BF3 PC and PS3/Console screenshot and video comparison
- Thread starter Joel Was Right
- Start date
Metalmurphy
Member
Compressed and blurry pics. Not that we needed good ones to know the obvious but this is kinda pointless.
uh, watch the video gaf?
1. Who thought PC/PS3 was going to be close?
2. Who thought PC/Xbox360 was going to be close?
Dice <3 love that quote about failing if pc matched console.....
It looks great on consoles, clearly missing the post processing of the pc version. atmosphere isn't all there... if you wanna nitpick. it looks better than its competition, thats for sure. and we all have to remember that its besting narrow minded fps's with a large scale + vehicles + airplanes...
That in mind + the legendary gameplay we all know.. job well done.
1. Who thought PC/PS3 was going to be close?
2. Who thought PC/Xbox360 was going to be close?
Dice <3 love that quote about failing if pc matched console.....
It looks great on consoles, clearly missing the post processing of the pc version. atmosphere isn't all there... if you wanna nitpick. it looks better than its competition, thats for sure. and we all have to remember that its besting narrow minded fps's with a large scale + vehicles + airplanes...
That in mind + the legendary gameplay we all know.. job well done.
Necroscope
Member
Am I the only one who saw objects pop-in when the camera pan and look at the building on the other side of the parking lot?
AlmostMilk
Member
So the PC version is a little bit better. Big deal. If graphics are the deciding factor in why you play video games, then you are missing out on a lot of good games. Graphics help with the feel of the game but the core gameplay is what makes the game.
Direct Feed I presume. God knows how people are comparing youtube captures against one another.Violater said:
From watching it in motion it looks like PS3 version lacks the amount of motion blur, texture resolution and particle effects the pc version has. I'm still waiting for the analysis from DF but it looks like the usual "stuff" has been toned down for consoles.
Vigilant Walrus
Member
The reason why I want PC version first and foremost is community and 64 players. That's what matters to be.
CrazedArabMan
Member
Doesn't look too bad at all. Will be going for the 360 version and I'm not really worried that DICE will screw it up. Graphics are the least of my worries, go for the gameplay, not for the visuals.
Nizz
Member
Watched this last night (painful having to watch most of Fallon's show to get to it). Of course it couldn't compare to the PC version but...
Animation: check.
Destruction: check.
Sound: check.
The lighting took a hit, as well as resolution and half the PC's framerate. But at 30fps it was running pretty damn solid while still having destruction, explosions going off. It'll look way better once the game is on my tv screen and I'm playing it myself. It looks a bit better than BC2, which was no slouch on console.
Animation: check.
Destruction: check.
Sound: check.
The lighting took a hit, as well as resolution and half the PC's framerate. But at 30fps it was running pretty damn solid while still having destruction, explosions going off. It'll look way better once the game is on my tv screen and I'm playing it myself. It looks a bit better than BC2, which was no slouch on console.
For a game that looked the same on console and PC, thereby gimping the PC , look no further than Crysis 2. They couldn't even be bothered to put in uncompressed textures. The entire port felt like it was designed in an hour.
So kudos to DICE for not doing a lazy port job as standard fare in the industry.
Anyway it looks about the same as BC2, and you really can't expect much more as that game looked pretty good.
So kudos to DICE for not doing a lazy port job as standard fare in the industry.
Anyway it looks about the same as BC2, and you really can't expect much more as that game looked pretty good.
Dreams-Visions
Member
Even more magical: you don't need a "top of the line PC". A $130 graphics card will do.Snipes424 said:
the only good way to compare is to see it for yourself, in person, and have each version running side by side.
comparing stuff on youtube, etc, is kinda ridiculous.
i mean, the console versions of Crysis 2 didn't look that bad from what i saw around the web ...but when i saw the PS3 version in person, it was obviously worse than the PC version in Lowest Detail @ 720p.
comparing stuff on youtube, etc, is kinda ridiculous.
i mean, the console versions of Crysis 2 didn't look that bad from what i saw around the web ...but when i saw the PS3 version in person, it was obviously worse than the PC version in Lowest Detail @ 720p.
Anton Sugar
Member
MuseManMike said:
OH SNAP
DragonKnight
Member
And this is where I fall in line with the dudebro crowd. People really give a fuck how close this game looks to the PC version? Both games look fantastic enough.
Like this is some really nit picky stuff. Reading some of these comments would have to believe that you're looking at a n64 game or something. The majority of gamers simply do not care. Hell most people cant even tell the difference between 30fps and 60fps or tell you what AA even is.
The extreme graphical scrutiny and box art bitching are the two biggest things I hate about GAF lol. End rant.
Like this is some really nit picky stuff. Reading some of these comments would have to believe that you're looking at a n64 game or something. The majority of gamers simply do not care. Hell most people cant even tell the difference between 30fps and 60fps or tell you what AA even is.
The extreme graphical scrutiny and box art bitching are the two biggest things I hate about GAF lol. End rant.
