Support NeoGAF

[Edder1]

i actually hate the return to form term because it implies that they have gone back to the basics instead of overhauling the game to be different, to be more ambitious and try to take advantage of the next gen horsepower.

The game looks good but its mostly the same as BF4 and BF3 with some BF1 atmospherics, but nothing brand new and ambitious like what they showed at the start of the generation below:

Ahahahaha

I remember that BS "work in progress" trailer that was totally made up and at the time naive dummies like me believed next Battlefield would look like CGI and would be groundbreaking, only for it to be the turd that was 2042. I have no trust in EA and Dice anymore, they're just one tier above Ubisoft, and Ubisoft are swimming in sh*t.

 

[Balducci30]

Because time and power could be spend on something that actually matters to the game or to system that more globally enhance things.
I'm not saying its zere benefit, but I think in most games that power could be better spent on other things.

I disagree tbh, if a dev put this type of effort in to details like this and physics and other things - that's what sets a game apart from the rest. At least that's how it used to be. That's what made Naughty Dog popular, half life, halo, gta - it was being detail oriented and putting effort into things people might not even notice.

Any game with vehicles could benefit from a visual damage model at least close to Beamng - currently nothing else past or present even comes close to looking like that. It's especially baffling in terms of racing sims where you would expect them to implement a realistic damage model at some point

Like I love raytracing and all - but how is a fully functioning damage model not the natural evolution in a car simulation over that

 

[CGNoire]

Ahahahaha

I remember that BS "work in progress" trailer that was totally made up and at the time naive dummies like me believed next Battlefield would look like CGI and would be groundbreaking, only for it to be the turd that was 2042. I have no trust in EA and Dice anymore, they're just one tier above Ubisoft, and Ubisoft are swimming in sh*t.

That wasn't as sad as the people who believed in the "in engine" trailer.

 

[SlimySnake]

Ahahahaha

I remember that BS "work in progress" trailer that was totally made up and at the time naive dummies like me believed next Battlefield would look like CGI and would be groundbreaking, only for it to be the turd that was 2042. I have no trust in EA and Dice anymore, they're just one tier above Ubisoft, and Ubisoft are swimming in sh*t.

Yeah, i also naively believed in devs back then. Remember criterion showed this at the same event.

Final game looked nothing like it.

 

[Lethal01]

I disagree tbh, if a dev put this type of effort in to details like this and physics and other things - that's what sets a game apart from the rest. At least that's how it used to be. That's what made Naughty Dog popular, half life, halo, gta - it was being detail oriented and putting effort into things people might not even notice.

Any game with vehicles could benefit from a visual damage model at least close to Beamng - currently nothing else past or present even comes close to looking like that. It's especially baffling in terms of racing sims where you would expect them to implement a realistic damage model at some point

Like I love raytracing and all - but how is a fully functioning damage model not the natural evolution in a car simulation over that

it just doesnt havek a big effect on racing, id rater more resources go to lighting or other system that will impact gameplay.

and ofcouse if a dev wants to actually smartly integreat this destruction as a meaningful gameplay system thats great too.

 

[SlimySnake]

I guess you are talking about all the games that are not ngbeam right?

yeah, beamng isnt even a game. its just a physics simulator. good for youtube content. no one here is going to play it.

I want to see stuff like this in Forza, Gran Turismo, NFS, not to mention open world games like GTA.

 

[peish]

Compared to that promo screenshot from before

Always the lighting that gets downgraded from promo bullshots. Goes to show how important is getting path tracing performant in games is a priority

 

[Pharaoh 117]

Always the lighting that gets downgraded from promo bullshots. Goes to show how important is getting path tracing performant in games is a priority

Again, maybe that lighting is still in the PC version. We can only hope.

 

[SlimySnake]

Always the lighting that gets downgraded from promo bullshots. Goes to show how important is getting path tracing performant in games is a priority

I've seen a gif of this. It wasnt a bullshot.

Some games just dont show up well on previews. wait for the DF footage or play on your pc. UE5 games with nanite especially stand out when you finally play them on a large screen with all the detail nanite is packing.

