You might be heading off to die in the desert, but there's something eye-meltingly beautiful about Battlefield 1's 64-player carnage. DICE has worked wonders with the Frostbite engine once again, arguably improving on the already incredible looking Star Wars Battlefront. We've seen from our benchmark tests that Battlefield 1 also runs incredibly as well. But what about those who are teetering around near the minimum system requirements? Here's what Battlefield 1 looks like on Low vs Ultra, so you can get an idea of just what sort of visual sacrifices you may have to make to bump up that all important frame rate.
Battlefield 1 Low vs Ultra Graphics Comparison
(Slide your mouse cursor across to reveal the difference)
Click to enlarge
The difference is a little less tangible in screenshots compared to gameplay, but there is a fair gulf visually between Low and Ultra in Battlefield 1, in particular related to environmental effects such as sand swirling in the air or smoke pouring across the battle.
I've just spent a good 45 minutes playing on the absolute lowest settings though and my enjoyment wasn't diminished at all. Player character draw distance appears to be identical at Low and Ultra, so you won't find yourself at a competitive disadvantage if you do have to dial it down.
What graphics settings are you playing Battlefield 1 on? Do you think DICE has made Battlefield 1 even better looking than Star Wars: Battlefront? Let us know!