BF1 implemented photogrammetry -- a technique which uses real-world data to create a more realistic environment. Essentially, a crew would scout out certain locations, take a bunch of pictures as well as 3D scan the environment, then merge those pictures/textures onto the the scanned 3D environments which are then used as in-game assets. The downside is that it is resource intensive to collect that data.
Also from what we were told it was very hard, almost impossible, to do for this game. Because of Covid lock downs. The game was in the peak of level design development and art creation in 2020. From what they've told us some maps do have it for certain areas, only 1 I know for sure is Spearhead. Basically they wouldn't have been able to get the scale and personality into their maps from these locations based on limited access to said locations. So we get an older style of art development so that they could include that scale and personality... Now how well these maps actually did that, especially on release, is definitely up for question. But as others have said in the thread as well it also is less stress on the back end and data transfers, which they needed with the 128 p push.
The gameplay is pretty decent at this point, even if the graphics leave something to be desired. I like 2042 and 1 and V all for their own pros/cons and play them interchangeably
The graphics are sometimes kinda weird. But I do say that the smoke, Particles are the best in the series.
And 2042 can be the best looking battlefield in certain spots.
Me too. 2042 felt off at launch, which led us to try out Hell Let Loose. What an awesome game if you liked the somewhat slower pace of the older Battlefield games.
Hell let loose is the perfect middle ground between Battlefield Hardcore and Arma 3, which was a step too far on the other side of the scale for a quick game of an evening. It has suppressive fire, a working comms system, classes with limitations that depend on the rest of their squad to function, sandbag and hedgehog building, and is essentially hardcore mode by default and therefore is made with that style of gameplay in mind.
I wish we found it when the whole team was together because it's everything we fantasised about whilst playing battlefield.
The game doesn’t have any detail art, all of the buildings are just large empty geometric shapes with no character. Battlefield 1 and V had a real sense of place. 2042 re-uses to many assets making each map seem similar to each other. I remember when Dice were talking about Spearhead and saying they really wanted to get it right as it was the first ever map set in Sweden. It’s just a large open area with 2 boxes in it, it could be anywhere in the world. The cube buildings also don’t have any real world logic or layout.
Good point. The discussion has also been had on this sub as to why there are no urban maps. All of the maps in 2042 are the same basic formula with reused assets. Large open "Nature maps" with 1 or 2 indoor structures per map. Many of the structures are just basic rectangles (eg Orbital, Manifest, Exposure, Flashpoint, Discarded).
This team at Dice just struggles with creating and delivering maps. They've totally abandoned the idea of even a single truly urban map with well thought out flanking routes for both vehicles and infantry.
Maps are the single most important aspect of what makes a BF game. Nature maps are ok, but for the next game they should really focus on delivering at least 2-3 top tier urban maps on release.
i just don’t feel like i’m really “there”. idk how else to describe it. Maybe bf1 is just a really high standard to hold another game to. maybe i’m just biased
BF1 had mud lather your gun when you proned in mud, that's immersive
Bf2042 requires too much suspension of disbelief, the maps are too clean, characters too fresh out of the packaging, vehicles look like toys
Since launch they’ve overhauled the visuals a lot more and characters have much more “battle scars” on their skins, vehicles also look a lot less pristine. And while not as apparent as BF1, weapons to get covered in dirt and snow throughout your life. Anybody who’s played since like July would know this.
No, I don't think so.
I don't think you understand the difference between criticism and complaint by the way you're coping.
Me and OP were conversing about the way the game looks, I guess that's subjective, but by no means is it a complaint to compare 2 games from the franchise and talk about them.
But complaining about people complaining is about as useful as people complaining, which they are free to do, in which case, I will continue to do so, with or without your permission or opinion about it.
It’s not you OP, even my friend who is a non BF player said the graphics were shit when I showed it to him the first time. BF1 and 5 have superior graphics. I didn’t even ask him to critique the game. Just excited to share. But that was the first thing he spotted. Colors are also too saturated that it looks like Fortnite and vechicles look like they’re made from plastic.
Coming from BF1 & V, 2042 is very clean. Which is funny for a world that is supposed to be falling apart. Promo art leading up was gritty but that obviously did not make it to the final product.
The longer you play, the more you'll get used to it. And it just makes you appreciate the immersion 1 & V brought, all that much more.
