Battlefield 3: Does Hi-Res pack prove that console graphics are poor?

By Posted 8 Oct 2011, 09:05

If you are picking up the console version of Battlefield 3 on October 25th, we have some very important news for you. It has been revealed and then confirmed by EA DICE that the Xbox 360 and PS3 versions of the game will come with an optional install pack to improve textures in the game.

As you know, the console quality in terms of graphics have come in for considerable criticism after the beta released, more evident in the fact that the PC version of the game looks far more impressive visually than their console counter-parts.

Now then, in a recent interview with GamerZines, DICE producer Patrick Liu has revealed that there will be a ‘Hi-res’ texture pack that will be available as a optional install on the console disc. The only difference between the Xbox 360 and PS3 versions, is that the Xbox 360 texture pack will come on a separate disc, and the PS3 version will come on a single Blu-Ray disc.

Two things to think about here: 1) It’s great that EA DICE are thinking about improving the graphics further for the console version, but 2) Does it mean that gamers were generally correct in slating the quality of the console graphics, and this is a last ditch attempt by DICE to calm the fears? Why haven’t they included the hi-res textures from the start, and why has this bombshell only come out one week before release?

Our thoughts on this, is that it’s great news regardless of what the reasoning is behind it. If there is anything that DICE can implement on console to make the graphics similar to that seen on the PC version, then we welcome it with open arms. This story seems to have been reported with regards to a mandatory install on the Xbox 360 version only, but as you can see over at this report from IGN, the hi-res texture pack has also been confirmed for PS3 as well.

If you are getting the PC version of the game, let us know your thoughts on this. Were you concerned about the console graphics quality from the start?

  • Anonymous

    Wow

  • Jay303593

    briiliant news

  • http://www.facebook.com/Tegernako Tim Durocher

    Wow, this is a retarded article.

    Of course console graphics will be worse, you’re incredibly trollish article is pointless though, everyone knows that.

    If consoles get better graphics, what the hell does that have to do with the PC? NOTHING!

    I’m Commander Shepard, and this is my least favorite article on the citadel.

  • Anonymous

    Um…is the author of this article completely retarded? The consoles are still streaming “hi-res” graphics. It’s simply a matter of having to install the textures to the consoles’ HDD instead of streaming from the DVD/Blu-ray.

    Clearly the author is too stupid to realize this, otherwise this article would have never been written.

    • shooter

      Your woeful reading comprehension reflects how stupid you are. The author is saying because of the feedback of the low res graphics in the beta, DICE decided to addon hi-res files to improve it in the final build. He is not saying there’ won’t be, but emphasizing DICE did not realize in the first place how poor the graphics are in the consoles and the gamers are not happy with it. You Syngamer are simply one big fat moron.

      • Anonymous

        Nice try at a defense but you’re both retarded. This “hi-res” texture pack didn’t come along because gamers were disappointed with the graphics, this is something DICE has been planning from start. You can’t just magically create and include high resolution graphics to stream from the HDD on a whim. This is something that has been in planning for a while and was recently revealed to help reassure gamers that the game looks better.

        Furthermore, the title is quite possibly the most retarded part of this article. “Battlefield 3: Does Hi-Res pack prove that console graphics are poor?”

        Really? How can such a contradictory title have been approved before it was published? Did no one re-read this article beforehand? Hmm, let’s see, hi-res textures included = poor graphics for consoles? No, I don’t think so. Hi-res textures means the consoles can handle those graphics, it’s simply a matter of the media formats (DVD and Blu-ray) not being adequate enough to stream that much data…

  • André Miguel

    came here just to say yes….YES!

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=500684400 Sheldon Prescott

    It proves that the current generation of consoles (Xbox 360, Wii, & PS3) are outdated. Developers have to struggle to make a game look as gorgeous as Rage or LA Noire, and those games are usually on multiple discs. The only exception is Crysis 2. We need a new console gen already!

    You may have to install “textures” on the HD. That’s a sign that we need a new console gen to me. Also, not many people have HD space like that. I do, but most don’t. I would like to see new consoles :). That’s my main point.

