criterion-sm dice-lg ea-starwars-lg instagram lucasfilm-lg motive-lg twitch you-tube
Gamescom 2019 Triple XP
Community Transmission

Would you be happy with ok graphics?

Prev1
Warrior
298 posts Member
edited June 2017
Would you get Battlefront 2 if it had four times the content of BFnt 1, but the GFX weren't super? I know that I sure would. I have noticed that I forget about how good the GFX are in Battlefront, after just a bit of playing.
I had a dream, that one day on the sweet hills of Georgia, everybody will be able to play the Star Wars game they've always wanted.

Replies

  • Trooper8059
    10199 posts Member
    I could care less about graphics. If I did, I'm pretty sure I'd hate the mods for Pandemic's Battlefront 2.
    PSN: Trooper8059
    "Remember: Your focus determines your reality."
    ezgif_5_a643336582.gif
  • Warrior
    298 posts Member
    I could care less about graphics. If I did, I'm pretty sure I'd hate the mods for Pandemic's Battlefront 2.

    I love the mods! Each mod probably has more content then SWBF1
    I had a dream, that one day on the sweet hills of Georgia, everybody will be able to play the Star Wars game they've always wanted.
  • Jrob122
    4638 posts Member
    Good gameplay>photorealistic graphics
  • bfloo
    15531 posts Member
    The graphics are toned down in Battlefield1 and it plays better plus allows for bigger teams.

    The Knights of Gareth are Eternal

    Pirate of the Knights of Gareth

    h846398gb27k.png


  • kylenpain
    1305 posts Member
    yeah i dont care for graphics but the graphics in the first are good enough for me. i wouldnt mind graphics like SWTOR.
  • Warrior
    298 posts Member
    edited June 2017
    kylenpain wrote: »
    yeah i dont care for graphics but the graphics in the first are good enough for me. i wouldnt mind graphics like SWTOR.

    I'd like something a bit better than SWTOR. Not much though.
    I had a dream, that one day on the sweet hills of Georgia, everybody will be able to play the Star Wars game they've always wanted.
  • Stalemate
    3600 posts Member
    I care a little, I like how realistic the Stormtroopers look in Battlefront 2015 so I would be a little disappointed if they didn't look as good this time round, I would still buy the game though.
  • Stalemate wrote: »
    I care a little, I like how realistic the Stormtroopers look in Battlefront 2015 so I would be a little disappointed if they didn't look as good this time round, I would still buy the game though.
    "Army or not. You must realize, you are doomed." ~General Grievous
    giphy.gif
  • bfloo wrote: »
    The graphics are toned down in Battlefield1 and it plays better plus allows for bigger teams.

    not really the graphics in battlefield 1 are better than battlefront. The textures and light reflection are the main improvements.
  • Jrob122
    4638 posts Member
    edited June 2017
    bfloo wrote: »
    The graphics are toned down in Battlefield1 and it plays better plus allows for bigger teams.

    not really the graphics in battlefield 1 are better than battlefront. The textures and light reflection are the main improvements.

    Yeah and they don't want to hurt their sweet child's sales so they truck gameplay elements for Battlefront so it doesn't hurt the battlefield franchise which explains the lack of 64 player modes and conquest. If you want those two aspects, then you get battlefield.
  • Warrior
    298 posts Member
    Stalemate wrote: »
    I care a little, I like how realistic the Stormtroopers look in Battlefront 2015 so I would be a little disappointed if they didn't look as good this time round, I would still buy the game though.

    I don't care much about the GFX. That's why I still play Ghost Recon, and Rainbow 6 (the originals.) It's the reason people today waste lifetimes playing Mount & Blade. I want the GFX to be good, but it doesn't matter much to me.
    I had a dream, that one day on the sweet hills of Georgia, everybody will be able to play the Star Wars game they've always wanted.
  • bfloo
    15531 posts Member
    bfloo wrote: »
    The graphics are toned down in Battlefield1 and it plays better plus allows for bigger teams.

    not really the graphics in battlefield 1 are better than battlefront. The textures and light reflection are the main improvements.

    The background and all don't look as detailed to me.

    The weather changes and all are better though.
    The Knights of Gareth are Eternal

    Pirate of the Knights of Gareth

    h846398gb27k.png


  • Stalemate
    3600 posts Member
    Stalemate wrote: »
    I care a little, I like how realistic the Stormtroopers look in Battlefront 2015 so I would be a little disappointed if they didn't look as good this time round, I would still buy the game though.

