From a simple technical point of view, I'm not talking about the artistic direction of the game or its atmosphere but the technical side of the game/engine etc..
Do you think it’s beautiful https://xender.vip/ ?
Personally, I find it "pretty" but not "beautiful" ; BFV is much better in my opinion
@f1rata wrote:From a simple technical point of view, I'm not talking about the artistic direction of the game or its atmosphere but the technical side of the game/engine etc..
Do you think it’s beautiful ?
Personally, I find it "pretty" but not "beautiful" ; BFV is much better in my opinion
I was thinking the same. I played battlefield five yesterday. I also think the character animations are much better in battlefield five but I like battlefield 2042 as well in a different way.
It is my belief that the rewritten Frostbite engine is a downgrade from the old engine. 45hz servers, not as visually appealing as the last, less destruction.
JMHO
Yeah compared to the photogrammetry of BF1 & BFV, 2042 feels like a downgrade. Doesn't look near as good. BF1 and particularly BFV look beautiful on many maps and also seem to feature more destruction. Latest Frostbite engine definitely feels inferior.
Previous games' graphics were more immersive. BF2042 is way too cartoony.
BF2042 is by no means bad to look at but there's just something special about BF1 and BFV comparatively
@f1rataFrom a technical point of view - 2042 has dynamic time of day, where a sunny desert or a sunny field with 2 cubes can shift into a darkish place, with the area near the skyscrapers lit up by their billboards, and with the cubes' lamps lighting things up. This most likely happens with that dynamic GI they made a paper and talk about, that was used for PVZ.
I'm not sure if BFV has it as I've seen some flickers akin to 2042, however if it does, it's not utilized to that extent. Sad!
2042's smoke, fire, explosions look much better. BFV had raytraced reflections, however not much use of them; 2042 has the less impressive RTAO, but it makes more of a difference IMO.
The "no photogrammetry" thing is not true. E.g., Flashpoint: https://www.artstation.com/artwork/Al6vRe "Portal maps" (according to the description): https://www.artstation.com/artwork/w0yRow
In Levelcap's Redacted interview video, whoever was being interviewed said they scanned the bodybags.
I kinda doubt the presence or lack of it is the cause for the game looking worse. No one is singing praises for the post-Covid maps (if we assume those have more photogrammetry). It's already damning enough that people still keep saying there's no photogrammetry when there is. Moreso it's likely the general art direction, or maybe some other factor. Even just the color space can make a massive difference.
There's probably some other ways in which 2042 has technically better graphics as well...
2042 is fine, and in places looks great, but it is missing the polish and atmosphere that previous DICE developers knew how to do so well; BF1 has some incredible maps and are dripping in atmosphere. Shame we won't see any of them in a WW1 portal mode
