Battlefield 3: PC Vs PS3 graphics comparison – Easy winner

By Posted 17 Jun 2011, 11:03

If you tuned into tonight’s episode of Late Night with Jimmy Fallon, you would have seen the very first look at the console version of the upcoming Battlefield 3 shooter from EA DICE. Now we have the same gameplay segment from the PC version for you to look at and make your comparisons.

For those of you who don’t know, the gameplay that EA DICE showed on Jimmy Fallon is actually taken from the same ‘Fault Line’ level in BF3, in which gamers were previously introduced to on the PC version of the game.

As most of you knew before watching the PS3 premiere, EA DICE had already stated that the lead platform of the game will be the PC version, and after taking a look at both videos side by side, you can easily see this put into practise. Although the PS3 version is very impressive and easily the best Battlefield title on the PS3 so far, it lacks in detail compared to the PC version, as you can see with the enhanced lighting, textures and character models in the PC version.

However, bare in mind that the footage shown from the PS3 version is still in Pre-Alpha stage, so the visuals are bound to be improved even further by the time October 25th comes around. That is perhaps the most refreshing aspect of the PS3 gameplay since the graphics are already looking fantastic.

With these factors in mind, take a look at both videos below and let us know your thoughts on the graphics for both platforms. Are you satisfied with the level of performance in the PS3 version, or do you think it seriously lacks in detail compared to the PC version.

Note: You probably want to skip to 1.35 on the PC version to bring you to the exact scene as shown in the PS3 version. On the PS3 video, skip to 1.10 for the action and don’t forget to crank it up to 1080p.

You can add us to your circle on Google+, follow us on Twitter, join the photo community on Pinterest, or like our Facebook page to keep updated on all the latest news.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Mathew-Hodding/1428874865 Mathew Hodding

    quite clearly in-superior to the pc version, just like we knew it would be the details are shoddy, lighting effects are last gen and particle effects are incomparable , the point is this comparison is stupid any gamer that is still holding on to the 360 or ps3 is an idiot the quality of the games are so far apart, if your lucky enough to have a top end pc rig you will know what i am talking about if not perhaps its time to get one to me the graphics are nearly 2 generations behind the pc.

    • Raskilinov

      Yes but Matthew not everyone can budget for top end gaming rigs. 
      I think the difference in quality are fair trades to play the game on console.

      Making inflammatory comments to gamers of PS3 and 360 platforms are not warranted.

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Mathew-Hodding/1428874865 Mathew Hodding

        you don’t have to spend thousands you can build a rig that can play crysis 2 in dx11 for just £350

        and it is not and inflammatory remark its FACT the point is consoles are holding the gaming world back i have 2 xbox 360s and a ps3 and a wii and i can tell you i haven’t touched any of them since purchasing a pc. you seem confined to except poor quality just for the opportunity to play the game, in a similar manner to a dog begging at the table for scraps. the money the games cost the shoddy service you receive and the yearly subscriptions that give you less than the free service a pc gamer receives at a far lower cost per game sometimes as much as £30. the point is what is not warranted is the defence people throw up in the defence of there console of choice, like they owe the company something for the honour of being ripped off. 

        • Anonymous

          From the perspective of someone who has a high-end gaming rig AND a PS3, I can honestly say that I’d be quite pleased with how both games look at this stage. The main reason to get the PC version as far as I’m concerned is the 64 player online with bigger maps (as well as all the other pluses of the PC online experience).
          Visually, I’ve gone through the vids side by side and the main differences – other than the fact that the lighting and backgrounds have been updated (changed around) since the fault line vids, as well as a few visual differences because the game is further along in development (colours on soldier’s uniforms and outfits have been changed) – are the lighting/shadows and the resolution. DX11 lighting allows for better volumetric lighting and softer shadows and obviously 1080p is going to provide a higher fidelity image over the 720p of a console.

          Honestly, they are pretty close other than that. Texture wise, it looks mainly like a matter of filtering, as there are still some low-res textures visible on the PC as well, and the close-up detail on the solider’s uniforms is present in both. SSAO or HBAO is present on the PC version, but that’s a subtle effect that most people won’t miss (you have to know what it is to notice it), and the ‘bloom’ / ‘HDR’ effects that are the most obvious lighting effects are present in both. The particle effects both seem great to me, as the ps3 should be capable of handling that kind of post-effects stuff really well on the PSUs (see Killzone 3). Shadows are crisp on the PS3, which looks fine, and the overall look of the PC version is 90% there and there doesn’t appear to be any major issues with a lack of AA. Not bad really.