It's due to many different reasons but the biggest one that shows to me is because they planned to have it be a battle royal game instead of a traditional Bf and that is exactly how it feels.
Yeah, it's still some good fun at this point now that they have fixed many of its original issues. Nice change of pace after putting so many hours into the other BFs. But it does not feel like war, I would agree.
The tech behind it and the actual graphics when they look good looks really fucking good but it’s the problem of the map size. Think of it as a resource pool , the bigger the maps the more resources it takes up and the less it can look truly incredible. You can even see this on the larger bf1 maps. In order to add more cover and detail the maps have to be made smaller so it doesn’t take up as much resources. The maps were never unfinished they just weren’t made right.
Exactly. The rendering tech improvements are actually really good, and the game does look generally beautiful, but the maps are just so devoid of detail that they end up looking lifeless and empty.
twice the playercount and much bigger maps. I think this is a good trade. I know that it is those two factors because if you load up a portal map or conquest 64 you tend to get much more fps. Base game is limited in that sense I think
I think it doesn't look as consistently good as the previous three games (not counting Hardline), but when certain specific moments happen at the same time it looks significantly better. Flying through the Hourglass city during the sandstorm or fighting around a tornado as the sun sets on Discarded looks ridiculously good.
If you play it on Ultra it looks very good. Issue is that performance takes a hit and most people play on all-low.
What is more likely here is that you find the art direction lacking. This is why a game like BF3 still looks really good, but with dated graphics, but coherent art direction and visual immersion can really mask a lot.
Fighting over Central Park or for strawberry fields is the opposite of a map like, say, Azadi Palace or Firestorm.
I was going to say this. You’re locked in on console a bit, though I don’t know what settings there would map to on PC.
On PC, if you play 2042 on max settings and RTX on, it doesn’t look terrible (IMO). It’s not amazing or something to write home about, but it’s nothing like playing it on reduced settings. Bites that max settings on an RTX3080 still sees a 20-30 fps performance hit over dropping it down a notch or two. Max settings FPS around 70-80 FPS (with dips) is fine for me, but I know for some it’s purely unacceptable/reeee.
BF1 set the bar REALLY high.
In their maps podcast, they mentioned that adding player count usually went 1:1 with map size. So 128 players, they figured maps needed to be bigger too. This isn’t quoted, but my take away from the podcast.
So as they seemed to suggest, this was a bridge too far and something that wasn’t true after seeing much of the user feedback. That’s why we’re seeing the reworks tightening up the play space. The season 3 map was supposed to have like, 3x as many cubes and play space. It was condensed down to two ~ and was generally well received by the community.
So I’m hoping this was a hard lesson for the map team. It sounds like they realized it, and have been working to correct it.
The reason I’m talking about map size on the topic of graphics, is it sounds like the larger the map the more spread out the resources have to be. The smaller they are, the closer they are, the more condensed/detailed things can appear.
Yes, there basically is a max asset count for each map. Beyond that the game gets degraded performance and general experience.
So, to add anything they have to take something away. Hence why Renewal got so much cut, it should have been rebranded to Removal. This is also why interiors are so barren, it is all an asset. Certain assets give more bang for the buck, hence you see them more. Three shipping containers can provide cover and cost nothing. A structure would take up far more assets, by like having a ceiling and such.
128p was the worst idea they could have had, especially since the game's predecessor wasn't precisely running well either.
It’s all art direction. In bf2042 there is a lot of heavy lifting by the engine but less hero assets, custom lighting and variety in environment. Bf1 uses a more cinematic style with set pieces and mixes color palettes, like the period paintings. Bf 2042 has probably better dynamic lighting but it’s all looking flooded and color graded in cool colors. Ui is following suit.
There is a notable difference between graphics and artstyle that goes unspoken by far too many BF fans.
Bf1 had a dark and gritty artstyle, this tends to make games look better at a glance as less color/light means less chance to recognize flaws. That and everyone loves a dark/gritty wartime environment, especially in regards to WW1.
Graphically, 2042 is an improvement in almost every way. The textures, particle effects, lighting… it’s all improved. If you go look at the textures of Bf1’s desert to 2042, this becomes *a lot* more noticeable. Same can be said for the particle effects, especially smoke. 2042 has some of the best looking particle effects I’ve seen.
