DOOM Eternal is quite a demanding game, as seen by our other articles like the DOOM Eternal Performance Benchmarks and Most Important Graphics Options. And we've also seen from the Official System Requirements that some graphics cards might require you to lower the settings to Medium to get that 60fps target on 1080p. If you were worried about sacrificing graphical quality, then we've got you covered. Here's a look at how different Low, Ultra and Ultra Nightmare graphics settings really are from each other.
First of all, I'd just like to say that even on Low settings, DOOM Eternal looks really great. Where other games might have a severe difference between Low and Ultra (bordering on unplayable with Low graphics settings), DOOM Eternal stills beams with life. Heaven and Hell have never looked so good.
(slide your cursor over the images to compare. Click to enlarge)
See here, for instance, whilst Ultra Nightmare definitely looks better, the Low settings still look good. It's not some blobby, blurry mess like the world's made of clay. Low settings still look great. I mean the textures and resolution of the gun don't even change (in fact, I'm 100% sure it's not changing at all). Okay, okay, I know this isn't the best picture to show off. So let's look at some more substantial differences...
Now we can see some of the big differences here. On Low settings the textures aren't very clean (as evidence of the strange shadow textures on the ground) and the lighting looks a bit flat and drab. But whilst Ultra Nightmare definitely looks better, once again the Low settings aren't that bad, particularly when you realise that you're going to be moving so much that you'll barely get a glimpse of the floor.
Now we can see the reflections in action here, obviously with the reflections turned off the environment doesn't look as great, and the shadows are all over the place. But the textures on the walls and medpack don't look that different.
Here again we can see that the shadows all over the place on Low settings. The textures don't change very much though, as you can see by the hole in the pillar right in the middle. The only noticeable difference, in terms of textures, is the big crack on the concrete beam to the left.
Well, that about covers it for now. The good news is that if you have to play on lower settings, you won't be missing out on that much. If you are having to use lower settings, you can check the Most Important Graphics Options article to see if there are any options you can turn up a little without impacting your performance that much.
Login or Register to join the debate
Is it just me or on ultra it still looks like a game from 2012-2013.
Sorta, but I think it'll look better when seen on a big screen and in motion. The Earth level interiors are also a bit bland, compared to some other spaces I've seen, which may add to the bad perception.
are pics reversed or something, every single pic to me looks better at low, or do you really need 2/4k display to see anything?
There is almost no difference between ultra and low, at least not enough for me to care.
i thought the same at first when i looked at them on my phone but when i booted up my pc and started scrolling left and right at full 27" 1440p monitor i can say that the difference is so big and the low one looks terrible at least for me, the difference is so huge especially in lighting, shadows and anti-aliasing
Yeah, all I can see is the difference in lighting and shadows.
Gone are the days when games were developed with proper LODs and stuff. Now it's all the same base reading (consoles) and the PC just gets some extras like reflections and shadows...