Review embargo is tomorrow so maybe DF will have their footage. I still think it will impress people. The tech (both lumen and nanite) is there.

 

[SlimySnake]

Finally started Space Marine 2. Not very impressed so far after all the hype I've heard around here.

The scale can be impressive, but the outdated lighting really holds it back. Facial detail/animations look worse than many PS4 games as well.

First mission is trash. The game has some stunning levels coming up. The lighting might not be great at all times but the level of detail is top notch. You can really tell that every single object on the walls and even buildings in the distance have properly modeled assets, and not just painted on textures. I dont think ive seen a game push this much detail in an urban setting this gen and that includes UE5 games like SH2.

 

[SlimySnake]

Really good video on the destruction added to BF6. But what stood out to me was just how fucking sterile BF 2042 felt. BF6 feels like a war game like BF1. Lots of smoke effects.



What surprised me the most was the car destruction. was not expecting them to apply destruction to car parts, trees and other objects in the world.

 

[Feel Like I'm On 42]

i actually hate the return to form term because it implies that they have gone back to the basics instead of overhauling the game to be different, to be more ambitious and try to take advantage of the next gen horsepower.

The game looks good but its mostly the same as BF4 and BF3 with some BF1 atmospherics, but nothing brand new and ambitious like what they showed at the start of the generation below:

Work in progress my ass. There was no work being done on this other than creating a cg render of a face and NPCs.

Operations in BF1 was such a great mode and all i kept thinking was how amazing it would be if it had more than just 64 players charging at each other taking sector after sector. it's been 9 years and we are still at 64 players. MAG had 256 player battles that culminated with everyone meeting in the middle at the end of the game and while it ran at 15 fps, it was incredible. that was in 2010 on a PS3. How we cant do 1000 players in a war game is an example of the sorry state of cod and BF studios. Sony couldve made a war game with all that gaas money but those retards invested in overwatch trash instead of something like Socom, MAG, Killzone or Resistance 2.

P.S This is on the gamers too. They want devs to go back to the basics and feel more like BF3 and BF4. Well, fucking play those games then. The servers are up. They can be bought for like $5 on the EA store. Why do you want to play the same game over and over again? People have zero imagination.

SO BF6 is going to 64 players instead of 128? If so that's pathetic. I was so confused when the community started demanding a return to 64 players in Bf2042.

 

[Radical_3d]

First mission is trash. The game has some stunning levels coming up. The lighting might not be great at all times but the level of detail is top notch. You can really tell that every single object on the walls and even buildings in the distance have properly modeled assets, and not just painted on textures. I dont think ive seen a game push this much detail in an urban setting this gen and that includes UE5 games like SH2.

"Only in death geometry ends."

 

[dgrdsv]

BF6 has impressive destruction physics but graphics is rather meh.
It's probably using the same FB RTAO at best, and that one barely looks better than some advanced SSAO like GTAO or HBAO would.

 

[AeonGaidenRaiden]

Yeah, i also naively believed in devs back then. Remember criterion showed this at the same event.

Final game looked nothing like it.

Oh I remember this one and this was for the then unannounced Unbound lol. They literally put out a 5 sec render with nothing around and sold it as "this is what the game will look like". Unless I see gameplay footage with a HUD in-game, everything is just bullshots and "target" graphics.

 

[mrMUR_96]

i actually hate the return to form term because it implies that they have gone back to the basics instead of overhauling the game to be different, to be more ambitious and try to take advantage of the next gen horsepower.

The game looks good but its mostly the same as BF4 and BF3 with some BF1 atmospherics, but nothing brand new and ambitious like what they showed at the start of the generation below:

Work in progress my ass. There was no work being done on this other than creating a cg render of a face and NPCs.

Operations in BF1 was such a great mode and all i kept thinking was how amazing it would be if it had more than just 64 players charging at each other taking sector after sector. it's been 9 years and we are still at 64 players. MAG had 256 player battles that culminated with everyone meeting in the middle at the end of the game and while it ran at 15 fps, it was incredible. that was in 2010 on a PS3. How we cant do 1000 players in a war game is an example of the sorry state of cod and BF studios. Sony couldve made a war game with all that gaas money but those retards invested in overwatch trash instead of something like Socom, MAG, Killzone or Resistance 2.

