Complaint šš¤”
Hi, Iāve been watching the latest Battlefield 6 gameplay videos, and honestly what bothers me the most is how dated the graphics look. It really feels like ālast-gen,ā and that kills a lot of the exc...
Forum Discussion
Battlefield 6 is deliberately not pushing for cutting-edge graphics options like path tracing, because graphics aren't as important as being able to run the game well. The game also seems to scale pretty well on a wide variety of hardware, with people reporting that they can run it on PCs that are well below the minimum specifications.
That's not to say the current graphics are bad in any way though. From both a graphical perspective as well as the aesthetics, it still looks quite modern.
The biggest issue is that BF6 gameplay often looks almost indistinguishable from BF4, or even BF3 at times.
This is completely nonsense. If you put them side to side, there are pretty big differences in both the visual quality as well as the overall map design. Battlefield 6's maps are by far denser in terms of the amount of cover and overall details. Obviously a 1080p YouTube video with a ton of compression isn't going to show you the same amount of clarity as playing the game using a 4K monitor.
Washed-out colors, odd texturesā¦ overall it just gives the impression of an old game.
In certain scenarios, like when you're inside a building and looking outside, the lighting can be quite harsh and washed out. That isn't really a graphical issue. The artists responsible for the lighting just went a little overboard.
In BF6 Iām seeing the opposite problem: small maps with all the action crammed into a single central point, when they could be larger and denser, especially considering this game is only coming to next-gen consoles and PC.
Just curious, but which current-gen multiplayer game offers maps that are both larger and denser than the ones we find in Battlefield?
The real-time attachment swap system (Plus System), which was fantastic.
In terms of gameplay balance, the plus system covered up some of the flaws of 2042's map design. In terms of overall weapon balance it was pretty horrible as it removed the necessity to choose a loadout. You could just configure a single loadout that contained every possible combination that you could possibly need.
128-player mode, which works great when maps are well designed.
We didn't have a single map in Battlefield 2042 where 128 players worked well. It was inferior to the 64 player experience in pretty much every possible way. That's not just my opinion, but it was an opinion that was so widely shared that DICE chose to redesign significant portions of 2042 to support 64 players instead. In addition to that a Battlefield Studios developer admitted that they went for 64 players in Battlefield 6, because that's what the community wanted.
When I say the graphics look outdated, itās because when you watch a short gameplay clip of BF4, you often end up confusing it with BF6 ā a game from 2013.
I played the beta and thought it would improve. I even played on ultra settings with an RTX 5080.
Time passed, and the game still looks exactly like the beta graphically. Since itās about to be released, these graphics are going to stay the way they are.
I remember back in the days of BF3 and BF4, people complained about the filters. Today, theyāre so desperate for a game close to BF3 and BF4 that they havenāt complained about the terrible filters present in BF6.
I really hope itās FUN, because to me it looks like Iāll be playing a 2013 game.
Oh, and if you think Iām wrong, try this test with someone WHO DOESNāT PLAY AT ALL: show them a gameplay video of BF3 or BF4 and then one of BF6, and ask if they see a difference. Theyāll probably say it looks like the same game. At least my mom and my sister, who donāt play, said it looked the same.
When I showed them BF5 and BF1, they said it was different ā that it looked better.
But it doesnāt matter what I say. The desperation for something new makes people blind and unable to admit that, graphically, the game looks terrible.
If you without properly backing it up claim that people are desperate for something new and are blind because of it, then that indeed makes me question whether what you say matters.
As far as I'm concerned, you may claim that aestheticly the games are very similar and we'd agree, but as soon as you're talking about graphical fidelity, you're just objectively wrong.
Oh, and if you think Iām wrong, try this test with someone WHO DOESNāT PLAY AT ALL: show them a gameplay video of BF3 or BF4 and then one of BF6, and ask if they see a difference. Theyāll probably say it looks like the same game. At least my mom and my sister, who donāt play, said it looked the same.
They don't look the same. Bf3/BF4 soldiers don't move the same. They are quite stiff. The texture is different. There is a blur in fast moving things like the helicopter helix and stuff, particle effects like the sparks from gattling guns and AA are pretty bad. There was not a lot of mud, blood droplets, and the snow texture and footprints were not great. Weapon textures, fonts, HUD, etc. are more like in 720p/1080p era. You can't compare. If you put them side by side, no one would say they look the same.
But yeah, I get it. It is NOT a huge jump. For me, BF6 is closer to BF1, but better.
Btw, BFV is identical to BF1 for me (on console).
Maybe you have an excellent eye and monitor/TV.
If I show my wife gameplay of BF6 and any CoD game, she wonāt be able to tell the difference either, because they donāt know what to look for. If that is your reference, then I donāt know what to say.
And BF1 identical to BFV? Really? They look completely different. Going from BF1 to BFV was arguably a step back in terms of visibility, but still it looked pretty decent and up to par.
But if you expect PC progress on console, in terms of graphical quality, then youāre really not being realistic. Sorry. š¤·āāļø
Featured Places