    I don't get it.
  • Warrior wrote: »
    I could care less about graphics. If I did, I'm pretty sure I'd hate the mods for Pandemic's Battlefront 2.

    I love the mods! Each mod probably has more content then SWBF1

    Many BF2 mods have more content than BF2, as well. I know because I've looked at the size of the folders in my mods folder.

    Belive me, graphics matter. People say they don't matter, but people also love to put everything through the finest toothed comb possible to find things to complain about. If you've spent any amount of time on this forum, you know what I mean. If BF2 (2017) had the same graphics as BF2 (2005), EA/DICE would never hear the end of it.

    The failure of Mass Effect Andromeda being attributed mostly to graphical issues proves that people can say graphics don't matter until the sun sets, but at the end of the day, actions speak louder than words.
  • Evazan127
    8105 posts Member
    edited June 2017
    Ill buy the game regardless but the graphics in BF are amazing and I appreciate that greatly
  • Warrior
    298 posts Member
    Warrior wrote: »
    I could care less about graphics. If I did, I'm pretty sure I'd hate the mods for Pandemic's Battlefront 2.

    I love the mods! Each mod probably has more content then SWBF1

    Many BF2 mods have more content than BF2, as well. I know because I've looked at the size of the folders in my mods folder.

    Belive me, graphics matter. People say they don't matter, but people also love to put everything through the finest toothed comb possible to find things to complain about. If you've spent any amount of time on this forum, you know what I mean. If BF2 (2017) had the same graphics as BF2 (2005), EA/DICE would never hear the end of it.

    The failure of Mass Effect Andromeda being attributed mostly to graphical issues proves that people can say graphics don't matter until the sun sets, but at the end of the day, actions speak louder than words.

    people are so confusing! :(
    I had a dream, that one day on the sweet hills of Georgia, everybody will be able to play the Star Wars game they've always wanted.
  • Well I still play the classic Battlefronts from Pandemic and I could play them for hours... so graphics really ain't a problem for me.
  • Ahsoka_Tano
    7341 posts Member
    Gameplay > Graphics
    For General Ahsoka Tano!
    h3d5nuo8y0jq.png

  • Evazan127
    8105 posts Member
    U pull up a good point that people just get used to graphics but I try hard not to. All the little Easter eggs and the overall beautiful graphics is what I love about BF.
    Some other games might have better graphics and graphic designs but none in the Star Wars universe.
  • Evazan127
    8105 posts Member
    Warrior wrote: »
    I could care less about graphics. If I did, I'm pretty sure I'd hate the mods for Pandemic's Battlefront 2.

    I love the mods! Each mod probably has more content then SWBF1

    Many BF2 mods have more content than BF2, as well. I know because I've looked at the size of the folders in my mods folder.

    Belive me, graphics matter. People say they don't matter, but people also love to put everything through the finest toothed comb possible to find things to complain about. If you've spent any amount of time on this forum, you know what I mean. If BF2 (2017) had the same graphics as BF2 (2005), EA/DICE would never hear the end of it.

    The failure of Mass Effect Andromeda being attributed mostly to graphical issues proves that people can say graphics don't matter until the sun sets, but at the end of the day, actions speak louder than words.
    Agree with it all. People love to find a reason to not like the new battlefront and maybe even a reason not to buy it.

    About the size of Pandemic vs EA: Really? Does that include dlcs.

    Mass effect: What graphic issues exactly. I don't play many games.
  • [/quote]

    About the size of Pandemic vs EA: Really? Does that include dlcs.

    [/quote]

    I was thinking more in GBs/file size than actual "content," a very abstract term, when I said that some BF2 mods are bigger than the original game.

    [/quote]

    Mass effect: What graphic issues exactly. I don't play many games.[/quote]

    Here's a good place to start:
  • You can close this now....they released an image that proves the game will have movie quality graphics
  • Warrior wrote: »
    I could care less about graphics. If I did, I'm pretty sure I'd hate the mods for Pandemic's Battlefront 2.

