Console Battlefield 3 to Include Optional High-Res Textures

The reason it cant play in 1080p has nothing to do with hdd space. The fps at the upsampled 1080p is an issue (in the case of the 360). Most people could easily download a seperate patch off xbl if they wanted. Adding actual 1080p textures might fix this, hence needed hdd space. However, the PS3 has an almost identical graphics card so unless it can magically offload some of the workload for the game (onto the cpu) its not going to work. Either way, PC is 1080p, 360 is 720p, deal with it.

Well this is good because I was pretty bummed out with the console versions so far.

But I'm not getting what a install does, that the disc can't? Odd...maybe they're just making up for the hate they were getting during the Beta and it's lackluster visuals at times.

@MichaelBach said:

@Bouke said:

@MichaelBach: Yeah i was in the same boat rocking my 20Gb 360 Pro for the GoW bundle back in the day. I recently upgraded and man having that 250 Gb HD and the HDMI makes playing my 360 a lot better. Also i don't have to worry about it breaking all the time.

On topic; having some extra data on disc to install so that the game will look better, great idea! I really don't see a problem with better graphics for no extra money, only some harddrive space.

Hmm.. will have to upgrade soon! Yes, you're right, if the game looks better then fine by me, just hope that it doesn't effect the frame rate :)

I´m pretty sure the framerate will be fine, data loads faster from a harddrive then from a DVD/Blu-ray, if i recall correctly.

I would have been far more pleased with an increase in player count. I love Battlefield, but I want the full experience. I'll probably still get this though, I mean its fucking Battlefield 3.

@MisterDakotaJ said:

I would have been far more pleased with an increase in player count. I love Battlefield, but I want the full experience. I'll probably still get this though, I mean its fucking Battlefield 3.

At least to 32 players would be nice. 24 players on Operation Metro feels barren at times. The map is just too big. 32 players shouldn't be that hard to achieve either; Perfect Dark Zero ran smoothly with that player count.

@Andorski said:

@MisterDakotaJ said:

I would have been far more pleased with an increase in player count. I love Battlefield, but I want the full experience. I'll probably still get this though, I mean its fucking Battlefield 3.

At least to 32 players would be nice. 24 players on Operation Metro feels barren at times. The map is just too big. 32 players shouldn't be that hard to achieve either; Perfect Dark Zero ran smoothly with that player count.

PDZ uses no environmental physics, has canned animations (with the exception of ragdolls) and nowhere near the graphical fidelity of BF3.

So in other words, the console version goes from "very low" textures to "low" textures while probably dipping below 30 frames per second on a regular basis.

Honestly, if I were a console user I would care more about having less than half the players on big empty maps that having crappy visuals.

@SeriouslyNow said:

@Andorski said:

@MisterDakotaJ said:

I would have been far more pleased with an increase in player count. I love Battlefield, but I want the full experience. I'll probably still get this though, I mean its fucking Battlefield 3.

At least to 32 players would be nice. 24 players on Operation Metro feels barren at times. The map is just too big. 32 players shouldn't be that hard to achieve either; Perfect Dark Zero ran smoothly with that player count.

PDZ uses no environmental physics, has canned animations (with the exception of ragdolls) and nowhere near the graphical fidelity of BF3.

I'd balance all those improvements with the fact that PDZ was a launch game.

I guess a better example would be Warhawk on PS3. No destruction and the graphics were definitely on the lower end of the spectrum, but the game ran buttery smooth even when a couple of a group of Warhawks, tanks, and jeeps with passengers launching missiles went apeshit on a team's base. I think it's spiritual successor, Starhawk, is also going to support 32 players, and in that game you have building falling down from the sky!

@REIGN said:

@Mcfart said:

Another reason to buy console BF3 - the beta already looks better then the PC running at Low settings, so this will hopefully be competitive with the PC at Highest.

Are you high?

Oh, nevermind. Your name is green.

BF3 look fantastic on PC.

My name is green too but I have no disillusions like this.

I will be playing the game on my 360 though and this high rez thing is great news for me.

@squirrelnacho: The resent footage of console multi player looked great, many thought it was on a PC. Turns out it was on a PS3, also I like Rush more than conquest anyways so 24people really isn't that big of a deal to me, every map will be playable in all four game modes.

