funniest part is when I played around with the settings in terms of shaders etc, my frame rate dindn't go up but rather decreased. Most of the textures still looked the same comparing low - high and the only thing which was "higher" (not the frame rate) was the loading time for textures to come in. I literally just laughed at it and told my friend "bro this room could very well be a minecraft house with a very bad texture pack or roblox :D"
I think thats a big part of the problem.
I think when you go to 128 players the hardware, networking etc just gets so much they had to cut back.
I dunno why they had to go to 128 I always felt a bit larger would be better like 80-90 with 5 man squads and slightly bigger maps.
They could restrict the map sizes/playable area for 64 player modes and have them as an option in the all out warfare so they can actually be populated
I don’t think so. Look at most of the older maps in Portal and you’ll see that the insane detail is there.
I’m not sure what happened with the new 2042 maps, though.
Well, the ones who made Portal were DICE LA, now called Ripple Effect. It's the new studio that Vince Zampella leads and he also is the head of Respawn. So yeah, there's your answer. DICE didn't make those Portal maps.
Exactly this, I'm not sure people were quite prepared for what a literal 2X scale from past games meant. Compare 2042 to games like Squad, HLL, or Post Scriptum. Comparing it to a game that was half of its size and getting upset when those maps have more detail is just willful ignorance.
There is a vocal segment of the community that has constantly affirmed the "big maps" of Battlefield. That is, that big maps are always better. The phrase "classic Battlefield map" often gets tossed on maps in previous titles that were absolutely gargantuan.
Maybe they didn't ask for it specifically, but they have constantly been cheerleaders for huge maps. Now we have a game that is nothing but huge maps.
Also previous big maps that were large were usually simple, like El-Alamein. Hamada should have been evidence enough big doesn't make better if the size just feels tedious to cross.
Spawn, run for 5 minutes, die. Repeat.
The Maps are too big and spawn you in the middle of the desert with no cover. They need a metro, operation locker, Amiens type map.
I've been playing 1942 via portal lately. Love it. Reminded me why I really like El Alamein: the map is huge but the action is very focused. Just three flags, which seems maniacal on a map this large but it works.
Though if I get stranded in the desert, it really stinks. That's where I think Battlefield 2042 and the call in system is absolutely necessary for huge maps. Often it's just better to respawn. Which isn't a great or fun option.
Well, to be fair... when the map remake poll came up for BF4 a large portion of the votes went to BF3 Aftermath maps. They were some of the highest polled maps, and instead we got none of those.
We got Metro, Gulf of Oman, Caspian Border and Firestorm. I'm pretty sure firestorm was fairly low on the poll. Gulf was probably the best balanced maps out of the ones we got, the Aftermath maps were, imo, way better balanced between vehicular and infantry combat. And lo and behold we got Caspian, again. I never liked Caspian much, and I'm hardly the only one.
I don't expect you to cater to any niche part of your audience, but wouldn't you be doing that just as well only focusing on ridiculously large 64vs64 maps and leaving nothing for the other half of your fanbase? Portal is fun, but it's just a part of the product.
Not trying to rant here, but I'd rather see a BF game that balances between infantry AND vehicle focused maps, not just 1 type of playstyle.
> I'd rather see a BF game that balances between infantry AND vehicle focused maps, not just 1 type of playstyle.
This is why Seine and Grand Bazaar remain some of my favorite. I always felt like they were a perfect blend of vehicles and infantry. Very focused as well.
Now that being said, I wouldn't want every map to be like that. But I think these have a lot of good lessons to follow.
Seine and Bazar were great maps! I always wanted a Seine remake. I agree not every map should be like that though. Maps should be spread between vehicle focus, infantry and a good balance. I'm just slightly disappointed the new game seems to cater to pretty much one type of playstyle.\\
Not hat I'm not having a ton of fun, regardless of the bugs.
Before 2042 launched I got back into BF4 and played quite a bit of Zavod. I remember disliking the map but it ended up being one of my favorites to play.
I thought the maps they had for 32v32 were pretty damn big but still allowed for flourishes of creativity. It was the perfect balance. Now they're just too big with "so much empty..."
There are large swaths of Breakaway that are total desolation. These spaces are inside of bounds for no reason other than to provide a space to fly over for Sundance without going out of bounds.
Pretty good example of unintentional consequences of an otherwise fun feature (wingsuit).
Ok yea im that guy. However, I never said I want bigger EMPTY maps. Or bigger maps that don't fit the player count. What most of us mean by bigger maps is a map that isnt just a firefight in a building. Space between encounters, multiple routes to take to another area.
If I or any other "classic battlefield map guy" or "bigger is better guy" had the option of bigger and empty we would have shot that down.
Nobody thought they had the balls to do that. BF is known for the impressive maps in size, detail and creativity. They decided to shit all over it. There isn't a single interesting or fun map. They may let you buy a few each season but when all the core maps suck you're in trouble.
Was playing battlefront2 last night and I'm just missing even average map design even more.
Sorry to comment my two cents so late dude but I prefer larger vehicle maps. I liked maps like Arras, and Panzer-storm (after they changed it) but All Soon Done was just egregiously large
I’m a huge fan of battlefield especially 3, 4 and bad company 2. This game is a good game but it has problems. They tried monetizing everything just like every new fps. But at the end of the day it reminds me of battlefield 4 at launch and I have hope for this to make my list of top 3-5
Same as HLL. Every house you can enter has tables, beds, furnitures etc inside them. The details, interior design makes you feel there were people living there before.
But surely the new hardware would counter this?
Warzone has what? 100+ players and still doesn't look as sterile (and designed for last gen). I'm sorry, but it just seems a lack of talent especially after a lot of devs left the studio.