    I love the mods! Each mod probably has more content then SWBF1

    Yeah I like the graphics mod and the rezzed maps too. They make the 12 year game feel like its more modern and full surprises. And some of the mods for bf2 have cut content like hidden voice lines, Death star and Tantive 4 would have been playable in galatic conquest. Ventress playable on the bf1 Bespin maps and kit fisto on the rhen var maps. Heck there's even rebels on geonosis plains and they have geonosians backing them up with spider walkers against an At At walker. Plus an order 66 mode on most of the base maps. I would say these types of mods don't take away from the base game. It improves all it's flaws. Like if you want hero AI on the base maps. Now you can. Makes this so much better then the base game.
  • Nope. I bought a PS4 for photo-realism. Still waiting for it. Hopefully Red Dead Redemption 2 will have it. I love Battlefront, and still play almost every day, but the graphics in-game are not even close to what that first ever trailer showed. My jaw dropped when I saw that trailer and the Forest Moon of Endor. Boba Fett flying around with his flamethrower. Nothing in-game has looked anywhere near as impressive as that looked.

    I didn't play No Man's Sky because the graphics look like PS1, and AHEM, this is 2017! End of rant. Thanks.

    "I'm Luke Skywalker. I'm here to rescue you!"
  • Landeaux
    3467 posts Member
    Why does graphics have to be sacrificed for better gameplay or more content?
  • Landeaux
    3467 posts Member
    edited June 2017
    bfloo wrote: »
    The graphics are toned down in Battlefield1 and it plays better plus allows for bigger teams.

    Not if you play on PC. You can play it on Ultra graphics and it looks great
  • Landeaux
    3467 posts Member
    Jrob122 wrote: »
    bfloo wrote: »
    The graphics are toned down in Battlefield1 and it plays better plus allows for bigger teams.

    not really the graphics in battlefield 1 are better than battlefront. The textures and light reflection are the main improvements.

    Yeah and they don't want to hurt their sweet child's sales so they truck gameplay elements for Battlefront so it doesn't hurt the battlefield franchise which explains the lack of 64 player modes and conquest. If you want those two aspects, then you get battlefield.

    EA has a knack of competing against itself nevertheless. They release Battlefront, Titanfall, and Battlefield around the same time. Lowered playercount has nothing to do with wanting Battlefield to sell more than Battlefront
  • You not care about graphics after some hours later what keep you in the game its the fun and gameplay no the graphics
  • Jrob122
    4638 posts Member
    Landeaux wrote: »
    Jrob122 wrote: »
    bfloo wrote: »
    The graphics are toned down in Battlefield1 and it plays better plus allows for bigger teams.

    not really the graphics in battlefield 1 are better than battlefront. The textures and light reflection are the main improvements.

    Yeah and they don't want to hurt their sweet child's sales so they truck gameplay elements for Battlefront so it doesn't hurt the battlefield franchise which explains the lack of 64 player modes and conquest. If you want those two aspects, then you get battlefield.

    EA has a knack of competing against itself nevertheless. They release Battlefront, Titanfall, and Battlefield around the same time. Lowered playercount has nothing to do with wanting Battlefield to sell more than Battlefront

    Then why not add 64 player games with conquest? Hmmm
  • Jrob122 wrote: »
    Landeaux wrote: »
    Jrob122 wrote: »
    bfloo wrote: »
    The graphics are toned down in Battlefield1 and it plays better plus allows for bigger teams.

    not really the graphics in battlefield 1 are better than battlefront. The textures and light reflection are the main improvements.

    Yeah and they don't want to hurt their sweet child's sales so they truck gameplay elements for Battlefront so it doesn't hurt the battlefield franchise which explains the lack of 64 player modes and conquest. If you want those two aspects, then you get battlefield.

    EA has a knack of competing against itself nevertheless. They release Battlefront, Titanfall, and Battlefield around the same time. Lowered playercount has nothing to do with wanting Battlefield to sell more than Battlefront

    Then why not add 64 player games with conquest? Hmmm

    Probably because they thought it worked well for the first Battlefront so they decided to keep the same player count.
  • Warrior
    298 posts Member
    edited June 2017
    how much better can the GFX get on PC then they are on PS4? If you have a really powerful computer, would you be better off getting it on PC for the GFX?
    I had a dream, that one day on the sweet hills of Georgia, everybody will be able to play the Star Wars game they've always wanted.
  • Don't worry, we won't be getting "ok" graphics
    Just another sniping YouTuber.
  • Warrior
    298 posts Member
    Don't worry, we won't be getting "ok" graphics

    I'd really rather better game play then great GFX
    I had a dream, that one day on the sweet hills of Georgia, everybody will be able to play the Star Wars game they've always wanted.
  • Master_Cunha
    4562 posts Member
    edited June 2017
    Landeaux wrote: »
    Why does graphics have to be sacrificed for better gameplay or more content?

