official Battlefield 3

[Ayepecks]

Who's she? Reading her other tweets, my eyes somehow only focused on this one :whistle: :blush:

Yeah, I focused on that one, too. You know, the one that makes you wrong yet again, as we've been trying to point out to you.

[rajputwarrior]

Yeah, I focused on that one, too. You know, the one that makes you wrong yet again, as we've been trying to point out to you.

:rofl: owned

[Pupik]

Yeah, I focused on that one, too. You know, the one that makes you wrong yet again, as we've been trying to point out to you.

I agreed with the tweet that I provided, not hiding that. That's why I posted it. But then that's why I also provided in my previous post a better encoded source that skipped the YouTube encoding (which deceased the quality of the image a bit), for much better quality for the likes of you and her.

Now prove me wrong in what? That the PS3 demonstrated version is far less detailed than the PC version, or what?

Because I never said the PS3 version is more impressive than the PC's one :blink:

[FlintyV]

LOL. Didn't know I'd wondered into a flame war. I do think the PS3 will look great but I also don't think that the PC is as powerful as people make out in practical terms. Sure there is a lot more horsepower but there is also several more times overhead than what you get with PS3 or Xbox 360.

[Ayepecks]

I agreed with the tweet that I provided, not hiding that. That's why I posted it. But then that's why I also provided in my previous post a better encoded source that skipped the YouTube encoding (which deceased the quality of the image a bit), for much better quality for the likes of you and her.

Now prove me wrong in what? That the PS3 demonstrated version is far less detailed than the PC version, or what?

Because I never said the PS3 version is more impressive than the PC's one :blink:

No one here is debating with you that the PC version doesn't look better -- you get that, right? We're debating with you that it looks "like DICE didn't even try" with the console versions, and that the videos and screen captures you've been posting are indicative of what we'll see on our home television sets.

Also, your second video still does not take into account that the image has been compressed when it was broadcast, which you don't seem to be comprehending. Yes, the Youtube version was further compressed, but this is yet another recording of a compressed signal. You've seen the comparisons of a Blu-ray and a movie broadcast in HD, correct? You're going to face a similar issue here.

[Lamp0]

It wasn't filmed off-screen. It was a direct feed, just like the presentation of the tank battle in E3.

If it wasn't, the end result would be a lot of this: http://i.imgur.com/l2EnK.jpg

Do notice there's no camera in front of the screen to capture the so called "off-screen" footage. And if there was a camera behind Jimmy and the guys from DICE capturing the screen showing the game, we would see their backs as they're in front of the screen. So no, def. not an off-screen footage.

You assume they are filming it from the same screen.

It was already stated on the official Battlefield blog that it was filmed off-screen. And it's pretty clear that it was:

Battlefield 3 just made its public console debut! We went to New York to visit Late Night with Jimmy Fallon, where we played Battlefield 3 live on PS3 in front of the audience. Check it out below. Sorry for the ghosting and rasterizations -- this was filmed offscreen.

http://blogs.battlefield.ea.com/Default.aspx##

[Ayepecks]

This is just unacceptable. Look at how horrible the graphics are in real-life!

[rajputwarrior]

^ :rofl:

No one here is debating with you that the PC version doesn't look better -- you get that, right? We're debating with you that it looks "like DICE didn't even try" with the console versions, and that the videos and screen captures you've been posting are indicative of what we'll see on our home television sets.

Also, your second video still does not take into account that the image has been compressed when it was broadcast, which you don't seem to be comprehending. Yes, the Youtube version was further compressed, but this is yet another recording of a compressed signal. You've seen the comparisons of a Blu-ray and a movie broadcast in HD, correct? You're going to face a similar issue here.

honestly, i would be STOKED if they didn't try on the console versions. now the console players know how it feels to be a PC gamer for the last 5 or so years... being treated as the ****** child of gaming.

[Pupik]

No one here is debating with you that the PC version doesn't look better -- you get that, right? We're debating with you that it looks "like DICE didn't even try" with the console versions, and that the videos and screen captures you've been posting are indicative of what we'll see on our home television sets.

Also, your second video still does not take into account that the image has been compressed when it was broadcast, which you don't seem to be comprehending. Yes, the Youtube version was further compressed, but this is yet another recording of a compressed signal. You've seen the comparisons of a Blu-ray and a movie broadcast in HD, correct? You're going to face a similar issue here.

The "didn't even try" referred to major missing details in the game (details on walls, on fences, buildings, people in front of you not to speak a few meters ahead of you (lod in general), lighting, shadows and etc.). Not the image quality and compression of the video itself. You can notice the lack of the details even with heavy compression.

And I know the PS3 is limited in power compared to the PC, but games before BF3 had those details perfected even in earlier builds (Advanced Warfighter 2 on the consoles for example. And that game was released back in 2007). And four months before the release, that can't be a demo of that early of a build, of a complete level that was already shown on different platform month (if not two) ago.