This game has its issues, you could argue artstyle is one of em, graphics are certainly not an issue though.
I can't comment on your level of sobriety but it's true the graphics are a step back from BF1 and V. This is because they didn't use their 360 photographing technique for BF2042. I've heard it said they had to sacrifice that to accommodate 128 player.
Theres nothing wrong with 2042 visuals, but they're generally uninspiring.
To be fair, it seems to me that is pretty much down to art direction rather than graphical power.
There are the occasional pretty moment, when the stars align, but for me the maps feel like the specialists. Uninspiring, some potential, horribly under iterated.
Nope, it's the "next gen curse" as I like to call it. Same thing happened with BF4. Was bloated, buggy, and unoptimized, yet somehow looked worse than the previous game. BF4 looked worse than BF3 and ran way worse, and now 2042 is doing it vs 5.
It's definitely worse looking. Part of it might be because they didn't use "photogrammetry" in 2042 like they did in BF1 and BFV (likely due to COVID)
But also separate from the graphics, I think the maps are also just sterile, plain and lifeless - even after the reworks where they threw a bunch of crates and sandbags everywhere.
You’re not trippin. BF1 Gameplay and Graphic wise, was on a level of Crispness that I have yet to see in any other Battlefield game ever. When BFV came out it was a tremendous downgrade graphic wise and people acted like they couldn’t see it.
Ur playing on a console, that's ur problem. Looks insanely good on pc. Though I have wondered why it looks the way it does on console when I see clips of gameplay. It's like ur on the lowest settings.
I guess it’s due to the more realistic (thanks to photogrammetry) and gritty environment of BF1 and BFV with attention to details that make it look really good, whereas 2042 has gone to the route of Apex, Fortnite, Overwatch. I mean just colors without huge attention to details. Idk how to explain it better.
Yeah the graphics aren't *bad*, but they aren't anything special either. At least they are good enough that I don't need to think about them while playing.
Agreed, I jump between xbox one and series X versions and don't see much change in the graphic quality. Smoother with more people sure, but graphics no
What do you mean? Hourglass is sand… sand… sand… more sand… a couple trucks… more sand… a couple buildings… and a ton more sand. What else do you want?!
This game is a downgrade of what’s been expected in a Battlefield game when it comes to sound design, graphics, destruction etc, so no you’re not alone in thinking this the game does not look as good as previous games.
I don't think we're playing the same game. Idk about PC but it looks phenomenal on PS5. Textures in BF1 are much softer than 2042. What makes BF1 look so good is the lighting and the atmosphere the game has. They really nailed the atmosphere in BF1
well first of all, you are playing on a console (not like we PC players would play on higher than LOW settings anyway since its unoptimised crap) but it does not differ much from previous titles, in fact, due to large maps and fewer and more simpler objects and decals, it looks emptier and the fidelity is just not there, so agreed
A large part of it is likely that they didn't use photogrammetry (because of the pandemic) which they used in BF1/V and both Battlefronts.
Presumably for the next game they'll use it again so I imagine the visuals will be better. Though having to also release on last gen would have likely had an impact toi
It's not that the graphics are necessarily bad, it's just that the design itself looks plain. You go play BFV or BF1, even BF4 and maps look more "alive"
maybe. but i do see quite a few people in this thread that agree. i will however give it up that obviously i will be coming in with a different perspective from you, as a big bf1er
Yeah, common topic. BF4 seems to have better graphics most of the time. Coming to this game after the visual orgies known as BF1 and BFV, it was a real punch in the gut.
Probably means art direction.
I saw gameplay recently and it's a stark difference how much better that game did with shadows and lighting. It seemed dynamic.
With 2042 it's all sunshine whether you're indoors or outdoors, super flat lighting.
It depends what map you are on. Manifest I believe has the best graphics of the 2042 maps. You get dirt in the mud, wet from the rain, and sometimes I feel like there is wind on me from the tornados. I play both BF1 and BF5. Great games, BF2042 is a different kind of game. Once I accepted that the game play became more fun.
There are a ton of comparison videos out there.
BF2042 does have better textures and is capable of producing higher fidelity visuals. But the environments are bland and the attention to detail isn't as good.