P.S This is on the gamers too. They want devs to go back to the basics and feel more like BF3 and BF4. Well, fucking play those games then. The servers are up. They can be bought for like $5 on the EA store. Why do you want to play the same game over and over again? People have zero imagination.

Player count doesn't equal better gameplay, 2042 had a 128 player mode and it kind of sucked compared to the other modes.

 

[GudOlRub]

Player count doesn't equal better gameplay, 2042 had a 128 player mode and it kind of sucked compared to the other modes.

Never played 2042 but if I had to guess I would bet it's not necessarily because of the player count or the mode, the problem is the mindset of the Battlefield playerbase.
As much as we'd like this game to have a huge focus on teamplay, the reality is almost everyone plays solo, you jump onto a BF1 or BFV game and if you have 1 or 2 engineers that repair vehicles or 1 or 2 medics that actually focus on healing and reviving you'll be lucky.
64 or 128 players makes no difference if people only play for the K/D ratio.

My favourite way of playing Battlefield these days is actually BF1 hardcore servers, I don't know why but I feel like people actually try. Perhaps it's because running solo is incredibly punishing since you get 1 shot by pretty much every weapon.

DICE tried to fix it with the Attrition system in BFV which I honestly think it's a great idea and could work in the long run, but butthurt casuals cried so much about it at launch that DICE immediately nerfed it afterwards... Had they stuck to this idea I honestly believe the fanbase could have been coerced into playing more as a team.

 

[Represent.]

Really good video on the destruction added to BF6. But what stood out to me was just how fucking sterile BF 2042 felt. BF6 feels like a war game like BF1. Lots of smoke effects.



What surprised me the most was the car destruction. was not expecting them to apply destruction to car parts, trees and other objects in the world.

This is highly impressive. The car and tree getting destroyed is awesome. Single player is going to be awesome

 

[Imtjnotu]

Really good video on the destruction added to BF6. But what stood out to me was just how fucking sterile BF 2042 felt. BF6 feels like a war game like BF1. Lots of smoke effects.



What surprised me the most was the car destruction. was not expecting them to apply destruction to car parts, trees and other objects in the world.

2042 felt like an empty soul game. Just dead world. No destruction. No levels taking a beating. It was a weather game.

 

[Luipadre]

Really good video on the destruction added to BF6. But what stood out to me was just how fucking sterile BF 2042 felt. BF6 feels like a war game like BF1. Lots of smoke effects.



What surprised me the most was the car destruction. was not expecting them to apply destruction to car parts, trees and other objects in the world.

2042 looks like a cheap knockoff game besides BF6

 

[CowboyLou]

Jumped on 2042 about 18 months post-launch and had a lot of fun with it. Disastrous conception and launch but became pretty fun later on. Really liked the art style. Looking forward to BF6 but it looks reactionary and safe, and going back to 64 players is a yuge downgrade, very disappointing. But the Battlefield fanbase seems allergic to anything besides maintaining that BF3/BF4 status quo. It's sad because BF2 and BF2142 were the ones that did the most to push innovative gameplay features (commander, titans etc.) and at the time of their release, it seemed like the sky was the limit for what future entries might bring. Unfortunately, it became a console-focused franchise after that. Thankfully there are quite a few Battlefield-likes out there these days (especially on the more hardcore side) each bringing their own kind of appeal.

 

[SlimySnake]

Player count doesn't equal better gameplay, 2042 had a 128 player mode and it kind of sucked compared to the other modes.

I dont disagree. I preferred 40 player operations over 64 player ones because most maps felt balanced for a smaller player count.

However, you cant show us footage of a massive army of soldiers charging in a battlefield and then give us the same thing from 2011. I wont quite call it the PS3 era because BF3's caspian border 64 player maps were on PC only, but going back to 2011 era design and player count shows that they have stagnated.