    Time and resources. But I agree.
  • Trooper8059
    10199 posts Member
    Landeaux wrote: »
    Why does graphics have to be sacrificed for better gameplay or more content?

    Time and resources. But I agree.

    It's what's they did with Chewbacca.
    PSN: Trooper8059
    "Remember: Your focus determines your reality."
    ezgif_5_a643336582.gif
  • Landeaux
    3467 posts Member
    Jrob122 wrote: »
    Landeaux wrote: »
    Jrob122 wrote: »
    bfloo wrote: »
    The graphics are toned down in Battlefield1 and it plays better plus allows for bigger teams.

    not really the graphics in battlefield 1 are better than battlefront. The textures and light reflection are the main improvements.

    Yeah and they don't want to hurt their sweet child's sales so they truck gameplay elements for Battlefront so it doesn't hurt the battlefield franchise which explains the lack of 64 player modes and conquest. If you want those two aspects, then you get battlefield.

    EA has a knack of competing against itself nevertheless. They release Battlefront, Titanfall, and Battlefield around the same time. Lowered playercount has nothing to do with wanting Battlefield to sell more than Battlefront

    Then why not add 64 player games with conquest? Hmmm

    It's a stupid decision. They wouldn't sabotage themselves just to help one game. Same company, different teams
  • Nope. I bought a PS4 for photo-realism. Still waiting for it. Hopefully Red Dead Redemption 2 will have it. I love Battlefront, and still play almost every day, but the graphics in-game are not even close to what that first ever trailer showed. My jaw dropped when I saw that trailer and the Forest Moon of Endor. Boba Fett flying around with his flamethrower. Nothing in-game has looked anywhere near as impressive as that looked.

    I didn't play No Man's Sky because the graphics look like PS1, and AHEM, this is 2017! End of rant. Thanks.
    Jrob122 wrote: »
    Landeaux wrote: »
    Jrob122 wrote: »
    bfloo wrote: »
    The graphics are toned down in Battlefield1 and it plays better plus allows for bigger teams.

    not really the graphics in battlefield 1 are better than battlefront. The textures and light reflection are the main improvements.

    Yeah and they don't want to hurt their sweet child's sales so they truck gameplay elements for Battlefront so it doesn't hurt the battlefield franchise which explains the lack of 64 player modes and conquest. If you want those two aspects, then you get battlefield.

    EA has a knack of competing against itself nevertheless. They release Battlefront, Titanfall, and Battlefield around the same time. Lowered playercount has nothing to do with wanting Battlefield to sell more than Battlefront

    Then why not add 64 player games with conquest? Hmmm

    Honestly I think it's cause we're getting bots to join the fight
  • Well, my friends, that is why a thing with technology for games and CGI in movies today named "photorealism", or "photogrammetry", which makes models in games and movies realistic, regardless of graphics settings for games (I think). The graphics for console is beautiful, even though 1: PS4 is better with graphics, 2: I'm an Xbox and PC fan, but I do my research (I wish I had a PS4. I'm kinda jealous and disappointed in myself. :'( ), and 3: I love ALL consoles including PC and hate console wars, because they're pointless. Anyways, about photogrammetry, it looks good on console, but MUCH better on PC. So regardless of what everyone thinks of "okay" graphics, any game with photogrammetry (EA Battlefront, Battlefield and Doom, I think, Gears of War 4, Metal Gear Solid V, Resident Evil: Biohazard) are graphically good, regardless of what console they are. Now, if they are on phone, that's a whole different story/topic. XD Lol. But for real, any game that uses photogrammetry has good graphics on console as well. Plus, DICE is top notch with graphics. Look at their previous work. Battlefield: Bad Company, 3, 4, Hardline (eww), Battlefront, Battlefield 1, it's because of the Frostbite engine. It's evolved so much, it probably doesn't need to evolve even more into 4 now. Even though games that use Frostbite 3 can be glitchy because EA thought it would be a great idea to use the engine for ALL of their games they publish, the games are still great, regardless of what console it's on. It's visually, and audibly if I might add, stunning. It has been since Battlefield 4, and it still is today. Mass Effect: Andromeda: glitchy, but beautiful with the planets (I know some of you don't like me for adding Andromeda lol), all of the EA Sports games created with the Frostbite engine, Mirror's Edge, Dragon Age: Inquisition, even Plants vs. Zombies and that game is adorable and fun. EA Battlefront looks and sounds great, which they should win awards for (did they win rewards for beautiful graphics and sound? I forgot), and it'll still be great today, because of Frostbite 3. :) God bless DICE for their engine.
  • I wouldn't want the graphics to get any worse than EA Battlefront I, but I don't want them to be better than the previous game if it sacrifices gameplay.
  • bfloo wrote: »
    The graphics are toned down in Battlefield1 and it plays better plus allows for bigger teams.

