Frostbite 2 was built for the Next Generation

[wfz]

crissindahouse said:

wfz said:

(playing Ultra settings on PC)

 

As I said somewhere else, Battlefield 3's visuals are so good I honestly don't care if technical visuals increase much from here. Other power-related things like A.I., physics (environment destruction), etc, can all be improved a bit, but visually things are fantastic.

I even had a hard time really appreciating all the glory of Battlefield 3's new CQ maps' visual qualities because the game moves too fast. They could improve the graphics by 2x tomorrow and I'd never notice in-game because at that point visuals are only something you compare on static images, not while playing the game and being immersed in it.

i think it is exactly the opposite. from now on only playing the game will show the graphical improvements  and pictures don't really show the differences aynmore^^

battlefield on ultra looks awesome for pc, but even the fxaa injector or what the name is changes the battlefiled 3 graphics a lot if you change the settings correctly! it looks much much better with that and it's only the same game with few self made changes. i can still see a lot of imporovements, but only when you really play the game and don't look at pictures.

I feel like when I'm playing the game, the way the game *looks*, polygon count-wise, is one of the lowest things on my list (regarding Battlefield and subsequently future games). Visuals always take a back seat when being immersed in a game for me, and it's now reached a point where I wouldn't enjoy Battlefield 3 any more than I do now if they increased the visual fidelity of it.

 

As I said though, other power-driven things like physics can see a definite improvement in the future. I'll notice things break or fall weirdly, or don't react how I'd expect them to.