Games HAVE to move forward. The maps and game design HAS to be updated to make sense with larger player counts. It's clear that their original vision was about putting us in a massive field with hundreds of soldiers like in the movie 1917. And honestly, thats the end game for all war games anyway. Saving Private Ryan, 1917, Thin Red Line, Behind Enemy Gates, thats what we are all trying to get to. And if we cant get there in 2025 then when? When are we going to take that next leap forward with shooters?

or is battle royale or overwatch the best we can do?

 

[SlimySnake]

Jumped on 2042 about 18 months post-launch and had a lot of fun with it. Disastrous conception and launch but became pretty fun later on. Really liked the art style. Looking forward to BF6 but it looks reactionary and safe, and going back to 64 players is a yuge downgrade, very disappointing. But the Battlefield fanbase seems allergic to anything besides maintaining that BF3/BF4 status quo. It's sad because BF2 and BF2142 were the ones that did the most to push innovative gameplay features (commander, titans etc.) and at the time of their release, it seemed like the sky was the limit for what future entries might bring. Unfortunately, it became a console-focused franchise after that. Thankfully there are quite a few Battlefield-likes out there these days (especially on the more hardcore side) each bringing their own kind of appeal.

That's the problem with listening to the fanbase. It messes up your vision. Games, especially multiplayer games, have become way too focus tested where devs essentially are making the games a small vocal minority wants. Instead of you know, going with their own artistic vision. It's so odd to me that we hate focus groups for games, and yet we are like nah, focus test US, listen to US when it comes to multiplayer games instead of simply accepting or rejecting an artist's vision for what a sequel should be.

I saw an interview where Tarantino said that he makes movies for himself. He doesnt give a shit about the critics or the audience. He wants to make a movie he would love to watch. I think thats the attitude developers should have. If your vision doesnt connect with a mass audience then so be it. At least, it will be your vision. Not the drones who have no imagination themselves and look up to artists who do have an imagination. We watch sports because we cant do what those athletes do. We read books and watch movies because we cant tell those stories. I dont understand why it's different for video games and what's ended up happening is a total stagnation in many different genres, especially multiplayer shooters, because everyone just wants to appease their fanbase. or rather a vocal minority of fanbase that follows a bunch of youtubers who all play together and mop the floor with randos anyway.

Of course, it's entirely possible that they have no vision and we are blaming the battlefield fanbase for no reason, but ive seen DICE go back and forth trying to appease everyone and they end up pleasing no one.

 

[CowboyLou]

Of course, it's entirely possible that they have no vision and we are blaming the battlefield fanbase for no reason, but ive seen DICE go back and forth trying to appease everyone and they end up pleasing no one.

I suppose it's possible, but after years and years of observing the BF fanbase I think they simply are that obnoxious. I really don't envy the BF Studios devs. I wouldn't want to be in their shoes of trying to keep that particular fanbase happy, broaden the franchise appeal thanks to publisher mandates, all while dealing with the pressure and the bloat of modern game dev. The game is looking quite good and I'm sure I'll have fun with it but it's hard to not want and expect more. I would love to see what's possible without the pressure on the devs to keep the loud vocal minority happy, but unfortunately this game really needs public sentiment on its side.

 

[ThisIsMyDog]

true photorealism

 

[Balducci30]

true photorealism

What is this?

 

[Edder1]

Yeah, i also naively believed in devs back then. Remember criterion showed this at the same event.

Final game looked nothing like it.

Daaaaaamn, I completely forgot about that Criterion "work ik progress" trailer They were really taking a piss making us think their games would look like that. That's Sony 2005 era bullshitery. I remember thinking "next gen is here" when watching that EA presentation. Bastards, they played us like a damn fiddle. Never again.

Then they wonder why gamers are cynical. When you bullsh*t your customers like that they have no choice but to be cynical.

 

[Represent.]

 

[Represent.]

What is this?

Genie 3. AI.

 

[Represent.]

I dont want to hear anything about textures and lighting when we're getting this level of destruction and physics in a 64 PLAYER MP GAME.

Even I am not complaining about 60fps here. thats saying something because i hate that shit

 

[Xtib81]

Really good video on the destruction added to BF6. But what stood out to me was just how fucking sterile BF 2042 felt. BF6 feels like a war game like BF1. Lots of smoke effects.