    not really the graphics in battlefield 1 are better than battlefront. The textures and light reflection are the main improvements.

    But compare Argonne forest to Endor, Endor is the winner graphically.
  • SWTOR with battlefront 2 graphics an a bit of a gameplay an what not overhaul would probably be pretty dope if anything it would be beautiful masterpeice of a game if nothing else lol an could address issues the current version has
  • tankertoad
    5981 posts Member
    We got a heck of a flowchart here.

    Same game but more content, worse graphics.

    No. Then it would be the bug ridden, poor gameplay, mess that it already is, just with more of it. And bad graphics. No.

    But if it's more content, better gameplay, less bugs, and poorer Graphics then yes.

    41st.org Founder "Where the Game is Winnable."

    are-you-threatening-me-gif.gif
  • Rook008
    838 posts Member
    Fun gameplay is more important than great graphics.

    I know because two weeks ago I played Yar's Revenge, SeaQuest, Chopper Command, and Defender for about 10 hours before I fell asleep with the controller in my hand. Fun games, Atari 2600 graphics.
    Gunfighter Ballads and Trail Songs
  • Jello770
    5592 posts Member
    Look at the date you guys, look at the date.
    Psn: Jello770
  • GFX actually really matter to me, and they look spectacular in this game. I feel like if the game has poor graphics, I might have been turned away from it a bit more, since I was turned away from games like Fortnite and Overwatch, which have trash graphics. (My opinion) But if this game has 4 times the content, I think I'd be okay with lower quality GFX.
    "Never tell me the odds!"
  • tankertoad
    5981 posts Member
    Jello770 wrote: »
    Look at the date you guys, look at the date.

    Just look at it!
    41st.org Founder "Where the Game is Winnable."

    are-you-threatening-me-gif.gif
  • Warrior
    298 posts Member
    Wow this was a long time ago. XD! I remembered participating in this topic, and then I was like. What!?!? I started it?

    It's not much use to debate this any more considering that we already have all the information we need.

    (June 7th) XDXDXD
    I had a dream, that one day on the sweet hills of Georgia, everybody will be able to play the Star Wars game they've always wanted.
  • Piscettios
    5814 posts Member
    Hopefully this doesn’t get locked just because it’s old... topic isn’t irrelevant and can still be discussed and debated IMO.

    If that meant higher player count in large modes, better blaster and melee mechanics, more heroes, weapons, maps etc... Id gladly take solid gameplay over graphics. Because after a while the awe goes away, but good gameplay will keep me around for the long haul.
    Knights of Gareth
    XBL- JsOnMyFett 13
  • It’s very popular to say “graphics don’t matter”, but they do, as well as gameplay, controls, story, and a whole host of other factors. All of these parts add up to the whole and then we see what kind of game we have.
  • Piscettios
    5814 posts Member
    It’s very popular to say “graphics don’t matter”, but they do, as well as gameplay, controls, story, and a whole host of other factors. All of these parts add up to the whole and then we see what kind of game we have.

    I personally don’t need a story for a MP shooter game. Probably in the minority, but I think the time a resources put into the abysmal campaign was a huge misstep. I’ve never felt Dice does a good job with campaigns and story’s... Iden’s is by far their worst effort.
    Knights of Gareth
    XBL- JsOnMyFett 13
This discussion has been closed.

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!