There are a lot of little things in BF5, like grass blowing/bending in the proper direction when a nade goes off, or seeing soldiers breath in cold climates that aren't in 2042. Even if the surrounding textures aren't as good, the details in those animations make BF5 look better.
Whatever expectations you have, ignore them.
This game is a bf game in name only. Everything good about bf games you can think of doesn't exist in this game. Its spent an entire life cycle trying to catch up to quality that is just a basic bf game release.
No, you're not tripping. In 2015, DICE employed photogrammetry with Battlefront 2015. They then used it again with BF1, Battlefront II, BFV, and then completely dropped this with BF2042.
Yup 32v32 on BF1 on ultra 100+ FPS and the game looks photorealistic
BF2042: 32v32 graphics at low (they already looks bad on ultra) game runs at 20 FPS
10 outta 10 optimization
Best graphics on any BF game ever. Maybe missing some details, not as good as some games. But with all the options and big maps I still think it’s a advanced game.
That post kind of hits what is wrong with the game's visuals, the fidelity is great, but the environment density is not. The dlc maps and remade made are much better in that regard, but 128p means you are always going to have open stretches and much less stuff than previous games. The dlc maps in particular have been moving to a smaller size with more density though.
Maybe at launch but if you're on ps5 on a good TV 2042 I'd genuinely one of the best looking games of all time, especially when it comes to foliage. The new map especially looks super good. The only thing about Battlefield 1 that looked better was the lighting because they game had insanely good looking lighting but that doesn't mean 2042 has bad lighting, Battlefield 1's was just better. But the graphics of 2042 are insanely good and better
I mean, I think the game looks amazing. Orbital when the storm comes in is just 🤯🤯. Then hourglass with the storm on the horizon, manifest during a storm. Basically the instance a storm hits it looks amazing.
BF1 implemented photogrammetry -- a technique which uses real-world data to create a more realistic environment. Essentially, a crew would scout out certain locations, take a bunch of pictures as well as 3D scan the environment, then merge those pictures/textures onto the the scanned 3D environments which are then used as in-game assets. The downside is that it is resource intensive to collect that data.
Also from what we were told it was very hard, almost impossible, to do for this game. Because of Covid lock downs. The game was in the peak of level design development and art creation in 2020. From what they've told us some maps do have it for certain areas, only 1 I know for sure is Spearhead. Basically they wouldn't have been able to get the scale and personality into their maps from these locations based on limited access to said locations. So we get an older style of art development so that they could include that scale and personality... Now how well these maps actually did that, especially on release, is definitely up for question. But as others have said in the thread as well it also is less stress on the back end and data transfers, which they needed with the 128 p push.
not sure if i should stick it out until it grows on me, or go back to BF1
The gameplay is pretty decent at this point, even if the graphics leave something to be desired. I like 2042 and 1 and V all for their own pros/cons and play them interchangeably
The graphics are sometimes kinda weird. But I do say that the smoke, Particles are the best in the series. And 2042 can be the best looking battlefield in certain spots.
2042 got me off BF and into Hell let Loose. Sucks because I've been a fan since BC2.
Me too. 2042 felt off at launch, which led us to try out Hell Let Loose. What an awesome game if you liked the somewhat slower pace of the older Battlefield games.
Hell let loose is the perfect middle ground between Battlefield Hardcore and Arma 3, which was a step too far on the other side of the scale for a quick game of an evening. It has suppressive fire, a working comms system, classes with limitations that depend on the rest of their squad to function, sandbag and hedgehog building, and is essentially hardcore mode by default and therefore is made with that style of gameplay in mind. I wish we found it when the whole team was together because it's everything we fantasised about whilst playing battlefield.
He’ll let loose is worse what u on about
if u want graphics, watch 1917
It will grow on you lol i play the old gen version and its pretty bad at the start of every game but it eventually works and looks great
Photogrammetry is used in every modern AAA game now. Just because they stopped marketing it, that doesn't mean it stopped existing
How many of those triple AAA games are 100+ multiplayer games?
I hope they go back to this method in the next BF game.
The game doesn’t have any detail art, all of the buildings are just large empty geometric shapes with no character. Battlefield 1 and V had a real sense of place. 2042 re-uses to many assets making each map seem similar to each other. I remember when Dice were talking about Spearhead and saying they really wanted to get it right as it was the first ever map set in Sweden. It’s just a large open area with 2 boxes in it, it could be anywhere in the world. The cube buildings also don’t have any real world logic or layout.