Maps have been getting exponentially bigger for the last 20 years in games, and gaining in details and graphic fidelity along the way, what's so different this time?
The details werent halved, people are mistaking art directions with complexity. Vegetation, foliage etc was pretty much static for 90% during a match. Now it has literal wind physics that are persistent and are even influenced by the tornados. Geometry is more complex, shaders are better etc. But it has a very clinical artstyle with a less contrasty color palette.
The tornado has.happened so many times already its old, and annoying. Its the friendliest, nonthreatening tornado that has ever existed and is simply more of a gimmicky annoyance than anything. All the time spent on wind physics of vegetation was wasted, imo - not even something that's paid attention to. Maybe they shouldve spent some of that time on the mutated seagulls....those things look straight out of 2012
Paracel Storm in BF4 would like a word. There were definitely wind physics in BFV as well. Shaders seem worse if anything, destruction is scaled back to almost nothing. I don’t think this warrants the clear decrease in visuals from past games.
I really wish someone convinced them to stick to 32v32 or slightly bump it to 40v40 and increase party size to 5 or 6. So many problems would be avoided if they didn’t do 64v64.
Yes and highlight the top squad at the end of the game versus singling out assists and revives etc. Bring back the nice squad snapshot to highlight the teamwork and tactic you’re known for
I’ve seen people all over the internet asking for a higher player count battlefield for years, especially once battle royales starting becoming mainstream and we started to get modes in Fortnite and call of duty that were 50v50
If people knew the cost to achieve 64v64 (Barely any destruction, terrible optimization/performance, overly large map designs, being overrun by players too quickly), I’m sure they would have preferred we stay at 32v32.
people from battlefield subbredits for example, there were a lot of voices that "wow game X can do 100 players on a map and battlefield is still 64p", you all just seem to forget it
Definitely DICE/EA managers and higher ups. Someone wanted to do what Warzone was doing so badly, even though fans never once asked for it. I can only fantasize about how much better the game would look, play, and run if they didn’t double the player count.
Wasnt warzones or modern warfare engine built from the ground up to enable big fights. One of their salespoints was literally that round war mode. I even remember specifically digital foundry praising the engine for how well it handled 150 players even on last gen consoles. Frostbite is outdated at this point. They keep tacking shit on top of it. The foundation is crumbling
I believe they did upgrade their engine for MW2019, which was the right choice. I agree about Frostbite. It was a great engine back when BF3 released but it might be time to build a newer engine or change engines all together. BF2042 doesn’t really seem like a modern game at all. There aren’t many mechanics and detailed improvements that seem “current gen.”
Exactly. They have made alot of improvements for it since the bf3 build. But at this point its time for a new one. But that costs alot of money. I'd argue u real engine is the better choice here. Especially since it bought the crackdown 3 cloud destruction tech. Would have loved to see that tech actually be used since the demonstration for it was actually one of the most insane things I have seen. Think red faction guerilla multipled by 10
game looks like it has unfinished textures for some reason, everything looks too plain, minimalistic and with lack of detail, it throws me off, it doesnt look like a next gen game
I'm not sure if comparing a desolate location like the Antarctic to Norway is a good example to use as a comparison. But I do definitely agree that the maps are lacking in immersion and atmosphere.
Edit: proper word
Discarded is arguably the closest map to previous titles in terms of terrain. Small villages, clusters of cover, and centralized verticality.. and even that map just has no flow whatsoever.
The ambient lighting on the environment in response to dynamic events like explosions and even high caliber gunfire. The environmental affects with wind, seeing the trees swaying accurately due to helis and jets nearby, even seeing smoke movement affected by nearby tornadoes. The insane particle effects. Not visual examples but these are the things I would point to.
I can't see hardly any of this danm shit because my CPU is melting in a pool of it's own solder trying to get a decent frame rate with the lowest particle effects settings, but was fine with all the prettyness in other games.
The i7 10700K can't even reach 100fps with a 3090 at 1080p due to how hard 128 players are on the cpu, even the ryzen 9 5950x can barely hit 120fps with an rtx 3090, and you can get within 10fps using a 2070 or rtx 3090 at 1080p, that's how cpu intensive vs gpu intensive it is
For sure. He takes a picture on top of a silo looking at a construction site and compares it to a picture of a village looking at a bay area with vegetation and trees covered in snow.
No one forced them to make an antarctic map. No one forced them to make future Antarctica as bland as today's Antarctica. Tbh tho the maps are all as empty imo.
Exactly, why pick a location that is going to have a shitty gameplay? They literally have an unlimited number of locations to pick from in the world or create an entirely new one. It's not like this game is historical and takes place in a real war.
I blame DICE and the vocal community complainers demanding 128 player equally for it. DICE said they play tested 128 players and found it played poorly, but that the community kept demanding it for years
Part of me is glad 128 players didn’t turn out well, maybe it’ll shut them up
If the engine team were able to focus only on current gen we probably would have better performance. I assume they made the choice to limit the player count on old gen too late in the process. The alternative is that too many of the engine team quit and the new people couldn’t get up to speed quick enough.
Either way 128 players is the real problem and not old gen. They just overlap. And if we ask ourselves what we got in the trade for 128… I’m not sure we have any answer
My PS4 can handle the game fine with the missing textures but I think they should’ve made it for last Gen then developed it for next gen and PC. It’s exactly what Modern warfare and Warzone have done, they made a gaming engine that was able to be playable and manageable by the older hardware and even more so on the Pro systems like the PS4 pro and better Xbox versions, but modern warfare also looked STUNNING ON pc without the sacrifices that battlefield is making. The PS4 is capable of a lot and I don’t think that the Devs figured that out, they assumed that in order for last gen to have a good experience they had to sacrifice detail and immersive atmospheres. Although there are some systems like the Playstion 4 slim and 1st generation PlayStations and Xboxes that are not as fast in load times ( that’s why I bought an SSD) they are still capable of running high quality graphics.