@REIGN said:

@Mcfart said:

Another reason to buy console BF3 - the beta already looks better then the PC running at Low settings, so this will hopefully be competitive with the PC at Highest.

Are you high?

Oh, nevermind. Your name is green.

BF3 look fantastic on PC.

Does it look fantastic on the lowest settings? Because that's obviously what Mcfart is talking about.

@Meowshi said:

@REIGN said:

@Mcfart said:

Another reason to buy console BF3 - the beta already looks better then the PC running at Low settings, so this will hopefully be competitive with the PC at Highest.

Are you high?

Oh, nevermind. Your name is green.

BF3 look fantastic on PC.

Does it look fantastic on the lowest settings? Because that's obviously what Mcfart is talking about.

The majority of PC gamers who will buy BF3 in the first 3 months of release won't be buying it to play on lowest settings so that whole argument is fucking stupid.

@SeriouslyNow said:

@Meowshi said:

@REIGN said:

@Mcfart said:

Another reason to buy console BF3 - the beta already looks better then the PC running at Low settings, so this will hopefully be competitive with the PC at Highest.

Are you high?

Oh, nevermind. Your name is green.

BF3 look fantastic on PC.

Does it look fantastic on the lowest settings? Because that's obviously what Mcfart is talking about.

The majority of PC gamers who will buy BF3 in the first 3 months of release won't be buying it to play on lowest settings so that whole argument is fucking stupid.

What?!

Mcfart is clearly saying that he would have to play at lowest settings if he played it on the PC. We are not talking about the "majority of PC gamers".

You guys are so defensive about PC gaming that you're not even bothering to read what people are saying. This is fucking silly.

@SeriouslyNow said:

@Meowshi said:

@REIGN said:

@Mcfart said:

Another reason to buy console BF3 - the beta already looks better then the PC running at Low settings, so this will hopefully be competitive with the PC at Highest.

Are you high?

Oh, nevermind. Your name is green.

BF3 look fantastic on PC.

Does it look fantastic on the lowest settings? Because that's obviously what Mcfart is talking about.

The majority of PC gamers who will buy BF3 in the first 3 months of release won't be buying it to play on lowest settings so that whole argument is fucking stupid.

His argument is completely valid. The question is not whether one WILL play it on higher settings. It's a question whether one CAN play it on higher settings - without first investing in new components that cost far more than what buying a new console would. In most cases buying a game on a console will yield a far higher quality experience than on PC, at least when comparing hardware costs.

@Meowshi said:

@SeriouslyNow said:

@Meowshi said:

@REIGN said:

@Mcfart said:

Another reason to buy console BF3 - the beta already looks better then the PC running at Low settings, so this will hopefully be competitive with the PC at Highest.

Are you high?

Oh, nevermind. Your name is green.

BF3 look fantastic on PC.

Does it look fantastic on the lowest settings? Because that's obviously what Mcfart is talking about.

The majority of PC gamers who will buy BF3 in the first 3 months of release won't be buying it to play on lowest settings so that whole argument is fucking stupid.

What?!

Mcfart is clearly saying that he would have to play at lowest settings if he played it on the PC. We are not talking about the "majority of PC gamers".

You guys are so defensive about PC gaming that you're not even bothering to read what people are saying. This is fucking silly.

I went right back to the start of thread and found his post on page 3 and that's all his post says, you're injecting things into it which he himself doesn't. He isn't clearly talking about his choices, his wording is general and thus ambiguous and it certainly could be as an anti PC statement which is why it garnered the response it did from Reign, as could yours. You're busy telling me that I can't read when in fact you don't understand how to shape a non ambiguous argument.

@kaedeno said:

@SeriouslyNow said:

@Meowshi said:

@REIGN said:

@Mcfart said:

Another reason to buy console BF3 - the beta already looks better then the PC running at Low settings, so this will hopefully be competitive with the PC at Highest.

Are you high?

Oh, nevermind. Your name is green.

BF3 look fantastic on PC.

Does it look fantastic on the lowest settings? Because that's obviously what Mcfart is talking about.