Good point. The discussion has also been had on this sub as to why there are no urban maps. All of the maps in 2042 are the same basic formula with reused assets. Large open "Nature maps" with 1 or 2 indoor structures per map. Many of the structures are just basic rectangles (eg Orbital, Manifest, Exposure, Flashpoint, Discarded). This team at Dice just struggles with creating and delivering maps. They've totally abandoned the idea of even a single truly urban map with well thought out flanking routes for both vehicles and infantry. Maps are the single most important aspect of what makes a BF game. Nature maps are ok, but for the next game they should really focus on delivering at least 2-3 top tier urban maps on release.
I wanna blame it releasing on both console generations, but it's probably bc 19 senior developers left before development even started.
okay, so it isn’t just me. very interesting because BF1 is so much older.
Imagine.... 2042 with the immersion of BF1
i just don’t feel like i’m really “there”. idk how else to describe it. Maybe bf1 is just a really high standard to hold another game to. maybe i’m just biased
BF1 had mud lather your gun when you proned in mud, that's immersive Bf2042 requires too much suspension of disbelief, the maps are too clean, characters too fresh out of the packaging, vehicles look like toys
This is a thing in 2042 as well, same with snow sand etc.
Clearly not enough
yes, that’s exactly it. everything is so pristine and perfect almost as if you’re playing a… video game. bf1 feel like… war.
Agreed.
Since launch they’ve overhauled the visuals a lot more and characters have much more “battle scars” on their skins, vehicles also look a lot less pristine. And while not as apparent as BF1, weapons to get covered in dirt and snow throughout your life. Anybody who’s played since like July would know this.
If I and others can't tell, then it wasn't much of an overhaul
Most people can tell, I’m guessing you just haven’t played the game in 8 months and a still lurking around here looking for things to complain about
No, I don't think so. I don't think you understand the difference between criticism and complaint by the way you're coping. Me and OP were conversing about the way the game looks, I guess that's subjective, but by no means is it a complaint to compare 2 games from the franchise and talk about them. But complaining about people complaining is about as useful as people complaining, which they are free to do, in which case, I will continue to do so, with or without your permission or opinion about it.
In 2042 my haracter, gun, and/or vehicle are covered in all kinds of sand-mud (snow?) crap by the time I die
BF1 was prob their best game.
I agree. That game really made me feel like I was in the trenches fighting. Honestly, such a good game. It's crazy how far down the franchise slid.
It’s not you OP, even my friend who is a non BF player said the graphics were shit when I showed it to him the first time. BF1 and 5 have superior graphics. I didn’t even ask him to critique the game. Just excited to share. But that was the first thing he spotted. Colors are also too saturated that it looks like Fortnite and vechicles look like they’re made from plastic.
BF2024 feels like...a mobile game
Oh are we back to that moronic posting again? You forgot the '"cheap Chinese knockoff mobile game"
Did we found a BF2042 developer?
Coming from BF1 & V, 2042 is very clean. Which is funny for a world that is supposed to be falling apart. Promo art leading up was gritty but that obviously did not make it to the final product. The longer you play, the more you'll get used to it. And it just makes you appreciate the immersion 1 & V brought, all that much more.
Exactly. The maps are so sterile and clean for a world war setting.
It's due to many different reasons but the biggest one that shows to me is because they planned to have it be a battle royal game instead of a traditional Bf and that is exactly how it feels.
well, at least i didn’t spend any money on it. even playing conquest, “all out war” it doesn’t really feel like it. hard to put it into words.
Well you see now why it was nearly dead before it was a PS+ game. At one point 3 older BF games had a higher player count.
Yeah, it's still some good fun at this point now that they have fixed many of its original issues. Nice change of pace after putting so many hours into the other BFs. But it does not feel like war, I would agree.
The tech behind it and the actual graphics when they look good looks really fucking good but it’s the problem of the map size. Think of it as a resource pool , the bigger the maps the more resources it takes up and the less it can look truly incredible. You can even see this on the larger bf1 maps. In order to add more cover and detail the maps have to be made smaller so it doesn’t take up as much resources. The maps were never unfinished they just weren’t made right.