I NEED SCISSORS
Banned
I think the difference is actually pretty big. The PS3 version only ever manages to approximate the look of the PC game - when you break it down: textures are worse, effects are worse, everything looks more flat, the shadows look static and too harsh, environments have some really unnecessary changes, and everything just looks more square (dat arm).
SneakyStephan
Banned
TheExodu5 said:Sucks that comfort isn't compatible with computer chairs.
I imagine most console only gamers use a giant rusty railroad spike up their arse as a chair and game on a 99 dollar LCD screen (compared to their amazing 2000 dollar 3d 50 inch tv's and their 3000 dollar natuzzi couches) to even use the words comfy couch.
A good desk chair is something that will immediately embrace you to the point where you will fall asleep in 30 seconds when tired as soon as you sit down in it.
Oh and
Lower back support is overrated, clearly!
Infamous Chris
Banned
Stairs said:
holy shit blind fanboy batman
jim-jam bongs
Member
To be honest they both look like a blurry mess to me in those screens :\
PC version does look like a slightly sharper blurry mess though.
PC version does look like a slightly sharper blurry mess though.
Spat_triate
Member
vertopci said:
Too bad no official mod support. However I fully expect BF's crazy community to create tools of their own within 6 months.
SapientWolf
Trucker Sexologist
I think a more interesting comparison would be against other similar games in the genre on the same platform. But you would still need direct grabs instead of compressed video.
Ideally, the comparison would be done on a typical console setup. PC and consoles have different IQ expectations due to the differences in viewing angle. This becomes obvious when devs put huge HDTVs on their console demo kiosks and end up making their game look like a jaggy mess. But they look just fine on the average entertainment center.
Ideally, the comparison would be done on a typical console setup. PC and consoles have different IQ expectations due to the differences in viewing angle. This becomes obvious when devs put huge HDTVs on their console demo kiosks and end up making their game look like a jaggy mess. But they look just fine on the average entertainment center.
Screengrabs make for a poor comparison. The real difference is seen when you watch them in motion (although I don't think a clip from Jimmy Fallon's show does the PS3 version justice).
But if you re-watch the PC fault line video, the lighting and smoke effects are just unworldly (particularly the part where he throws the grenade to kill the RPG dude and pieces of the wall fly off in chunks and the smoke pops up). That, along with texture resolution, AA/AF, and framerate are where the differences are (multiplayer gameplay differences aside).
DICE did a great job with the PS3 version, but I also have a feeling that if they had shown the tank gameplay from E3 on console that some of the differences would have been a little more apparent.
But if you re-watch the PC fault line video, the lighting and smoke effects are just unworldly (particularly the part where he throws the grenade to kill the RPG dude and pieces of the wall fly off in chunks and the smoke pops up). That, along with texture resolution, AA/AF, and framerate are where the differences are (multiplayer gameplay differences aside).
DICE did a great job with the PS3 version, but I also have a feeling that if they had shown the tank gameplay from E3 on console that some of the differences would have been a little more apparent.
Necronomikon
Member
Although I got to admit that both versions look fantastic, and in my humble opinion the PS3 version looks leagues better than MW3, there is a clear difference between both versions, going from the shadows to the lighting (which I guess it's global illumination or better SSAO in the PC version) and AA.
The thing I find curious is that both versions seem to offer different lighting angles or different world level design. That could be from design advantages or else but here's my example to make my point.
As you can see in Point A, between both versions there seems to be a different lighting in the pole and the tires. In Point B the difference between the subtleness of the lighting in the wall is enough to be differentiated easily and below point B you can look at the shadows to see the difference between them.
They both look great in movement, but as someone else pointed, it seems that DICE made two different world assets for both version (or maybe could be some destructible environments or maybe ToD really changes depending on the time you take).
Anyway, BF3 looks AWESOME!
P.S. Also... Hovering SMGs!!
The thing I find curious is that both versions seem to offer different lighting angles or different world level design. That could be from design advantages or else but here's my example to make my point.
As you can see in Point A, between both versions there seems to be a different lighting in the pole and the tires. In Point B the difference between the subtleness of the lighting in the wall is enough to be differentiated easily and below point B you can look at the shadows to see the difference between them.
They both look great in movement, but as someone else pointed, it seems that DICE made two different world assets for both version (or maybe could be some destructible environments or maybe ToD really changes depending on the time you take).
Anyway, BF3 looks AWESOME!
P.S. Also... Hovering SMGs!!
See You Next Wednesday
Banned
I seen it last night on my TV in HD, I can honestly say it looked worse than Medal of Honor & MW2.
Jaggies, really low res textures etc... The animation was nice & couldn't really tell how the lighting overall will be from that short clip. They're definitely not putting much effort into the console ports though.
Jaggies, really low res textures etc... The animation was nice & couldn't really tell how the lighting overall will be from that short clip. They're definitely not putting much effort into the console ports though.
creationtheory
Member
See You Next Wednesday said:
Instant opinion disqualification?
I was just thinking that BF3 really seems to come across as blurry, though maybe it's just all the shaking and effects going on.jim-jam bongs said:
I hate to think what it will be like if your screen blurs further when someone shoots near you due to the suppression effect (if I understand correctly how that's going to work).