These Battlefield 2042 graphics comparison screenshots and video showcases the Battlfield Portal maps compared to the original ones.
The PC will really make this game shine, but since I see EA on it...Pass...
Disagreed for PC this, PC that. Agree about EA.
You can disagree all you like. It's a fact that consoles are holding technical advances back. While we're getting 128 players in a BF game in 2021, PlanetSide 2 managed a 1000+ player battle years ago.
PlanetSide 2 is on PS4 and Mag on PS3 had 256 so that's kinda irrelevant
Should look good on PS5 and XSX too. I mean, not as much qs hiigh specced PCs, but good enough to wow.
The current consoles are new enough, and high spec enough, that we shouldn't see PC really pulling away from them visually for a good long time. Devs haven't even started to fully utilize their power yet.
@Zhipp Agreed which is why it's so frustrating to see so few next-gen exclusives. We'll have to wait at leasts a year before that becomes common. Ratchet is one of the best looking games out at the moment on a technical level, and it sold well. It's unusual of Sony to do 1st party games cross-gen and honestly it sucks knowing that God of War and Horizon Forbidden West won't show us what next-gen is really capable of (even though HFB is by no means a bad looking game). I'm not just talking graphics but also gameplay that is only possible on next-gen (think advanced physics that's integrated into gameplay or raytraced reflections where you can see enemies/other players in MP in the reflections).
I’ll hold judgment for release, but seems like the dev is listening more this time around
I am 100% sure you will be one of the first who put hands on this. So why you are putting childlish comment
I’m the same. I was interested in this but then it became mp only. I’d buy a game from them with a campaign. But this is another multiplayer game trying to eat some Fortnite profit,
The Battlefield franchise has been around for a long time. How is this trying to eat some Fortnite profit? And you do know that the game originated as an MP only game, and that the vast majority of BF players get the game to solely play online.
Because it doesn’t matter how long something has been around, if something comes and makes more money, the older ones will copy. Studio Ghibli has just released their first full cgi animated film, Dragon Ball is about to do the same. Just because something is old, it doesn’t mean that it’s going to remain a certain way forever. Greed always overtakes artistic ambition. I say this as someone who hates MP games in general. Battlefield has had campaigns since Bad Company, I’m now as interested as I was when they were without campaigns, when I was too young to even know what a video game even was.
It’s a shame that it’s MP only, as in for the graphics. Multiplayer games showcase console abilities differently. Because this game is mp, we won’t see what the engine will look like at its prettiest
I suppose one way of thinking about it is that they have poured ALL of their resources into multiplayer. Having to make an SP campaign takes a lot of dev time. Which -- for most people being a ~6 hour experience -- isn't really the greatest allocation of resources. Considering that fact that a GOOD multiplayer experience can lead to 100+ hours for players, I can see the rationale. Plus...Bf campaigns are a bit crap when you compare them to proper single player games. Bad Company 2 had a fun one though.
@EasyC , for me your logic is flawed. It is the SP campaign that gets me in the door, and justifies the money spent. The MP is just a extension of the story, MP only feels like half the value to me. Therefore , should be half the price not double.But to each their own....
How is MP an extension of the story when MP is just literal war situations in different spots with no real story? If your a SP guy, just say that and keep it moving. BF ain't never been about single player and the Bad Company games are the only ones with good ones lol. BF4 I played the campaign and that was the last time I played more than 2 hours of 1 because they're all mediocre. Plus, last time I checked, ppl cried that they knew more than dice last time they were doing campaign stuff. People gotta accept not every game needs to waste resources on things that aren't needed
Nah. AAA studios don’t apply all of their resources to anything. This is a cost cutting venture and nothing more.
evolved on the same hardware, imagine a current gen battlefield.
Can look like real life, still a pass..... No SP, GaaS service model, Mandatory Battle Passes, and paid DLC. More cost for less value, has been the theme for the last couple BF games.
But how gameplay hasn't.
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.