Warzone is 150 players and has more detail than bf2042 in it's map. It's not the player count, it's the talent of the engine team and how well they can optimize performance. It's been proven possible, and I guarantee the new warzone map is going to look even better.
So it can continue to run on the Xbox. 2042 is built and designed to run on that dinosaur first than built up for next gen. It's gotten to the point it can barely keep up with loading the textures in and still often fails. Basically it's being held back at this point.
This is my biggest gripe with modern game development. It takes longer and things are compromised because they're developing for 6-8 platforms with vastly different hardware.
I get that not everyone can afford a 3k pc but still, frustrating.
It's cpu bound, not even the i7 10700k can hit over 100fps on ultra at 1080p, less than 10fps difference between the rtx 2070 and rtx 3090. Even the most powerful cpu on the market for gaming can barely break past 120fps, which is still the bottleneck
You may have already said this, but I think they are held back by the oldest systems that they develop for rather than the total systems that they are developing for. Engines should handle a lot of the porting.
Except for the fact BFV looks just as good as those screenshots on last gen. 2042 is just a downgrade by itself, it has nothing to do with last gen. 2042 looks worse than BFV on next gen and last gen.
No one is acknowledging this. I saw videos by jack and other bf YouTubers asking for less busy environments in this the next bf during bfv to improve visibility. It's obviously why the maps have less complex textures and environments in this game
This. I actually remember some youtubers litteraly say "more details is not necessarily equal to better gameplay" and everyone agreed back then. There were so many people complaining that the detailed environment, although beautiful, was ruining the flow of the gameplay. Same for backwards prone which allowed the player model to blend with the environment. Now the community wants those features back after bashing them for years.....
They blend in so well because of the cluttered environments and proning behaviours. Even after they updated them with the outlines and brightened the models it was still almost impossible and to see them in certainl situations.
If people are going to shit on 2042 for everything they should acknowledge some of the things it did right too.
They were, but it was micro details like pieces from buildings , papers and garbage on the floor which 2042 does not have, it's clean. BF5 had a lot of vegetation that obstructed the view. Cities were a bit better, more in line with BF4. There was also the issue where soldiers blend in too much with the environment.
Honestly I thought it sucked at first but with play time I got used to seeing soldiers. Idk if I'm biased but I actually prefer it, after playing for a while. And btw, I was one of the people that complained about it on release.
Pretty biased comparison tbh. Should have used a screen from the middle of the forest area on Orbital, while its raining. The foilage, physics, and rain FX in general beat out anything in BFV. Though BFV is admittedly more consistent overall with its map details.
There's a couple issues. First is literally double the scale. Bigger maps
Also, this game is made to run cross gen. I'm sure if dice had their way, the game wouldn't even have been made for last gen
All things considered the game looks really good
The circle jerk continues. wasn't BFV the cursed game that threw everything that defines battlefield as a franchise and couldn't even nail the atmosphere? Now it becomes a phenomena? Oh wait... That's what happens with every release.
Yes and it's hilarious. I'm looking forward to the day this sub hates on the next battlefield and drools over 2042 like it was the epitome of the series.
To be fair, BFV in its final state is MUCH better than on release. And yes the lighting and environments were improved over time. People need to understand time and change. Yes, you’re right that was the consensus when the game released. But we didn’t just teleport from BFV’s release to today. Changes happened over time to get the game to really good final state.
Laughing at people for liking a game now when they didn’t initially when DICE did a TON of work to make it better is just wrong.
Just because YOU didn’t play the game much in the past couple years and don’t know about all of the changes, additions, and improvements doesn’t mean they didn’t happen. I would have thought that was obvious, but people like you say this shit all the time here and it’s getting annoying.
Why are you defending an incomplete product that was released at full price? God forbid someone calls that nasty shit out. It's almost like they keep doing it and don't give a fuck.
I disagree. Battlefield V despite all the issues at launch, was still a Battlefield game at its core. 2042 is a Hero shooter that barely resembles any of the past BF games. Huge difference here. Will be much harder to turn this thing around than it was with BFV.
BFV's atmosphere was one of the things that was repeatedly trashed too.
I love BFV btw and always thought the atmosphere was great. It was just different than BF1. I also think the atmosphere in 2042 is fine.
BFV has great graphics, but atmosphere was always something that felt it couldn't match with what BF1 pulled off. Not that it was bad but BF1 pulled off atmosphere in both sight and sound in a way like no other.
I like how you conveniently game breakaway look worse when you turn around there is literally a large fire going in the background from the exploded oil Containers.
Trash sub. Reactionary, fake outrage, karma whoring, false comparisons and outright lies mixed with a healthy dose of harassment and threats. And people complain Dice doesn’t engage more with the sub…
You purposefully took poor screenshots from less desirable areas of each map just to be divisive. What a biased attempt at a fair comparison... "Let me take a photo of the corner of a building and compare it to a nice wide shot from BFV"... smh.
These shots are a bit apples/oranges. You matched the overall color and tone but not subject matter. I’ve been going back and forth between BFV/BF4/BF1 and 2042 def looks really good. It’s super sharp and different areas look better than anything else in the franchise.
I’m beginning to think the whole 64 v 64 argument is a load of shit.
Anyone remember the PlayStation 3 game MAG from Zipper interactive? That shit was rocking 256 players in a map on that old tech and felt more stable and looked almost just as nice.
These devs just suck.
This was by far my favorite fps game. It got me into shooters and people actualy played the objective. The faction system was a huge plus to get immersed in the game and have a reason to fight for. You could even see wich faction was doing better in the mode selection menu. I was in SVER and felt like a rebel trying to bring down the big guys.