          Obviously, I care about the extra resolution bump and the other expensive high-end effects otherwise I wouldn’t be buying an extra GFX card to SLI-up for this game, but having played a number of big 3rd party games on both PC and PS3 recently, I can’t agree that there is any huge gulf between the two as you suggest. After all, they are mostly the SAME game at the core, as most games that make it to PC there days are console ports. It’s only if you really, really care about playing at top resolutions with all the subtle extra effects turned on that it makes any difference. I do, most of the time, but my PS3 has proved more than capable of impressing me visually of late, to the point where I haven’t found myself wishing I had a PC version to play (Uncharted 2 and Killzone 3 and Heavy Rain and God of War 3 are all effects heavy visually awesome games that look almost like high end pc games without the 1080p jump, which isn’t discernible if you are sitting back from the screen as most people do with home consoles and if the game has AA). I generally play 3rd party games on PC, for sure, because I can, but I wouldn’t miss the extra resolution THAT much if I only had a PS3. In fact, the simple plug and play of a console can make me enjoy the games I play more because I don’t spend ages tweaking my gfx settings instead of playing the game.

          So, I would be very happy if I solely owned a PS3 right now. And I would be even happier if I also had a gaming rig, which I do. But I certainly wouldn’t feel sorry for the console crowd, at all. 

           

        • Nikon133

          Agree completely.

          So many PC gamers are pixel peepers. For me, the fact is that when you start playing game and emerge yourself into action, you really cannot pay attention to every sun ray, every particle, every puff of smoke. The game needs to look only THAT good, anything above that simply doesn’t make difference in actual gameplay.

          I have PS3 and decent PC. It is not the latest gen but still good enough to run most games full detail: Intel Core 2 Quad 2.83GHz, ATI 6870, 8GB of RAM. I actually got Bad Company 2 on both PC and PS3, and started playing it on both platforms. Sure, on close exam on opening scenes I did notice differences… but as I progressed playing, I found myself playing more on PS3 and eventually stooped playing PC version, while finishing PS3 version. Like I said, as I got into the game, observed differences simply dissolved in front of my eyes. At the end, playing from my favourite recliner in front of decent sized flat TV took advantage over a bit better graphics as perceived behind my study room desk with 24″ monitor on it.

          Additional bonus (for me), online seemed much more balanced than PC. Everyone was playing same hardware, no one was suspiciously goodly-awesome… but then, I don’t think there are cheats on PS3 Bad Company 2.

          So… for lucky owners of high-end PCs and taste for absolutely highest possible visual fidelity (or for the knowledge of it, even if you don’t see it really) going for PC version might be the way… but for everyone else, I think console is better solution.

        • Anonymous

          Great points. I’ll be playing the game on Xbox 360 myself, and I’m not convinced that the graphics on the PS3 and 360 versions on the game are going to be as watered down as the PC crowd claims. I’ll be perfectly happy with the gameplay and graphics on console. PC gamers should seriously find a new hobby, instead of taking shots at the console crowd. No one cares about your mammoth graphics card that you were only able to afford because you’re still living at home in your parent’s basement….

        • jdscott16

          Agreed PC is far better than a gaming console as it allows so much more.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Steven-Hirst/1840992171 Steven Hirst

    I agree that the comparison is stupid – A top end PC (costing how much??) against a console is going to show the differences, but to suggest that people holding onto their consoles are idiots is unwarranted.
    People used to look at me as if i was mad after upgrading my PC yet again to play the latest flashy game! then i realised that the actual gameplay was more important and my surroundings. I can now relax on my sofa and play a game on my plug and play console with no worries – that is what buying a console does for me.

    • http://twitter.com/double979 Dan

      Not to mention that consoles are a more level playing field. My ps3 is just as powerful as anyone’s PS3. And just because someone has a pc does not mean their visuals are going to be as good as they see in the pc trailers.

  • http://twitter.com/double979 Dan

    If this was not coming out for PC, people would not be bashing the console versions. As far as I’m concerned, they are 2 different games. And since I no longer have a gaming PC, the PC version is not even an option for me.

    If the gameplay and graphics are as good as Bad Company 2, I’ll be very happy.

  • http://www.facebook.com/xxAndyxxBvbxx Andy Manson

    I have a decent PC but when I bought bfbc2 for the PC I could play only on high ( all the options were on high) and 1280×1024 but I dont think my PC can resist to BF3 so il get my ps3 ( I have to say that the xbox 360 holds the PS3 version back because the PS3 can handle over 24 players in one server but the xbox cant … The PC version still is better than the PS3 version , because as DICE said : ” It is a game for PC ” so … Not all gamers would like to be too many players in a server, because when its a smaller map and like 64 players it can get a little like cod … ) Dont hate me because Im saying the truth .. And im still a  kid :D

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_5ZCORSBJ53MWC7ENLKKRV7HX2A Staton Ray

    It it kinda hard to tell which is which; they both look extremely good. And graphics are the last thing I look at when buying a game. Remember zelda? Doesn’t look too good, but it sure is fun :)

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_5ZCORSBJ53MWC7ENLKKRV7HX2A Staton Ray

    I do not prefer pc gaming, as you are much closer to the screen in most cases. Pc is better in terms of graphic power, but I could care less.

  • General of the Army

    You hear people in the audience laughing like it’s stupid but they’d get owned online. PS3 version looks fine, some games look better on xbox, some look better on PS3, it’s all down to the developers. Killzone 2 showed that the PS3 is very capable, huge maps, 32 player mayhem and it never froze.

Categories