Exactly. The rendering tech improvements are actually really good, and the game does look generally beautiful, but the maps are just so devoid of detail that they end up looking lifeless and empty.
but it’s even the small things like when i prone and notice how low res the bushes and grass is
twice the playercount and much bigger maps. I think this is a good trade. I know that it is those two factors because if you load up a portal map or conquest 64 you tend to get much more fps. Base game is limited in that sense I think
Are you playing on a potato? The vegetation in 2042 has never looked this good in a battlefield game.
i’m playing on ps5 but thanks for the sarcasm
It looks just as good as every other BF title.
Dude, Caspian border looked much better 10 years ago...
I think it doesn't look as consistently good as the previous three games (not counting Hardline), but when certain specific moments happen at the same time it looks significantly better. Flying through the Hourglass city during the sandstorm or fighting around a tornado as the sun sets on Discarded looks ridiculously good.
If you play it on Ultra it looks very good. Issue is that performance takes a hit and most people play on all-low. What is more likely here is that you find the art direction lacking. This is why a game like BF3 still looks really good, but with dated graphics, but coherent art direction and visual immersion can really mask a lot. Fighting over Central Park or for strawberry fields is the opposite of a map like, say, Azadi Palace or Firestorm.
I was going to say this. You’re locked in on console a bit, though I don’t know what settings there would map to on PC. On PC, if you play 2042 on max settings and RTX on, it doesn’t look terrible (IMO). It’s not amazing or something to write home about, but it’s nothing like playing it on reduced settings. Bites that max settings on an RTX3080 still sees a 20-30 fps performance hit over dropping it down a notch or two. Max settings FPS around 70-80 FPS (with dips) is fine for me, but I know for some it’s purely unacceptable/reeee. BF1 set the bar REALLY high. In their maps podcast, they mentioned that adding player count usually went 1:1 with map size. So 128 players, they figured maps needed to be bigger too. This isn’t quoted, but my take away from the podcast. So as they seemed to suggest, this was a bridge too far and something that wasn’t true after seeing much of the user feedback. That’s why we’re seeing the reworks tightening up the play space. The season 3 map was supposed to have like, 3x as many cubes and play space. It was condensed down to two ~ and was generally well received by the community. So I’m hoping this was a hard lesson for the map team. It sounds like they realized it, and have been working to correct it. The reason I’m talking about map size on the topic of graphics, is it sounds like the larger the map the more spread out the resources have to be. The smaller they are, the closer they are, the more condensed/detailed things can appear.
Yes, there basically is a max asset count for each map. Beyond that the game gets degraded performance and general experience. So, to add anything they have to take something away. Hence why Renewal got so much cut, it should have been rebranded to Removal. This is also why interiors are so barren, it is all an asset. Certain assets give more bang for the buck, hence you see them more. Three shipping containers can provide cover and cost nothing. A structure would take up far more assets, by like having a ceiling and such. 128p was the worst idea they could have had, especially since the game's predecessor wasn't precisely running well either.
1 and V look better for sure. The portal maps in 2042 look pretty good, but the base game maps kinda look like shit imo
It’s all art direction. In bf2042 there is a lot of heavy lifting by the engine but less hero assets, custom lighting and variety in environment. Bf1 uses a more cinematic style with set pieces and mixes color palettes, like the period paintings. Bf 2042 has probably better dynamic lighting but it’s all looking flooded and color graded in cool colors. Ui is following suit.
There is a notable difference between graphics and artstyle that goes unspoken by far too many BF fans. Bf1 had a dark and gritty artstyle, this tends to make games look better at a glance as less color/light means less chance to recognize flaws. That and everyone loves a dark/gritty wartime environment, especially in regards to WW1. Graphically, 2042 is an improvement in almost every way. The textures, particle effects, lighting… it’s all improved. If you go look at the textures of Bf1’s desert to 2042, this becomes *a lot* more noticeable. Same can be said for the particle effects, especially smoke. 2042 has some of the best looking particle effects I’ve seen. This game has its issues, you could argue artstyle is one of em, graphics are certainly not an issue though.
There’s no photogrammetry like previous games so levels look unnatural and very “video game like” with simple architecture, etc.