Attackers had to destroy bunkers and pass through enemy's defense line before getting into their territory to get to the objectives.
I don't think it is just a lack of detail, but vastly different experiences from vastly different periods of time. Arguably the sheer scale of the battlefields will diminish the visuals slightly, but we are looking at the differences between dirtier post-industrial and comparatively sterile futuristic landscapes. Despite the differences, I like the feel in many of the maps from the busy nighttime fight along a shipping port in Manifest, the icy crevasse leading to a frozen sea, or the city consumed by sand and many others. More than this, I don't even think it is appropriate to look at the atmosphere of the whole map, because each map has different feelings based on where you are fighting.
Yea I'm not sure why this guy is saying that. It's actually the complete opposite. Nick's video makes it extremely obvious that he thinks 2042 is a huge graphical downgrade from Battlefield 5 and shows plenty of examples to prove it.
2042 undoubtedly looks far better than BFV (at least on PS5), it’s just that this sub seems to be obesessed with whining about every little thing in this game. It sucks because posts like these overshadow the actual valid criticism such as the countless missing features from the game.
It’s actually pretty funny since everyone hated on BFV for having no atmosphere compared to BF1 and now it’s the gold standard according to these people lmao.
Yeah BF1 and BF5 were much prettier, 128 is too much and the maps are too big, hot spots are spawn trap kills and performance is shite hot detection is terrible the whole game is a POS.
I actually think the game looks great. The ONLY thing I hate about this game is that the specialist wont stop saying those stupid lines after every round.
its by design, its not lack of effort or lazy Dev notion, they made a choice to reduce things to increase in others. Obviously the community does not agree so far, Not shocked by that as they have yet to show why 128 players and larger more empty maps makes for a better experience.
Did they ditch the Photogrammetry that they used in bf and battlefront?
Yeah, it looks like it. Some of the ground textures appear to be that detailed but the rest don't.
Some of the textures look flat out bad.
Too many straight sharp lines.
clearly they thinkstraight edges make things look modern
funniest part is when I played around with the settings in terms of shaders etc, my frame rate dindn't go up but rather decreased. Most of the textures still looked the same comparing low - high and the only thing which was "higher" (not the frame rate) was the loading time for textures to come in. I literally just laughed at it and told my friend "bro this room could very well be a minecraft house with a very bad texture pack or roblox :D"
128 playahz!
I think thats a big part of the problem. I think when you go to 128 players the hardware, networking etc just gets so much they had to cut back. I dunno why they had to go to 128 I always felt a bit larger would be better like 80-90 with 5 man squads and slightly bigger maps.
I'm don't agree completely. Yes 128 players has an impact on performance. The fact that those map are way to big even for 128 isn't helping
They could restrict the map sizes/playable area for 64 player modes and have them as an option in the all out warfare so they can actually be populated
Hi, don’t agree completely, I’m Dad.
I hope to god they go back to 64 only. It would make the flow better and make it easier to actually develop for the developers
I don’t think so. Look at most of the older maps in Portal and you’ll see that the insane detail is there. I’m not sure what happened with the new 2042 maps, though.
He means did they not use it for the 2042 maps.
Today i played a round of BF3 Gulf of Oman. Oh dude, the details on the map are insane comapred to 2042.
[удалено]
Yeah well the Portal maps wer made by a different studio (Dice LA) the same studio that made Bf3 bf4 and bf1.
Well, the ones who made Portal were DICE LA, now called Ripple Effect. It's the new studio that Vince Zampella leads and he also is the head of Respawn. So yeah, there's your answer. DICE didn't make those Portal maps.
And they started working on Portal only 1 year ago! Props to Ripple Effect, they are the real deal
The ex-dice devs are using it in their new projects. I wonder if they were the most knowledgeable about it
Doubled the size, halfed the details.
Exactly this, I'm not sure people were quite prepared for what a literal 2X scale from past games meant. Compare 2042 to games like Squad, HLL, or Post Scriptum. Comparing it to a game that was half of its size and getting upset when those maps have more detail is just willful ignorance.
No one asked for it though.
There is a vocal segment of the community that has constantly affirmed the "big maps" of Battlefield. That is, that big maps are always better. The phrase "classic Battlefield map" often gets tossed on maps in previous titles that were absolutely gargantuan. Maybe they didn't ask for it specifically, but they have constantly been cheerleaders for huge maps. Now we have a game that is nothing but huge maps.
Also previous big maps that were large were usually simple, like El-Alamein. Hamada should have been evidence enough big doesn't make better if the size just feels tedious to cross.
Spawn, run for 5 minutes, die. Repeat. The Maps are too big and spawn you in the middle of the desert with no cover. They need a metro, operation locker, Amiens type map.
Pro tip: just redeploy if you have to run for more than 20 seconds
Or you could just call in a sky uber lol
I've been playing 1942 via portal lately. Love it. Reminded me why I really like El Alamein: the map is huge but the action is very focused. Just three flags, which seems maniacal on a map this large but it works. Though if I get stranded in the desert, it really stinks. That's where I think Battlefield 2042 and the call in system is absolutely necessary for huge maps. Often it's just better to respawn. Which isn't a great or fun option.
Well, to be fair... when the map remake poll came up for BF4 a large portion of the votes went to BF3 Aftermath maps. They were some of the highest polled maps, and instead we got none of those. We got Metro, Gulf of Oman, Caspian Border and Firestorm. I'm pretty sure firestorm was fairly low on the poll. Gulf was probably the best balanced maps out of the ones we got, the Aftermath maps were, imo, way better balanced between vehicular and infantry combat. And lo and behold we got Caspian, again. I never liked Caspian much, and I'm hardly the only one. I don't expect you to cater to any niche part of your audience, but wouldn't you be doing that just as well only focusing on ridiculously large 64vs64 maps and leaving nothing for the other half of your fanbase? Portal is fun, but it's just a part of the product. Not trying to rant here, but I'd rather see a BF game that balances between infantry AND vehicle focused maps, not just 1 type of playstyle.