What surprised me the most was the car destruction. was not expecting them to apply destruction to car parts, trees and other objects in the world.

Now, what about BF6 vs bf1-5? Destruction in BF6 doesn't look particularly better to me.

 

[Luipadre]

Now, what about BF6 vs bf1-5? Destruction in BF6 doesn't look particularly better to me.

Its better and definitely the best looking one visually too

 

[SlimySnake]

Now, what about BF6 vs bf1-5? Destruction in BF6 doesn't look particularly better to me.

there was no destruction in BF3-BF5.

BFBC2 was the last game that allowed you to break walls, but buildings were basically small houses. Mainline games including BF1 chose to remove that aspect of the game. BF4 had one map with some scripted destruction.

 

[Pharaoh 117]

Man, this video snippet of the cave section really makes it seem like the graphics were severely downgraded.

 

[Luipadre]

Man, this video snippet of the cave section really makes it seem like the graphics were severely downgraded.

Console footage still. I'd wait for PC. Even on the pro this game looks bad, image quality in 60 fps mode is awful, cant even imagine the base versions

 

[Xtib81]

there was no destruction in BF3-BF5.

BFBC2 was the last game that allowed you to break walls, but buildings were basically small houses. Mainline games including BF1 chose to remove that aspect of the game. BF4 had one map with some scripted destruction.

No destruction in BF5??? Whaaaat? You can completely transform maps like Arras or Narvik.
Same for BF1, you can completely level a map like St Quentin scar.



Again, I'm not sure what some people are seeing in BF6 destruction that I'm not seeing. It looks good, but it already looked good in Bf1/5.

 

[SlimySnake]

No destruction in BF5??? Whaaaat? You can completely transform maps like Arras or Narvik.
Same for BF1, you can completely level a map like St Quentin scar.



Again, I'm not sure what some people are seeing in BF6 destruction that I'm not seeing. It looks good, but it already looked good in Bf1/5.

hmm, interesting. I never saw it lmao.

 

[Pharaoh 117]

No destruction in BF5??? Whaaaat? You can completely transform maps like Arras or Narvik.
Same for BF1, you can completely level a map like St Quentin scar.



Again, I'm not sure what some people are seeing in BF6 destruction that I'm not seeing. It looks good, but it already looked good in Bf1/5.

Yeah, I also didn't understand the reactions. It is the same destruction they always had, maybe with a little more smoke and debris.

 

[Piggoro]

Genie 3. AI.

After watching the AI-filtered video game graphics made realistic (or anything that you can imagine), I started to think that we're on the verge of the new Post-Graphics Era. There still will be UE6 or even 7 and such (most likely), but the basic principles of creating a game image will completely change. This will be not an evolution but a revolution. All the things that we cared for for the last ~35 years are going to become mostly irrelevant: a number of polygons, texture resolution, shaders, and (OH MY GOD!) ray-tracing will become obsolete. This thought itself is terrifying for me as a lifelong graphics whore.
But I feel there are also reasons to be optimistic about these developments. For years interactivity, AI, and physics were mostly taking a backseat in the AAA scene. The majority of attention was given to graphics. I hope, that with the graphics arms race mostly becoming irrelevant, we can see more creative, deep, flexible, and interesting games - a proper marriage of AAA and indie.
So, weep and also rejoice my graphics prostitute brethren - our deliverance is coming (in the next 5 to 10 years tops). The paradigm shift will be super weird and mentally painful but I want to be optimistic and believe that ultimately it's for the better.
Bookmark that stuff here.

This.

 

[icecold1983]

Its the same destruction with more particles and visual splendor. It actually reminds me a lot of the destruction in the close quarters DLC for BF3 expanded to larger maps.

 

[SlimySnake]

This is amazing. UE5.7 demo with 200 trillion polygons! Each tree is made up of 20 million polygons.

Here is the demo, but id suggest watching the making of/behind the scenes as well since it shows him pulling back the camera from the ground level. Amazing stuff. done in 2 days too.





Running at 30 fps on a 4090.