    • Larr37

      I had thought the first sign would have been PC getting 64 player maps and consoles sticking with the 24. Must just be me though.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Juto-Kuto/100002613037447 Juto Kuto

    Lets make 3 things clear

    1)consoles are from 2006, for fucks sake, bring new one, this is the reason you cant do more on current systems. You can tell that by look at how much assasin creed revelations graphics look like brotherhood and 2 or take a look at mass effect 3, same graphics as mass effect 2, or uncharted 3 or killzone 3.

    This is the problem with mw3 too, 60 fps and better graphics? HOW you cant do them both without newer hardware and NO a “new engine” for the sake of having something “new” wont take advantage of dated hardware, you can optimize only soo much.

    2)Dont even think for a second that bf3 will look as good as the pc  version only becaue of the HD pack, there are so many more things that the console version is lacking, inferior lighting, smaller draw distane, less destruction, no dx11,smaller maps (no 64 player maps size) and many more. This is only making the game look better if you choose to install on hard drive and why wouldnt you? not even the most powerfull pc can stream so highly detailed textures from the dvd.

    3)Console graphisc are inferior than the pc version 100% of the time, but not in a scale to make a big diffirence, still though even mw2 looks better than rage on a pc. So keep in mind that and realize how much time gamedevelopers put into making the console version run as well as it does.

  • kris.pennant

    Simply…… retarded.

  • Tom

    Alan Ng,

    You realise it was a Beta test environment? If so, do you actually understand what that even means? Obviously not.
    It’s purpose was the detect faults/defects/glitches/animation & gameplay flaws. Impressing people with Graphic power is NOT a priority.Textures, lighting and Particle effects take up an insane amount of room in today’s games. They made the correct decision not to cram all this into the beta file as it would have meant an unnecessarily large download, and would have no benefit to the objective of a beta test.All this just to impressed ill informed people such as yourself.  As a Gaming journalist, you have a poor understanding of the game development cycle. 

  • Hobodealer

    I still don’t get why everyone is complaining about the graphics. There is no reason why anyone should be “concerned” about the console graphics, I’m an xboxer and the graphics are great! People should spend less time caring about graphics and more about the gameplay! Which is what really matters. Besides! They’re still 10x better than CoD.

    • OneShot

      You’re saying the BF3 beta Xbox360 graphics are great? Hey douche, go have your eyes check or your brain IQ is just too low it can’t identify what good graphics look like. The BF3 beta xbox graphics is worse than the BF2′s with obvious image tear, very low texture resolution, etc. In fact, MW1 graphics are far better.

      • Renjick

        “In fact, MW1 graphics are far better”‘

        That’s the part where your opinion turns into fantastic turd.

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Evan-Jordan-Contreras/537421192 Evan Jordan Contreras

        They are great.  Lighting effects are significantly improved.  Shadowing with their new shadowing tech as digital foundry stated is far superior.  Even though you cant see that until you get in the subway.  Maybe you need to get your eyes check.  Or maybe pop in BFBC2 and actually compare the 2.  And see how short the view distance is for foliage and how low rez everything is.  Not just random low res objects like the sandbags and bushes in the new BF3 beta.

  • Anonymous

    I’d say this is a bit of a sensationalist article.  Coding the game to stream graphics off the HD isn’t something they’re going to do a couple of weeks before launch, so I’d say this has been in the works for quite some time.  And then there’s the headline – how do you define ‘poor’?  Some PC indie games look like they were coded in 1995, other big-budget PC games (Witcher 2) melt your eyeballs, but even the Witcher 2 is mainly an issue of lighting, texture detail and frame rate.  The difference between top-notch and PC is significant, but it’s a bit like the difference between Blu-ray and DVD – you can still very much enjoy watching a movie on DVD.  That’s a good analogy as well, because it highlights the diminishing marginal returns of extra graphics and processing power, which is the reason we haven’t seen new consoles yet.