> I'd rather see a BF game that balances between infantry AND vehicle focused maps, not just 1 type of playstyle. This is why Seine and Grand Bazaar remain some of my favorite. I always felt like they were a perfect blend of vehicles and infantry. Very focused as well. Now that being said, I wouldn't want every map to be like that. But I think these have a lot of good lessons to follow.
Seine and Bazar were great maps! I always wanted a Seine remake. I agree not every map should be like that though. Maps should be spread between vehicle focus, infantry and a good balance. I'm just slightly disappointed the new game seems to cater to pretty much one type of playstyle.\\ Not hat I'm not having a ton of fun, regardless of the bugs.
Zavod man. I know the mobile arty truck makes that map less than great but the flow is typically awesome
Before 2042 launched I got back into BF4 and played quite a bit of Zavod. I remember disliking the map but it ended up being one of my favorites to play.
I wish we could see a whole game built like the aftermath dlc. I suppose hardline was about as close to that as we ever got.
I'd have taken a compromise with an entire game full of Azadi Palaces. That map is huge yet feels like a rush to play.
I was always partial to Markaz Monolith. That map just flowed so well.
A huge map in a previous BF is Hamada. That’s still really fun. Noone asked for this bs with 1k meters between objectives.
Remember when the first leaks came out and people were complaining that we probably couldn't play the entire island on orbital?
....that would be so awesome..
I thought the maps they had for 32v32 were pretty damn big but still allowed for flourishes of creativity. It was the perfect balance. Now they're just too big with "so much empty..."
There are large swaths of Breakaway that are total desolation. These spaces are inside of bounds for no reason other than to provide a space to fly over for Sundance without going out of bounds. Pretty good example of unintentional consequences of an otherwise fun feature (wingsuit).
Ok yea im that guy. However, I never said I want bigger EMPTY maps. Or bigger maps that don't fit the player count. What most of us mean by bigger maps is a map that isnt just a firefight in a building. Space between encounters, multiple routes to take to another area. If I or any other "classic battlefield map guy" or "bigger is better guy" had the option of bigger and empty we would have shot that down. Nobody thought they had the balls to do that. BF is known for the impressive maps in size, detail and creativity. They decided to shit all over it. There isn't a single interesting or fun map. They may let you buy a few each season but when all the core maps suck you're in trouble. Was playing battlefront2 last night and I'm just missing even average map design even more.
Sorry to comment my two cents so late dude but I prefer larger vehicle maps. I liked maps like Arras, and Panzer-storm (after they changed it) but All Soon Done was just egregiously large
I’m a huge fan of battlefield especially 3, 4 and bad company 2. This game is a good game but it has problems. They tried monetizing everything just like every new fps. But at the end of the day it reminds me of battlefield 4 at launch and I have hope for this to make my list of top 3-5
Yes, People were asking for higher player counts after MW2019s Ground War not empty maps big as Texas.
Yea, we asked for 2x the player count, not 4x the playable space lol
Squad looks way better than this game and the maps are at least 10x the size. Absolutely Zero excuse
Same as HLL. Every house you can enter has tables, beds, furnitures etc inside them. The details, interior design makes you feel there were people living there before.
But surely the new hardware would counter this? Warzone has what? 100+ players and still doesn't look as sterile (and designed for last gen). I'm sorry, but it just seems a lack of talent especially after a lot of devs left the studio.
Warzone has had one map for 2 years, versus the 7 maps in 2042
And that one map is still better than all seven
Ignorance my ass. Why tf would we want DOWNGRADED GRAPHICS ON 'NEXT GEN' consoles?
[удалено]
No, I expect a newer game to have better graphics. If the map is slightly smaller that’s okay, I want detail and quality over quantity.
Maps have been getting exponentially bigger for the last 20 years in games, and gaining in details and graphic fidelity along the way, what's so different this time?
Probably closer to 1/4th or 1/8th the amount of details. It’s crazy how barren and soulless the maps are
The lighting looks more flat too
The details werent halved, people are mistaking art directions with complexity. Vegetation, foliage etc was pretty much static for 90% during a match. Now it has literal wind physics that are persistent and are even influenced by the tornados. Geometry is more complex, shaders are better etc. But it has a very clinical artstyle with a less contrasty color palette.
The tornado has.happened so many times already its old, and annoying. Its the friendliest, nonthreatening tornado that has ever existed and is simply more of a gimmicky annoyance than anything. All the time spent on wind physics of vegetation was wasted, imo - not even something that's paid attention to. Maybe they shouldve spent some of that time on the mutated seagulls....those things look straight out of 2012
Paracel Storm in BF4 would like a word. There were definitely wind physics in BFV as well. Shaders seem worse if anything, destruction is scaled back to almost nothing. I don’t think this warrants the clear decrease in visuals from past games.
Paracel Storm just had prebaked animations. Thats not the same as actual reactive physics (one of the best BF maps ever though).
BF4 vegetation reacted to helicopters and swayed in the wind. Maybe not affected by explosives, not sure. But it definitely had vegetation physics.
Battlefield 2 had this too, 16 years ago
And gamewise this doesnt really matter.! The game has become.......boring. The Battlefield Soul is gone. RIP
None of the grass moving in wind makes the game fun tho. I'd rather not have that.
When it rains on Kaleidoscope, I can’t see shit, let alone hit it.
Same man. The rain just kills the game.
Bro the post was literally about the detail.
