The first PS3 footage of Battlefield 3 was unveiled earlier this week. Some people were satisfied while others were left disappointed.
In my opinion, PS3 gamers should be glad with how the game looks. When I first watched the YouTube video in HD, I did not notice the differences between the PC and PS3 versions. To me, both of the games looked awesome no matter what version was shown.
It wasn’t until a saw a comparison video of Battlefield 3 on both the PC and PS3 did I notice some slight differences. They’re not major, but I shouldn’t think PS3 gamers should be too picky.
There’s a lot more detail and lighting effects shown on the PC version of the game. Not to mention the buildings in the background look slightly more realistic than on the PS3 version.
But in all honesty, you have to be nit-picking to actually notice the differences – especially comparing the footage on Youtube. It’s not like comparing the PS2 version of WWE All Stars to the PS3 version; those differences are instantly noticeable.
Disappointed PS3 gamers should also not forget that the console is based on 2006 technology. Although the PS3 is still able to produce mind blowing visuals, it simply cannot match the raw power that a high end PC made in 2011 can produce. I’m sure EA used a very powerful PC on maximum settings to showcase gameplay of Battlefield 3 anyway.
To me, both versions of Battlefield 3 look awesome no matter if it’s on the PC or PS3. I’m sure when Xbox 360 footage is released, it too will be similar to that of the PS3 version.
As a console gamer, I’m satisfied with the visuals that both the PS3 and Xbox 360 currently produce. I have not bothered to upgrade my PC since 2003! I admit I’m just too lazy to send my PC to a professional all the time just so it can keep with playing the latest games. At least with consoles once you buy it, there’s no need to upgrade it all the time. I may miss out on impressive visuals that a high end PC offers, but I save a bit of money as a console gamer since there’s no need to purchase upgrades.
Anyway, PS3 gamers should not compare the PS3 to a 2011 PC. Sure Battlefield 3 looks better on PC but it’s not a fair comparison to make in the first place. PS3 gamers should be glad the game looks the way it does. The worst that could happen is if it had PS2-like visuals! I’m a PS3 gamer and I think the graphics in Battlefield 3 still looks awesome.
What’s your opinion on the PS3 graphics of Battlefield 3?
kaku
June 18, 2011 at 9:15 AMmeh consoles got pwned by PC footage, you gotta see full uncompressed 1080p PC footage at 60fps. Then you’ll realize how much of a beast it looks compared to the PS3 version. Still, kudos for DICE.
Aerospace
June 18, 2011 at 8:42 PMI’m a ps3 gamer and I loved the graphics that were being shown. The people that were complaining most likely didn’t get to see the HD youtube version yet. Most didn’t realize that what we were being shown was broadcast over tv, so the fps and graphics were affected.
The only annoying thing that annoyed me, and many more, were the 10 yr old PC elitist clogging up the comments page with idiotic insults.
If you would be kind to look at the first comment on this page, I give you Exhibit A.
Cody
June 19, 2011 at 12:11 AMSend your PC to a professional to play the latest games? Are you serious or possibly a Mac owner? I started not knowing a damn thing about building computers, then went to Google, and well the rest is history. Not bashing consoles, I love them too, but you make it sound like it’s a burden being a PC gamer The only burden is software related security concerns that can be quelled by using your brain. Would like to point out that yes, the graphics look to be pretty decent, but you’ll be playing with up to 40 less people online. Having a PC is pretty easy, and building one is honestly easier that building one of those old 3D puzzles you use to see all time time, and they’re more functional too.
Damian Antony Seeto
June 19, 2011 at 12:22 AMYea I’m pretty ignorant when it comes to PCs in general. I usually call a professional when I need help. I borrowed a Mac one time and had problems with that too lol. I guess I could go to Google but upgrading a 2003 PC model might be costly now.
zorkor
June 19, 2011 at 2:13 AMAfter playing PC games for a long time, I went back to consoles. Sorry I dont want to have a POS system in which I have to upgrade every month or so just to see more textures in the buildings. Consoles are easy to use, pick up and play and less headaches than PC.
Colbey
June 19, 2011 at 4:13 AMThe PS3 visuals look WAY better than Bad Company 2…
I’m a console gamer and an upgrade to the series’ last title (visually and gameplay wise) is all I’m looking forward too.
I’m also usually busy, which means that I really don’t care about the graphics I have to play on with my limited free time. I just live with it.