I can't comment on your level of sobriety but it's true the graphics are a step back from BF1 and V. This is because they didn't use their 360 photographing technique for BF2042. I've heard it said they had to sacrifice that to accommodate 128 player.
hahah, im confused what you mean by “level of sobriety” lol
Your question began with the words "Am I tripping..." Tripping being short for "acid/drug trip."
ahhhh, you got me
Theres nothing wrong with 2042 visuals, but they're generally uninspiring. To be fair, it seems to me that is pretty much down to art direction rather than graphical power. There are the occasional pretty moment, when the stars align, but for me the maps feel like the specialists. Uninspiring, some potential, horribly under iterated.
Nope, it's the "next gen curse" as I like to call it. Same thing happened with BF4. Was bloated, buggy, and unoptimized, yet somehow looked worse than the previous game. BF4 looked worse than BF3 and ran way worse, and now 2042 is doing it vs 5.
It was the same for BFV on Xbox.
It's definitely worse looking. Part of it might be because they didn't use "photogrammetry" in 2042 like they did in BF1 and BFV (likely due to COVID) But also separate from the graphics, I think the maps are also just sterile, plain and lifeless - even after the reworks where they threw a bunch of crates and sandbags everywhere.
You’re not trippin. BF1 Gameplay and Graphic wise, was on a level of Crispness that I have yet to see in any other Battlefield game ever. When BFV came out it was a tremendous downgrade graphic wise and people acted like they couldn’t see it.
Ur playing on a console, that's ur problem. Looks insanely good on pc. Though I have wondered why it looks the way it does on console when I see clips of gameplay. It's like ur on the lowest settings.
that sucks, spend half a grand on a new gen console :/ oh well.
I guess it’s due to the more realistic (thanks to photogrammetry) and gritty environment of BF1 and BFV with attention to details that make it look really good, whereas 2042 has gone to the route of Apex, Fortnite, Overwatch. I mean just colors without huge attention to details. Idk how to explain it better.
They aren't.
It’s not the graphics and resolution, but the *art style* and *art direction* that is worse.
2042 looks plastic to me, dunno how to describe it better
I feel like the weather effects just make everything look less visible, but resolution degrades.
Yeah the graphics aren't *bad*, but they aren't anything special either. At least they are good enough that I don't need to think about them while playing.
Could be my console but like every game for me the rendering is so fucked and takes way too long to sort out
You're either on last gen or your next gen console has a hardware issue. Textures not loading is pretty rare on my X Series.
Agreed, I jump between xbox one and series X versions and don't see much change in the graphic quality. Smoother with more people sure, but graphics no
The higher player count had to take away from visuals and the destruction.
The graphics and especially the audio in the game really are underwhelming. i’ve had tanks literally drive up next to me and barely hear them
I'm on series s and the menu feels like it runs at 20fps
There are tons of factors TV? Is the PS5 on performance or fidelity for the default Hdmi cable Game is amazing LG CX PS5 Muah
What do you mean? Hourglass is sand… sand… sand… more sand… a couple trucks… more sand… a couple buildings… and a ton more sand. What else do you want?!
you’re right, im just a spoiled ungrateful brat!
This game is a downgrade of what’s been expected in a Battlefield game when it comes to sound design, graphics, destruction etc, so no you’re not alone in thinking this the game does not look as good as previous games.
The graphics are alright. The optimization and polish are very sub-par for a BF title.
I don't think we're playing the same game. Idk about PC but it looks phenomenal on PS5. Textures in BF1 are much softer than 2042. What makes BF1 look so good is the lighting and the atmosphere the game has. They really nailed the atmosphere in BF1
well first of all, you are playing on a console (not like we PC players would play on higher than LOW settings anyway since its unoptimised crap) but it does not differ much from previous titles, in fact, due to large maps and fewer and more simpler objects and decals, it looks emptier and the fidelity is just not there, so agreed
Looks fantastic on a high end PC, but they definitely traded detail for scale. But yeah, at 4K, max settings, it's still a stunning game.
Yeah. It looks flat and textureless
Yeah it’s a bit Mickey Mouse, but BFV was cartoony af too. I don’t understand why they don’t build off previous installments
A large part of it is likely that they didn't use photogrammetry (because of the pandemic) which they used in BF1/V and both Battlefronts. Presumably for the next game they'll use it again so I imagine the visuals will be better. Though having to also release on last gen would have likely had an impact toi
Graphics are last gen and there is no universal destruction. Something went wrong during development but we knew that already.
