Forum Discussion

NBAasDOGG's avatar
3 years ago

Due to Crossplay, next-gen console players should have minor graphical options!

Both consoles currently support VRR and since it’s a crossplay game I believe that next-gen console players should also have some minor graphical options in how they want to play their game.

 

Currently the game is mostly running on Medium/Low settings at a dynamic resolution of 1800-1440P on both PS5 and Series X. (During the BETA it was running on HIGH/ULTRA at 1800P on both Series X and PS5). 

As almost 80% of the games released post 2021 offer graphical options for consoles players, I wonder why Battlefield does not, especially considering that we are playing with PC players that have unlocked frame-rates and better graphics.

 

Since the game is currently a solid 60fps on both consoles, there must a lot of overhead available. This is more evident considering the BETA was actually running HIGH/ULTRA on both consoles at a stable 60fps. Unfortunately, on the consoles the game looks worse that BF1 on PS4 and there is a tremendous amount of pop-in for foliage, shadows and tessellated objects. Everything is flickering and popping in within a 15 distance to the players (e.g. the foliage in Orbital, shadows of destructible objects such as trees and fences, and tessellated ground in Renewal desert area). 

 

These 3 options would be welcome for next-gen consoles users:

 

- Standard mode: Just as it is now

- Performance mode: Same as now, but unlocked fps (for VRR users)

- Fidelity mode: Fixed 1800P using High/Ultra settings at 45-60fps (perfect for VRR users)

8 Replies

  • Echo6Echo's avatar
    Echo6Echo
    3 years ago

    Questions; What does crossplay have anything to do with how console renders graphics or it's settings?

    If the capability is there, it should be able to do it, crossplay or no crossplay...correct?

  • Crossplay includes PC players that have the freedom of graphical settings, even though the majority of them have inferior hardware when compared to the PS5 and Series X (according to Steam survey, the majority of them are GTX1060 and lower).

  • NBAasDOGG's avatar
    NBAasDOGG
    3 years ago

    This is very well known due to comparison between the BETA and Launch!

    Here is some information and pictures:

    - Beta ran at near 1800P (peaked at 1921P)

    - Launch runs at a dynamic upscaled 1440-1800P using TAA. 

    BETA picture is significantly less blurry due to higher resolution.

    - Beta used used PC equivalent of Ultra for foliage and High for terrain/mesh quality (LOD).

    - Launch reduced the foliage to High and dropped terrain/mesh to Medium


    BETA picture represents higher foliage at distance and less pop-in when compared to launch.

    - BETA shadow draw distance (known as lighting quality) was set to High.

    - At launch the shadow quality is equivalent to Low.

    Beta picture shows significantly higher shadow draw distance on trees.

    Launch:

    Launch shadow draw distance set to 10meters (equal to PC low).

    Hope it’s clear now, as there is plenty of evidence how the game was graphically downgraded since BETA (only on PS5 and Series X), thus giving consoles players options would be very welcome.


  • @NBAasDOGG wrote:

    Crossplay includes PC players that have the freedom of graphical settings, even though the majority of them have inferior hardware when compared to the PS5 and Series X (according to Steam survey, the majority of them are GTX1060 and lower).


    I'm with you. I'm just having a hard time understanding how crossplay has anything to do with it. If crossplay was OFF, you'd still want this graphic option right? 

  • Unfortunately, with crossplay off there no way I can find any games of Conquest 128 during weekends and midweeks in my region (Netherlands), so crossplay is essential in able to play the game at the first place. 
    Currently, crossplay includes PC players that have the advantage of unlocked frame-rates (lower input latency as a result) that gives them the advantage when in combat, and let’s not forget the advantage of keyboard and mouse. 

    Crossplay excuse aside, I still believe that graphical options are good for console players in general and it’s become a norm since 2022. Since the hardware is capable now and VRR panels are becoming mainstream, I believe it’s a plus if players can choose how they want to enjoy and play their game visually.

  • @NBAasDOGG Wow, yeah thanks for the evidence. That's really baffling! I can only imagine it's to give themselves more overhead with the frame rate but I'm fully on board with your post, more choice is never a bad thing.
  • I'd like to see if the consoles could handle running the game 1080p @120 fps.
    But agree as we are playing the same game as PC players, as it's been cited that the controller input has somehow impacted how the mouse input feels.

    I've tried the last gen version on the SX and it runs rough!!!!, which is weird because you would think it would run smoother.

    I can understand why people would want their money back after playing that. Both version don't even compare. LOL

About Battlefield 2042 General Discussion

Discuss the latest news and game information around Battlefield 2042 in the community forums.15,985 PostsLatest Activity: 4 years ago