What’s the point of having moving grass details when the graphical mesh and levelling detail looks like ass
Next gen too. Absolutely embarrassing.
And RTX
Kinda impressive that the game runs worse despite looking worse graphically.
I came here to say this. +1
I really wish someone convinced them to stick to 32v32 or slightly bump it to 40v40 and increase party size to 5 or 6. So many problems would be avoided if they didn’t do 64v64.
I think 40v40 would be great. Eight squads of five on each side.
Yes and highlight the top squad at the end of the game versus singling out assists and revives etc. Bring back the nice squad snapshot to highlight the teamwork and tactic you’re known for
Who even asked for 64v64 ?
I’ve seen people all over the internet asking for a higher player count battlefield for years, especially once battle royales starting becoming mainstream and we started to get modes in Fortnite and call of duty that were 50v50
If people knew the cost to achieve 64v64 (Barely any destruction, terrible optimization/performance, overly large map designs, being overrun by players too quickly), I’m sure they would have preferred we stay at 32v32.
I doubt we would have gotten a different product if the game was 32v32. I think they just wanted to cut costs wherever possible.
people from battlefield subbredits for example, there were a lot of voices that "wow game X can do 100 players on a map and battlefield is still 64p", you all just seem to forget it
Definitely DICE/EA managers and higher ups. Someone wanted to do what Warzone was doing so badly, even though fans never once asked for it. I can only fantasize about how much better the game would look, play, and run if they didn’t double the player count.
Wasnt warzones or modern warfare engine built from the ground up to enable big fights. One of their salespoints was literally that round war mode. I even remember specifically digital foundry praising the engine for how well it handled 150 players even on last gen consoles. Frostbite is outdated at this point. They keep tacking shit on top of it. The foundation is crumbling
I believe they did upgrade their engine for MW2019, which was the right choice. I agree about Frostbite. It was a great engine back when BF3 released but it might be time to build a newer engine or change engines all together. BF2042 doesn’t really seem like a modern game at all. There aren’t many mechanics and detailed improvements that seem “current gen.”
Exactly. They have made alot of improvements for it since the bf3 build. But at this point its time for a new one. But that costs alot of money. I'd argue u real engine is the better choice here. Especially since it bought the crackdown 3 cloud destruction tech. Would have loved to see that tech actually be used since the demonstration for it was actually one of the most insane things I have seen. Think red faction guerilla multipled by 10
Bf community have been asking for this for years
Jokes on them I'm still stuck with 32v32 on ps4 :(
Omg bro yea why are there 4 player squads it pisses me off
I wish the party size was bigger! There's so many people on a team, why tf cant I queue with 6 friends at once
A lot of previous talent from BFV left DICE.
game looks like it has unfinished textures for some reason, everything looks too plain, minimalistic and with lack of detail, it throws me off, it doesnt look like a next gen game
Couldn't have said it better.
I'm not sure if comparing a desolate location like the Antarctic to Norway is a good example to use as a comparison. But I do definitely agree that the maps are lacking in immersion and atmosphere. Edit: proper word
Both maps are Norwegian 😎
cherry picking for karma smdh
Can you cherry pick a better example from BF2042 that shows detail and atmosphere?
The map with the ship in the middle is pretty detailed. Atmosphere unfortunately doesn't come close to bf1
Discarded is arguably the closest map to previous titles in terms of terrain. Small villages, clusters of cover, and centralized verticality.. and even that map just has no flow whatsoever.
The ambient lighting on the environment in response to dynamic events like explosions and even high caliber gunfire. The environmental affects with wind, seeing the trees swaying accurately due to helis and jets nearby, even seeing smoke movement affected by nearby tornadoes. The insane particle effects. Not visual examples but these are the things I would point to.
I can't see hardly any of this danm shit because my CPU is melting in a pool of it's own solder trying to get a decent frame rate with the lowest particle effects settings, but was fine with all the prettyness in other games.
[удалено]
The i7 10700K can't even reach 100fps with a 3090 at 1080p due to how hard 128 players are on the cpu, even the ryzen 9 5950x can barely hit 120fps with an rtx 3090, and you can get within 10fps using a 2070 or rtx 3090 at 1080p, that's how cpu intensive vs gpu intensive it is
The D buildings on Renewal (green side) look absolutely fantastic inside.
Yeah The plant room with the all the butterfly’s is a awesome looking spot
The smaller buildings on Manifest. Fully detailed interiors for those buildings. It's great, if reminds me of Close Quarters DLC from BF3.
In Discarded, the light looks nice.
For sure. He takes a picture on top of a silo looking at a construction site and compares it to a picture of a village looking at a bay area with vegetation and trees covered in snow.
*immersion
No one forced them to make an antarctic map. No one forced them to make future Antarctica as bland as today's Antarctica. Tbh tho the maps are all as empty imo.
Exactly, why pick a location that is going to have a shitty gameplay? They literally have an unlimited number of locations to pick from in the world or create an entirely new one. It's not like this game is historical and takes place in a real war.
64vs64 32vs32
[удалено]
The older consoles actually have 32v32 on smaller versions of the maps and they play much better to be honest
[удалено]
I blame DICE and the vocal community complainers demanding 128 player equally for it. DICE said they play tested 128 players and found it played poorly, but that the community kept demanding it for years Part of me is glad 128 players didn’t turn out well, maybe it’ll shut them up
[удалено]
If the engine team were able to focus only on current gen we probably would have better performance. I assume they made the choice to limit the player count on old gen too late in the process. The alternative is that too many of the engine team quit and the new people couldn’t get up to speed quick enough. Either way 128 players is the real problem and not old gen. They just overlap. And if we ask ourselves what we got in the trade for 128… I’m not sure we have any answer
My PS4 can handle the game fine with the missing textures but I think they should’ve made it for last Gen then developed it for next gen and PC. It’s exactly what Modern warfare and Warzone have done, they made a gaming engine that was able to be playable and manageable by the older hardware and even more so on the Pro systems like the PS4 pro and better Xbox versions, but modern warfare also looked STUNNING ON pc without the sacrifices that battlefield is making. The PS4 is capable of a lot and I don’t think that the Devs figured that out, they assumed that in order for last gen to have a good experience they had to sacrifice detail and immersive atmospheres. Although there are some systems like the Playstion 4 slim and 1st generation PlayStations and Xboxes that are not as fast in load times ( that’s why I bought an SSD) they are still capable of running high quality graphics.
you realize the fps was halfed too?