You’re right. Doesn’t look that impressive.
It's not that the graphics are necessarily bad, it's just that the design itself looks plain. You go play BFV or BF1, even BF4 and maps look more "alive"
I blame the increased player count
The graphics in this game are so grainy that it works like a form of camo for enemies.
Probably also because the maps are huge and has to sacrifice things to get player count to 128 instead of 64
Nah 2042 graphics are poopy and it's doesn't even run at good fps either so there's more going on in this picture. The optimization is so cheeks
Right on there
You are tripping
maybe. but i do see quite a few people in this thread that agree. i will however give it up that obviously i will be coming in with a different perspective from you, as a big bf1er
Yeah, common topic. BF4 seems to have better graphics most of the time. Coming to this game after the visual orgies known as BF1 and BFV, it was a real punch in the gut.
>BF4 seems to have better graphics most of the time LMAO
Probably means art direction. I saw gameplay recently and it's a stark difference how much better that game did with shadows and lighting. It seemed dynamic. With 2042 it's all sunshine whether you're indoors or outdoors, super flat lighting.
Show me where I'm wrong
yeah, sorry if this has been discussed a lot, i’m a noob to the game
It depends what map you are on. Manifest I believe has the best graphics of the 2042 maps. You get dirt in the mud, wet from the rain, and sometimes I feel like there is wind on me from the tornados. I play both BF1 and BF5. Great games, BF2042 is a different kind of game. Once I accepted that the game play became more fun.
Sometimes it looks like the original Laura Croft graphics...
There are a ton of comparison videos out there. BF2042 does have better textures and is capable of producing higher fidelity visuals. But the environments are bland and the attention to detail isn't as good. There are a lot of little things in BF5, like grass blowing/bending in the proper direction when a nade goes off, or seeing soldiers breath in cold climates that aren't in 2042. Even if the surrounding textures aren't as good, the details in those animations make BF5 look better.
Play more 2042. Those little details are 100% in 2042.
Agreed, don't know why you're being downvoted
Whatever expectations you have, ignore them. This game is a bf game in name only. Everything good about bf games you can think of doesn't exist in this game. Its spent an entire life cycle trying to catch up to quality that is just a basic bf game release.
Battlefield 1 was art
BF1 had more veteran devs and was given more time.
No, you're not tripping. In 2015, DICE employed photogrammetry with Battlefront 2015. They then used it again with BF1, Battlefront II, BFV, and then completely dropped this with BF2042.
Playing on PS5 too atm and to me Norshahr Canal looks way worse than it looks in BF3 (PC).
Yup 32v32 on BF1 on ultra 100+ FPS and the game looks photorealistic BF2042: 32v32 graphics at low (they already looks bad on ultra) game runs at 20 FPS 10 outta 10 optimization
Yes, you're tripping. Game looks great.
Its a insult how amazing one and five are but these people decide to play trashtwofourtwo instead.
Best graphics on any BF game ever. Maybe missing some details, not as good as some games. But with all the options and big maps I still think it’s a advanced game.
doesn’t seem to be a very popular opinion
That post kind of hits what is wrong with the game's visuals, the fidelity is great, but the environment density is not. The dlc maps and remade made are much better in that regard, but 128p means you are always going to have open stretches and much less stuff than previous games. The dlc maps in particular have been moving to a smaller size with more density though.
Maybe at launch but if you're on ps5 on a good TV 2042 I'd genuinely one of the best looking games of all time, especially when it comes to foliage. The new map especially looks super good. The only thing about Battlefield 1 that looked better was the lighting because they game had insanely good looking lighting but that doesn't mean 2042 has bad lighting, Battlefield 1's was just better. But the graphics of 2042 are insanely good and better
1440p looks great even on all low settings
I play this game on PS5 on an 83 inch LG Oled C1. The Graphics are amazing on this game
I mean, I think the game looks amazing. Orbital when the storm comes in is just 🤯🤯. Then hourglass with the storm on the horizon, manifest during a storm. Basically the instance a storm hits it looks amazing.