Calbino
June 19, 2011 at 8:12 AM” I’m satisfied with the visuals that both the PS3 and Xbox 360 currently produce. I have not bothered to upgrade my PC since 2003! I admit I’m just too lazy to send my PC to a professional all the time just so it can keep with playing the latest games”
WHAT?!?
Project Cafe
June 19, 2011 at 12:38 PMMost people complaining aren’t even PS3 fans. Just go to N4G (aka main Sony Defense Force base) and you’ll see that 90% of the people are fine with how the game looks. But just because the footage was from PS3 people just assume that the PS3 fanboys are the only ones complaining…
Diago
June 19, 2011 at 12:49 PMcomparing PC to PS3 is like comparing a handheld to Deepblue.
Its only Xbox fans who do this since they already know how bad the 360 version will look/perform compared to the PS3 version.
These are all marketing tactics and mature gamers easily see through that.
And the biggest lol in all of this shit is that less then half a % of all PC owners has a system strong enough
to run BF3 on Highest setting at 1080p on 60fps.
Fucking Dummies…
Alex
June 19, 2011 at 3:38 PMI’ve been gaming on PC and “both” consoles for years upon years now. All I want to say about the topic is that its illogical to compare PC to console, and that I would be pissed beyond belief if the 2 versions were similar in anyway other than game-play mechanics. The reason I say this stems from a very reasonable thought I’ve had many times before; anything I play on my $3,000 PC should look and run better than whats on my $300 console. And with that I say, if you’re pissed about the graphics, cough up 3k for a nice comp and you wont have anything to worry about….(or bitch about)
In case this was too off the wall and people are unable to understand my main point I’ll put it here in simple terms.
Consoles = good but cheap hardware put together in a nice package for anyone to use, and for easy development.
Gaming PCs = expensive high end computing technology that requires a small amount of knowledge to effectively operate and a large amount to develop for, but capable of things the current gen consoles will never be able to achieve due to technical limitations.
Point = If the consoles could do what PCs do, you would be pissed about the price of that beast, not the “bad” or “worse” graphics that allow you to actually play on a piece of hardware that only cost a few hundred. (“decent” gaming video cards for PCs cost around $500 alone)
P.S. I’m very happy with how BF3 is looking on all platforms.
Joe
June 19, 2011 at 4:16 PM@Diago Its not xbox fans complaining… it’s the people who cannot or will not get a gaming pc for 2011. The xbox slim has the same nearly more processing power and graphics as the ps3. So check before posting
“Its only Xbox fans who do this since they already know how bad the 360 version will look/perform compared to the PS3 version.” I have a pc, ps3 and xbox and to be honest. ps3 is no different. The only slight notice is that black is more matte on the ps3.And the last time I checked even EA said that crysis 2 ran better on xbox visually. You can get 30 fps no tearing on xbox whilst 28 on the ps3. So if anyone is moaning… buy a pc and shutup.
Jakey Bee
June 19, 2011 at 8:26 PMMost important thing you missed–lack of DOF. Even CoD implemented that in a way that it wouldn’t dock performance. Without DOF, I don’t really feel like I’m playing a next-gen game.
Trav
June 20, 2011 at 12:37 AMI’m a graphic design major and use both Mac and pc. Also I’m a console gamer primarily. I really don’t understand what the big fuss is all about. Graphics isn’t every, without innovation, decent gameplay mechanics, and most important a compelling story (plot) the most graphically insane game would be garbage. Games are made and developed on computers not consoles. So naturally games will look and run better on a computer. Consoles life cycles are 5 to 10 years in which there are no upgrades like video cards, processors, and ram. Pc’s constantly receive upgrades rather it’s software or hardware. Just about every other month nvidia and ati battle it out by developing and releasing new graphic cards. Also intel and AMD battle it out releasing new processors every other month. Trying to keep up with the latest and greatest tech will make you broke in no time. You got these things called bills to think about. The economy is in shambles and people are stressing over graphics. Lol, truly amazing! Save your money and play with whatever you have. The only thing I see is a choice to make if you own everything, then you just pick and choose which is a luxury. In the meantime will everybody just chill!
Ron
June 20, 2011 at 1:20 AMBF3NATION stole this article and reposted on their site.
Eddie
June 20, 2011 at 1:25 AMIt be cool if they companies started to make new upgraded consoles of 2012 hardware to maximize gaming. Hmm at the same time im fine with the games they have today.
Damian Antony Seeto
June 20, 2011 at 7:54 PMThanks for the heads up. Not sure if they’ll take it down but I sent them a message. I’m the one with the fossil PC not them lol.