You assume they are filming it from the same screen.

It was already stated on the official Battlefield blog that it was filmed off-screen. And it's pretty clear that it was:

http://blogs.battlefield.ea.com/Default.aspx##

That only bring us back to the image quality of the video, and not the details in the game itself.

This is just unacceptable. Look at how horrible the graphics are in real-life!

You should turn on the deinterlace filter in your video player and then try again.

[madd-hatter]

Early speculation is a waste of time.

The game will look great all around. The game will look best on a $2,500 PC, that is the advantage on throwing down g's on a gaming rig. End of story.

Don't like it? Too bad.

[xendrome]

Early speculation is a waste of time.

The game will look great all around. The game will look best on a $2,500 PC, that is the advantage on throwing down g's on a gaming rig. End of story.

Don't like it? Too bad.

Yea but..

Gaming Rig - $2,500

Battlefield 3 PC copy - $60

60 Degree Console FOV - Negative 9,000....

Watch they will manage to screw it up some how.

[Pupik]

[rajputwarrior]

all that video is doing is showing that a developer is actually taking advantage of the power of a current PCs instead of making a console port. MUCH respect to DICE for that. and that's still a ****ty video to make the comparisons. maybe everything it says is right, but look how muddy the PS3 coverage looks compared to the PC coverage...

I really hope the menu's and what not on PC are optimized for a mouse and keyboard and not a controller though...

[DrJohnSmitherson]

I makes me angry when someone does a comparison video and they don't do a side by side.WHY, GOD DAMMIT?! :angry:

[Yusuf M. Veteran]

What's there to compare though? We all know it'll look better on PC. And it should be obvious that some things have to be toned down for consoles because the hardware is outdated.

[Flash]

A gaming PC does not cost $2500. I can build one with a i7 2600k and GTX 570 for $1000 from newegg , can also add another GTX 570 in SLi and it still won't be over $1500 with a beefier PSU.

[Nerve]

A gaming PC does not cost $2500. I can build one with a i7 2600k and GTX 570 for $1000 from newegg , can also add another GTX 570 in SLi and it still won't be over $1500 with a beefier PSU.

I'd rather spend ?150 on a console to be honest..

[furyshinobi]

I'd rather spend ?150 on a console to be honest..

Agreed. TBH I thought BF3 looked great on PS3 though it is pretty obvious that the PC looks really good if you have the specs for it. I'm more curious to see CoD MW3 vs BF3 comparison imo.

[Lamp0]

A gaming PC does not cost $2500. I can build one with a i7 2600k and GTX 570 for $1000 from newegg , can also add another GTX 570 in SLi and it still won't be over $1500 with a beefier PSU.

Yea, but does that include a monitor?

$1000 is still alot.

[Nerve]

Put it this way, if I could afford it I'd be buying this for PC, along with every other game, because imo PC Gaming is much more enjoyable, in terms of gameplay.. the communities that form.. and the modifications that follow, but I can't so ?150 instead of ?1000 for slightly inferior graphics really doesn't bother me whatsoever.

[Flash]

In no way did I suggest spending money on a new PC just for one game, simply correcting the over exaggeration of the cost for a more than decent PC capable of running it on max. If you have a console and not a good PC for this game, just buy it for consoles. I find it silly anyone would lay down cash to get a brand new computer just for one game unless there's a bigger picture involved besides gaming purposes.

[Alladaskill17]

Agreed. TBH I thought BF3 looked great on PS3 though it is pretty obvious that the PC looks really good if you have the specs for it. I'm more curious to see CoD MW3 vs BF3 comparison imo.

Why? Just go look at any other CoD over the past few years and you're looking at it MW3...nothing to compare. BF3 on any platform will destroy CoD visually (fact).

[trag3dy]

Put it this way, if I could afford it I'd be buying this for PC, along with every other game, because imo PC Gaming is much more enjoyable, in terms of gameplay.. the communities that form.. and the modifications that follow, but I can't so ?150 instead of ?1000 for slightly inferior graphics really doesn't bother me whatsoever.

It won't just be slightly inferior graphics though. It will be inferior gameplay as well. Maps won't be as large and player count will be limited quite drastically too.

[Nerve]

It won't just be slightly inferior graphics though. It will be inferior gameplay as well. Maps won't be as large and player count will be limited quite drastically too.

That doesn't bother me, wasn't it the same with BC2? I love that on console so.. don't see how less players can affect gameplay really, just the situations you find yourself in, not the handling.

Like I said, I'd love it on PC, but for the sake of saving ?850 on a console instead of a rig able to play it, then I'm OK.

[madd-hatter]

A gaming PC does not cost $2500. I can build one with a i7 2600k and GTX 570 for $1000 from newegg , can also add another GTX 570 in SLi and it still won't be over $1500 with a beefier PSU.

I prefer my $2,500 but it all depends on budget. Whatever, you missed the point.