 

[adamsapple]

First mission is trash. The game has some stunning levels coming up. The lighting might not be great at all times but the level of detail is top notch. You can really tell that every single object on the walls and even buildings in the distance have properly modeled assets, and not just painted on textures. I dont think ive seen a game push this much detail in an urban setting this gen and that includes UE5 games like SH2.

I was just playing this a few days ago.

Series X, Performance mode. Not the sharpest IQ but the amount of shit going on the screen is impressive that they got this running at a pretty solid 60 on current gen.

 

[CowboyLou]

Again, I'm not sure what some people are seeing in BF6 destruction that I'm not seeing. It looks good, but it already looked good in Bf1/5.

Yeah I WTFed at that comment. BF1 and BFV handled it pretty well. Not as dramatic as BC2, but I always found BC2 too over the top and I didn't have the love affair with it a lot of people did. I played a lot of BFV especially and the destruction led to some great moments.

 

[SlimySnake]

Yeah I WTFed at that comment. BF1 and BFV handled it pretty well. Not as dramatic as BC2, but I always found BC2 too over the top and I didn't have the love affair with it a lot of people did. I played a lot of BFV especially and the destruction led to some great moments.

I have 400 hours in bf1. Destruction in that game was pretty much non existent.

Amiens was my favorite map but none of those buildings could be destroyed. No walls could be blown off. Nothing.

Bfv i only played for around 20 hours. Just didn't see any real destruction like I'm seeing here.

This game seems to be built around destruction. In the trailer they have helicopters crash into buildings several times and take the buildings down with them. No other bf game had this.

 

[ResetEraVetVIP]

P.S This is on the gamers too. They want devs to go back to the basics and feel more like BF3 and BF4. Well, fucking play those games then. The servers are up. They can be bought for like $5 on the EA store. Why do you want to play the same game over and over again? People have zero imagination.

Exactly this, the masses want the same thing over and over and over that's why masterpieces are rare. There wouldn't be a TLOU 2 or any other masterpiece if we catered to the casuals etc.

Also where are the "next gen" visuals? B6 looks great but could look muuuuuuch better. Where is the "next gen" besides destruction? Maybe single player looks better? At least B6 looks to be an awesome game, hopefully it has some RT features…

 

[Represent.]

I was just playing this a few days ago.

Series X, Performance mode. Not the sharpest IQ but the amount of shit going on the screen is impressive that they got this running at a pretty solid 60 on current gen.

Hideous. Play it in the quality mode, looks vastly superior.

 

[ThisIsMyDog]

I have 400 hours in bf1. Destruction in that game was pretty much non existent.

Amiens was my favorite map but none of those buildings could be destroyed. No walls could be blown off. Nothing.

Bfv i only played for around 20 hours. Just didn't see any real destruction like I'm seeing here.

 

[adamsapple]

Hideous. Play it in the quality mode, looks vastly superior.

It's a fast paced action game, performance is a lot more worthwhile here imo

 

[AeonGaidenRaiden]

No destruction in BF5??? Whaaaat? You can completely transform maps like Arras or Narvik.
Same for BF1, you can completely level a map like St Quentin scar.



Again, I'm not sure what some people are seeing in BF6 destruction that I'm not seeing. It looks good, but it already looked good in Bf1/5.

Even BF1 had destruction, not sure what these people are smoking saying BF never had this level of destruction before. I literally fell out of my sniper's nest in BF1 because someone destroyed the building I was on top of. Hell even BF4 had a solid level of building destruction, makes you wonder people commenting here did they even play this franchise here before or just bunny hopped on here because of graphics without knowing the selling point of almost all BF games.



BF never had this level of destruction? GTFO:

 

[Kikorin]

Destruction in BF6 is about the same as Bad Company 2 (still the best one at doing it), but with some meaningful improvements, like that you can destroy (some?) floor too, debris seems to have some physicality and appears under biggest destroyed walls to change how you move on the map.

But basically is the same destruction as ever, full static except for craters on the roads and with a double state (like a 0/1 switch) that activate when there's an explosion. You can't have a damaged or slightly cracked wall, it can only be intact or destroyed. The same goes for all breakable objects on the map.