Battlefield 3: PS3 graphics shown, are gamers satisfied?

By Posted 17 Jun 2011, 08:37

As expected, EA DICE unveiled the world premiere gameplay footage of Battlefield 3 running on the PlayStation 3, the first time it has even been shown on a console. After watching the gameplay, what are your immediate thoughts on the graphics?

We all knew that the game was never going to look as good as the PC, EA DICE even confirmed that weeks ago. But minus some obvious lighting and textures that make the PC version stand out, we feel EA DICE has done a pretty fine job of implementing the Frostbite 2.0 engine on console.

The core elements that we all saw in the PC version are there or there abouts in the PS3 version, and it looks nothing short of phenomenal on the system. It’s an obvious step-up in visuals from Bad Company 2 and dare we say it, the visuals are looking much crisper than Modern Warfare 3 – we’ll go into that in detail another time though.

Since this has now opened the floodgates, hopefully we’ll be seeing more of the console version of BF3 soon, which obviously includes the Xbox 360 version too as many gamers are interested in seeing how that compares alongside the PS3 and PC versions as well.

If you have already watched the PS3 gameplay on Jimmy Fallon, let us know what you think of the PS3 version. Are you satisfied with the job EA DICE have done with the graphics, or are you a bit disappointed? We’ve added a semi-high quality version of a recording from the gameplay reveal below, we’ll replace it with a better one when we find it.

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/profile.php?id=100000322651611 Jesse Tucker

    The graphics are good, but now I’ve made my mind up and I’ve decided to build a PC to run this game. This footage clearly shows that consoles are becoming dated and cannot keep up with PC games as a whole. Just look at Crysis 1 on PC compared to shooters that are out now, I’d ven argue that Crysis 1 graphics are better than Crysis 2s graphics mainly because Crysis 2 had to be ported onto consoles.

    • Anonymous

      consoles as in n64 maybe, crysis 2 looked “bad” cause the game wasnt in its pretty beach environment this time so it had no pretty surroundings to hide behind so gtfo

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

    Looking good and solid, i just hope the multiplayer doesnt descend into a laggy mess like the others!
    I have a PC that is “outdated” so would need upgrading to run bf3, i think i’ll stick to the console version as it’s not all about graphics and more about how it plays for me.

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

    Looking good and solid, i just hope the multiplayer doesnt descend into a laggy mess like the others!
    I have a PC that is “outdated” so would need upgrading to run bf3, i think i’ll stick to the console version as it’s not all about graphics and more about how it plays for me.

  • Raskilinov

    I think the visuals on both platforms are still very good and for me I quite happy to undergo a loss in some quality. For me the trade off is fair to pay £40 for the console game, rather than having to spend upward of £250 to upgrade my PC. 

  • Nike_7688

    Looks great for PS3, some of the best PS3 graphics I’ve seen, but the consoles seem to have been tapped out for a while now, so I doubt it really can look better than this.  I mean, their textures will be updated, and things will be smoother in final build, but after this game, what else can the PS3/x360 do?
    If people are going to complain about the consoles’ graphics, they should complain to the manufacturers of those consoles, as the devs are making use of every little bit of power and ability the current platforms have.  If you want better graphics, you either need to get a PC or push Sony and Microsoft to build a better console…after all, these have been out for 5 years. If i had a brand new PC 5 years ago, it would also not look NEARLY as good as the PC-footage shown as those Nvidia8800′s/ATI3000-series only supported DX10 (not 11) and were not nearly as powerful as modern DX11 cards (even the mid-range affordable ones).

    Graphics aside all-together, this game looks fantastic on every platform it’s been shown on.

    • Anonymous

      ps3 isnt anywhere near maxed out these developers just suck at developing for ps3 unlike naughty dog or guerilla games

    • Phillyblunz

      I think that is true for 360, but the PS3 has cell.  Cell has huge graphical potential, but almost every single third party dev still only uses the GPU for graphics.

      Killzone 2 has superior graphics to MW3, because MW3 has to be able to run on 360.
      In numbers the PS3 is about 3 times more capable of crunching numbers then 360, this is a rough equivalent to the “power” of a console.  PS3 capable of 2.1TFLOPS and 360 maxing out around 0.6TFLOPS.

      So for multiplatform games, yes graphics are likely maxed as MS will probably pay big bucks to prevent the PS3 version being at a higher resolution or framerate.

      But PS3 exclusives will still make advancements in graphics, gameplay, and scale due to learning how to push the cell to its limits while still fully utilizing the GPU.

      Imagine the game Killzone3 would have been had it not been in 3D. 

  • joshua gnanaraj

    “the visuals are looking much crisper than Modern Warfare 3″

    Crisper!!??? do you mean …. pink!!!

Categories