II 965: 4 cores at 3.8 GHz.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103727

 


I can't believe that. I played the beta on a PS3 and bought the final version for the PS3. The graphics are intensely better than the beta. The beta had very few textures and color. The full game looks good. Of course, it will look even better on a high end PC.
 


I found this out as well. But it's not for lack of the original 360 hardware. There are games out that have superior graphics which raises more questions. DICE rushed this product to market. The engine was already proven but they broke it somehow. Even after all the updates the graphics still suffer. Look at the graphics on GTA 5. Probably the best ever in a console game. And certainly better than Battlefield 4. First the financial institutions got greedy, now the game companies are pulling the same shit. Pushing out incomplete products and screwing their investors stockholders by lying about the problems. That's why their in litigation over this very issue.
 


A new cpu adds alot of performance.. i now play at high-ultra. from an 2.6 AMD quad core phenom II 260 (i think it was) to a 3.8 (or 3.6) AMD 8-core fx 8320. the difference in fps is the same as i play high-ultra instead of low-high... u need a good CPU cause levolution is intensive. i have a amd 5850 black edition graphics card. by the way my average fps is about 30-60.
 


This will run it at close to what the xbox one runs it at. You can get 1080 resolution and like medium settings...which looks pretty good.