  • Sam

    The so called “high-res” package probably won’t make much of a difference. Its still gonna run in sub-HD and it still going to be 20 times better on PC. I don’t get all the articles about the console port being close to the PC version, its impossible. 512mb of ram don’t compare to 8 gigs on a PC get over it. Graphic and performance are gonna suck on console pack or not

  • John

    actully it will make a differnce, rage uses the same tech, by installing the 2nd disk of rage the game just looks amazing something youd come to expect from a pc title, so dont worry about it, its an upgrade, not a last ditch effort, with out this type of tech you wouldnt be able to see graphics like them on console… DO YOUR RESEARCH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! and who ever made this page and posted this, Shame on you, go do some reading for once, who ever published this article is a troll….. and sam have you played rage, go play that game and eat your words, the console with useing this tech for hi res textures can give us close to pc results, play rage on xbox360 after the 3cd install you will see what i mean, this tech will give us graphics up untill now we havent see on console, get used to it, consoles can look pretty good if they use all the right tricks… BF3 is going to look amazing on console guys, one of the best looking console games…

  • tellingthetruth

    If you play on the computer, you might as well kill yourself now because you are a worthless human being who will never lose their virginity and never amount to more then living with your mom until she dies and then you commit suicide after.

    • makah

      Having a computer just means we where not brainwashed in to buying garbage we use to own when we were five years old. Once you game on a computer, it’s hard to tell the difference between Wii and Xbox. And why the hell would we kill are selves when we got the greatest game to come to the Proper platform. And you get to look at a ink blot on you tv’s

    • Tellingtherealtruth

      Sounds like someone doesn’t know technology. Welcome to the 21st Century and you still probably working as a farmer with a plow.

  • Mark

    I wonder how that crow tastes to all the ppl screaming in defense of the beta’s shitty visuals, LOL.

  • RAM

    I had to laugh when reading this article. Remember that BF3 had bad textures AND framerate on consoles. So you figure out easily that by adding high-res textures the framerate will drop again.
    I am really really disappointed by BF3 and the new Frostbyte. Even my old Battlefield 2 looks better on console and this by having fun with more possibilities to destroy the environment…

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Evan-Jordan-Contreras/537421192 Evan Jordan Contreras

      um lensoftruth showed that the framerate of BF3 was basically locked at 30fps with both consoles averaging 29.0-30.0 fps on every test and never dropping a single frame unless it was crazy hectic.  SO not sure wtf is wrong with your eyes.  But the optional install will probably help with texture streaming meaning less popin since its on the hard drive instead of on the disk.

      • RAM

        Hi Evan! Why don’t you believe your own eyes? I’ve played the demo several times and had hickups and slowdowns (PS3). Should I have to consult a website to assure this? But you are correct with the 30fps. This is the goal. And now think about high-resolution textures… the goal will get further away…

  • Dynasty2021

    Consoles are too dated to keep up with PCs.  They always will be.

    This article is terrible really.  Of course the graphics suck on the consoles.  Even their best looking games suck in comparison to PC versions.  Uncharted 3 looks great yeah, but games 4 years older on the PC look better.

    Yeah the consoles need replacing.

    Got £400 lying around?

    Oh right, right, you’re paying for it with MY taxes claiming you’re ‘looking’ for work.  Gotcha.

  • Anonymous

    Get over it kids, PS3 was released 5 years ago, XBOX 360 is even older. Don’t expect to get the graphics I get on my PC that is a few months old. My video card alone cost more than a PS3 at release. Yeah I spend a buttload on my computer, but I use my PC for more than gaming and I could afford it too. Until you can afford paying for this kind of hardware and not depend on your parents getting this stuff for you, or using my tax money for all you lazy, unemployed, ghetto-project-living parasites, stop complaining.

    • Chambers Zane

      I love how PC talk trash about how there hardware is so great and console gamers are stupid and uninformed . But you PC gamers do know consoles gamers have a library of games that come out a year.Where as the PC will have one maybe two good games coming. I hate playing on monitors,keyboards, Mouse. It just feels very generic too me. So yeah you have better graphics , but how much money do you constantly invest to keep up? A lot.