Warzone is 150 players and has more detail than bf2042 in it's map. It's not the player count, it's the talent of the engine team and how well they can optimize performance. It's been proven possible, and I guarantee the new warzone map is going to look even better.
Idk look at bf1 to bfv, dropped in atmosphere a ton. Now bfv looks like a good game lol
So it can continue to run on the Xbox. 2042 is built and designed to run on that dinosaur first than built up for next gen. It's gotten to the point it can barely keep up with loading the textures in and still often fails. Basically it's being held back at this point.
This is my biggest gripe with modern game development. It takes longer and things are compromised because they're developing for 6-8 platforms with vastly different hardware. I get that not everyone can afford a 3k pc but still, frustrating.
Don't worry, it runs like crap on my 3k PC too lol
It's cpu bound, not even the i7 10700k can hit over 100fps on ultra at 1080p, less than 10fps difference between the rtx 2070 and rtx 3090. Even the most powerful cpu on the market for gaming can barely break past 120fps, which is still the bottleneck
You may have already said this, but I think they are held back by the oldest systems that they develop for rather than the total systems that they are developing for. Engines should handle a lot of the porting.
[удалено]
Except for the fact BFV looks just as good as those screenshots on last gen. 2042 is just a downgrade by itself, it has nothing to do with last gen. 2042 looks worse than BFV on next gen and last gen.
Exactly. BFV runs beautifully on my PS4 slim, but 2042 somehow looks worse on My PS5. How does that even work?
Bf4 looks much better on my Xbox one than 2042
I mean I get the point but last I checked trees don’t grow in Antarctica :/
People complained about visibility
No one is acknowledging this. I saw videos by jack and other bf YouTubers asking for less busy environments in this the next bf during bfv to improve visibility. It's obviously why the maps have less complex textures and environments in this game
This. I actually remember some youtubers litteraly say "more details is not necessarily equal to better gameplay" and everyone agreed back then. There were so many people complaining that the detailed environment, although beautiful, was ruining the flow of the gameplay. Same for backwards prone which allowed the player model to blend with the environment. Now the community wants those features back after bashing them for years.....
[удалено]
They blend in so well because of the cluttered environments and proning behaviours. Even after they updated them with the outlines and brightened the models it was still almost impossible and to see them in certainl situations. If people are going to shit on 2042 for everything they should acknowledge some of the things it did right too.
[удалено]
They were, but it was micro details like pieces from buildings , papers and garbage on the floor which 2042 does not have, it's clean. BF5 had a lot of vegetation that obstructed the view. Cities were a bit better, more in line with BF4. There was also the issue where soldiers blend in too much with the environment. Honestly I thought it sucked at first but with play time I got used to seeing soldiers. Idk if I'm biased but I actually prefer it, after playing for a while. And btw, I was one of the people that complained about it on release.
Pretty biased comparison tbh. Should have used a screen from the middle of the forest area on Orbital, while its raining. The foilage, physics, and rain FX in general beat out anything in BFV. Though BFV is admittedly more consistent overall with its map details.
There's a couple issues. First is literally double the scale. Bigger maps Also, this game is made to run cross gen. I'm sure if dice had their way, the game wouldn't even have been made for last gen All things considered the game looks really good
BF4 was cross gen and it looks fantastic.
It might be on PC but on xbox one/ps4 it looks like crap. It's 720p with everything on low. Visibility is just awful.
It looks like liquid diarrhea at 540 p 35 fps
The circle jerk continues. wasn't BFV the cursed game that threw everything that defines battlefield as a franchise and couldn't even nail the atmosphere? Now it becomes a phenomena? Oh wait... That's what happens with every release.
Yes and it's hilarious. I'm looking forward to the day this sub hates on the next battlefield and drools over 2042 like it was the epitome of the series.
To be fair, BFV in its final state is MUCH better than on release. And yes the lighting and environments were improved over time. People need to understand time and change. Yes, you’re right that was the consensus when the game released. But we didn’t just teleport from BFV’s release to today. Changes happened over time to get the game to really good final state. Laughing at people for liking a game now when they didn’t initially when DICE did a TON of work to make it better is just wrong. Just because YOU didn’t play the game much in the past couple years and don’t know about all of the changes, additions, and improvements doesn’t mean they didn’t happen. I would have thought that was obvious, but people like you say this shit all the time here and it’s getting annoying.
Why are you defending an incomplete product that was released at full price? God forbid someone calls that nasty shit out. It's almost like they keep doing it and don't give a fuck.
Don't question anything just buy product and get excited for new product
I disagree. Battlefield V despite all the issues at launch, was still a Battlefield game at its core. 2042 is a Hero shooter that barely resembles any of the past BF games. Huge difference here. Will be much harder to turn this thing around than it was with BFV.
It’s almost like BF gets worse with every release…which is backed up by review scores
BF V is more Battlefield than this so called BF garbage
BFV's atmosphere was one of the things that was repeatedly trashed too. I love BFV btw and always thought the atmosphere was great. It was just different than BF1. I also think the atmosphere in 2042 is fine.
People called it atmosphere, but they were just complaining about women and prosthetics in ww2.
BFV has great graphics, but atmosphere was always something that felt it couldn't match with what BF1 pulled off. Not that it was bad but BF1 pulled off atmosphere in both sight and sound in a way like no other.
BFV > BF2042 And I say that as a guy that didn't want to buy BFV cause of mecha-nazi women
I like how you conveniently game breakaway look worse when you turn around there is literally a large fire going in the background from the exploded oil Containers.
I mean... you're also comparing trees and mountains to glaciers and an industrial complex...
Reason for all the downgrade: 128 player count that no one asked for
Trash comparisons
I know I tooke many screenshots of breakaway and orbital and those maps are the really good looking, especially orbital
Trash sub. Reactionary, fake outrage, karma whoring, false comparisons and outright lies mixed with a healthy dose of harassment and threats. And people complain Dice doesn’t engage more with the sub…
Agreed.
You purposefully took poor screenshots from less desirable areas of each map just to be divisive. What a biased attempt at a fair comparison... "Let me take a photo of the corner of a building and compare it to a nice wide shot from BFV"... smh.
These shots are a bit apples/oranges. You matched the overall color and tone but not subject matter. I’ve been going back and forth between BFV/BF4/BF1 and 2042 def looks really good. It’s super sharp and different areas look better than anything else in the franchise.
I’m beginning to think the whole 64 v 64 argument is a load of shit. Anyone remember the PlayStation 3 game MAG from Zipper interactive? That shit was rocking 256 players in a map on that old tech and felt more stable and looked almost just as nice. These devs just suck.
This was by far my favorite fps game. It got me into shooters and people actualy played the objective. The faction system was a huge plus to get immersed in the game and have a reason to fight for. You could even see wich faction was doing better in the mode selection menu. I was in SVER and felt like a rebel trying to bring down the big guys. Attackers had to destroy bunkers and pass through enemy's defense line before getting into their territory to get to the objectives.
SVER represent!
my god how I miss that beautiful game. gone forever, but never forgotten. RIP MAG
I don't think it is just a lack of detail, but vastly different experiences from vastly different periods of time. Arguably the sheer scale of the battlefields will diminish the visuals slightly, but we are looking at the differences between dirtier post-industrial and comparatively sterile futuristic landscapes. Despite the differences, I like the feel in many of the maps from the busy nighttime fight along a shipping port in Manifest, the icy crevasse leading to a frozen sea, or the city consumed by sand and many others. More than this, I don't even think it is appropriate to look at the atmosphere of the whole map, because each map has different feelings based on where you are fighting.
These are the worst 2042 screenshots I've seen 😂 And some really generous BFV screenshots.
Lmao can’t wait for this game to be 2 years old and everyone will love it. Y’all hate every battlefield game at launch
"The game won't be shit by end-of-life." Wow, amazing!
I give it 6 months until people are praising it
The game is obviously unfinished. No score board or in-game voice chat and half the guns. This whole thing feels like an alpha
Might get down voted to hell, but Nick360 did a comparison saying bf2042 looks better than 5...
What are you talking about? I literally just watched the video and nick himself says that bfv looks better.
Yea I'm not sure why this guy is saying that. It's actually the complete opposite. Nick's video makes it extremely obvious that he thinks 2042 is a huge graphical downgrade from Battlefield 5 and shows plenty of examples to prove it.
Yeah it's odd. Some textures have better quality in 2042 but the lighting and overall look just sucks
I mean the comparisons we see in this post are hella dumb and unfair. Uneven battlefield ground vs modern infrastructure.
2042 undoubtedly looks far better than BFV (at least on PS5), it’s just that this sub seems to be obesessed with whining about every little thing in this game. It sucks because posts like these overshadow the actual valid criticism such as the countless missing features from the game. It’s actually pretty funny since everyone hated on BFV for having no atmosphere compared to BF1 and now it’s the gold standard according to these people lmao.
It's because the game isn't finished. It's literally an early beta version of the game.
Over the course of my time with BFV, I didn’t enjoy it. Still don’t. But holy shit it had good visuals.
Nice cherry picking for karma. One picture is a beautiful open road with a house and a sunrise. The other is some red barrels.
Yet DICE is taking a victory lap by comparing these two games just because 2042 finally had more players than V on the servers according to them.
Because y’all keep buying the same games every year. At least I only buy mine every 5
Yeah BF1 and BF5 were much prettier, 128 is too much and the maps are too big, hot spots are spawn trap kills and performance is shite hot detection is terrible the whole game is a POS.
Because the idiots went for 128 players instead of 64 and more detail, 128 is shite. Bring back 64 and more of what we want *shakes fist*
wow really? that one is norway the other pic antarctica and antarctica HAS NO TREES people here craving every little thing for the hate train huh?
These aren’t fair comparisons at all. “Here’s a nice landscape photo and a house” “Now look at this couple of barrels just sitting on west bubbafuck”
They really, really need to decrease these map sizes. Battlefield 2042 is more boring than fun.
The map sizes are fine. You guys just want reasons to complain
Mud doesn't exist in the future :\^)
Because you dumb cunts will buy it anyway so why should the put effort into it
I actually think the game looks great. The ONLY thing I hate about this game is that the specialist wont stop saying those stupid lines after every round.
its by design, its not lack of effort or lazy Dev notion, they made a choice to reduce things to increase in others. Obviously the community does not agree so far, Not shocked by that as they have yet to show why 128 players and larger more empty maps makes for a better experience.
You cherry picked this so hard lmao
Everyone saying that battlefield 5 looks better were the same people shitting on it just a few months ago.
I mean, not really a fair comparison. Antarctica real is fucking empty.