      • Tellingtherealtruth

        Nope, considering Xbox is running on 6 year old technology. Unless you have a 5yr old computer, there is no cost on upkeep. A 3yr old computer can run it better than the xbox or PS3. Defective hardware happens on both PC and Consoles, so that won’t be a valid argument either.

      • Anonymous

        You dont get it do you? My comment goes to those that EXPECT visuals and performance from PC to their 6 year old consoles. They complain about the graphics! Duh! You are playing on OLD hardware! As far as library of game, are you serious dude? This shows that YOU are within those uninformed console gamers that know nothing about PC gaming. Practically any game there is for console, there is a PC version. The mouse and keyboard is a personal preference, you can always use an XBOX360/PS3 controller on a PC as I do for paying Dirt 3 and other racing games. For FPS games, there is nothing better than mouse and keyboard. And about the investment to keep a PC current, well not only do I use my computer for gaming, I use it for web, word processing, Blu-Ray ripping and burning, Photoshop editing, streaming music/movies to PS3 and XBOX (I have Wii also beside the other two consoles), I use my computer for practically everything. What can your XBOX do? This is why PC gaming is not for everyone, definitely not for kids or parasites! It’s more expensive because it’s better, period!

  • Chris C

    Considering the myth that people have about PC gaming, no wonder people cling to fossils they call gaming consoles. PC gaming can be built at 500 dollars.

    And don’t even bullshit me about the added accessories, there are plenty of console players out there that buy $150 headsets and all these different controllers and “theme/avatar” packs that cost them money.

    I had a friend running his 3yr old pc with Geforce 9800GT with better graphics then his xbox.

  • RuGaRR

    I bought a new PC a couple of weeks ago… considering that the graphics for all my games look so much better and all at 60 fps, I’m never touching a console again! Well not until the next gen anyway…

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Trevor-Stluka/1423250536 Trevor Stluka

    The HUGE problem I have with EA’s advertisement campaign for BF3 is that they’re showing ALMOST EVERY GAME PLAY on the PC, and probably on high or ultra settings. They’ve showed MAYBE a couple of game plays on console…and the problem is many don’t understand the technology in consoles is in fact behind of the PC today. I laugh at EA every time I see a BF3 commercial on tv, because every little kid that wants the game because it looks good is going to ask their parents to buy, they will, they’ll play it, and most likely ask for another game. Leading to another problem is that EA has been so focused on the engine and the visuals of the game, that this is what leads to the problem of console gamers getting mad at the visuals not looking as good. Honestly, it’s EA’s fault. Yes, people should know, but they don’t, so it’s EA’s fault.
    The Battlefield 3 beta was kind of fun, but was pretty buggy. Yes, I know…”You’re sooooooo stupid, they were using months old data for the beta.”
    Only problem with this…they’ve been working on this game for quite some time. Look at Gears of War 3 multi-player beta, it was released 5 MONTHS BEFORE LAUNCH and with minimal bugs…and from my experience I didn’t experience ANY…and Epic games had a couple of years to make the game also.
    Yes it’s a beta, but judging how long the engine has been in the making AND how long they’ve been making the game…the beta should have been better quality…betas CAN BE VERY GOOD quality, look at Gears of War 3′s…enough said.
    Unfortunately, I don’t have enough money after Gears of War 3 and Modern Warfare 3 and Bioshock: Infinite and Counter-Strike: Global Offensive coming out later, I’ll probably have to give BF3 a pass, but do commend DICE for even though buggy, was a pretty fun game.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Last-Dominion/100002709596922 Last Dominion

    When you port a pc game to consoles, console players freak.
    When you port a console game to pc’s, pc gamers freak.
    No-win scenario for developers. Usually they just port from console to pc (which sucks), as it’s generally more profitable because the console community is somewhat larger than the pc gamer community; for better or worse…
    That said, everyone should be pleased. The console versions look great (at least better than the previous iterations) and the pc version looks incredible. Kinda win-win?

  • Theor3au

    Obviously the Pc’s graphics are better. My xbox was under 200 used with many a game and controller. Many people don’t have money for a gaming pc, and get angry when they see it is better. Im happy knowing i get a good experience for barely any money