The majority of PC gamers who will buy BF3 in the first 3 months of release won't be buying it to play on lowest settings so that whole argument is fucking stupid.

His argument is completely valid. The question is not whether one WILL play it on higher settings. It's a question whether one CAN play it on higher settings - without first investing in new components that cost far more than what buying a new console would. In most cases buying a game on a console will yield a far higher quality experience than on PC, at least when comparing hardware costs.

Let me reiterate: Most of the people who will be pre-ordering and buy BF3 within the release period are not the average PC gamer. They are fans of the franchise. Fans of the franchise are extremely likely to be reasonably hardcore PC gamers. Hardcore PC gamers have modern hardware. I know, you're trying to negate my point with broken logic and that's fine because to you that makes sense, but it's still broken and it remains even more apparent when you ignore my working logic and put your broken logic in its place.

@kaedeno said:

@SeriouslyNow said:

@Meowshi said:

@REIGN said:

@Mcfart said:

Another reason to buy console BF3 - the beta already looks better then the PC running at Low settings, so this will hopefully be competitive with the PC at Highest.

Are you high?

Oh, nevermind. Your name is green.

BF3 look fantastic on PC.

Does it look fantastic on the lowest settings? Because that's obviously what Mcfart is talking about.

The majority of PC gamers who will buy BF3 in the first 3 months of release won't be buying it to play on lowest settings so that whole argument is fucking stupid.

His argument is completely valid. The question is not whether one WILL play it on higher settings. It's a question whether one CAN play it on higher settings - without first investing in new components that cost far more than what buying a new console would. In most cases buying a game on a console will yield a far higher quality experience than on PC, at least when comparing hardware costs.

Let me reiterate: Most of the people who will be pre-ordering and buy BF3 within the release period are not the average PC gamer. They are fans of the franchise. Fans of the franchise are extremely likely to be reasonably hardcore PC gamers. Hardcore PC gamers have modern hardware. I know, you're trying to negate my point with broken logic and that's fine because to you that makes sense, but it's still broken and it remains even more apparent when you ignore my working logic and put your broken logic in its place.

Can't wait. Hope it does have high res

@SeriouslyNow said:

@Meowshi said:

@SeriouslyNow said:

@Meowshi said:

@REIGN said:

@Mcfart said:

Another reason to buy console BF3 - the beta already looks better then the PC running at Low settings, so this will hopefully be competitive with the PC at Highest.

Are you high?

Oh, nevermind. Your name is green.

BF3 look fantastic on PC.

Does it look fantastic on the lowest settings? Because that's obviously what Mcfart is talking about.

The majority of PC gamers who will buy BF3 in the first 3 months of release won't be buying it to play on lowest settings so that whole argument is fucking stupid.

What?!

Mcfart is clearly saying that he would have to play at lowest settings if he played it on the PC. We are not talking about the "majority of PC gamers".

You guys are so defensive about PC gaming that you're not even bothering to read what people are saying. This is fucking silly.

I went right back to the start of thread and found his post on page 3 and that's all his post says, you're injecting things into it which he himself doesn't. He isn't clearly talking about his choices, his wording is general and thus ambiguous and it certainly could be as an anti PC statement which is why it garnered the response it did from Reign, as could yours. You're busy telling me that I can't read when in fact you don't understand how to shape a non ambiguous argument.

It can only be construed as an "anti-PC statement" by people who are overly-defensive about the preference in video games. There is nothing anti-PC about sharing your hopes that the high-res console textures are competitive with the PC graphics. There is nothing anti-PC about suggesting that the beta currently looks visually better than the PC running at the lowest settings. That's all his post said. I'm inferring nothing but what is there. I'll repeat: you are being overly-defensive.

I think we both know you aren't going to admit this, so let's just drop it.

oooooooooohWTF

Meh, the Beta left me less than impressed. Doubt I'm even picking this up, would've been a rental if Blockbuster was still open.

god I hope the beta is just really bad, wasnt expecting that mess.

@Teizen said:

Textures would be nice.

You're playing on the snow map, is all.

@SeriouslyNow said:

@kaedeno said:

@SeriouslyNow said:

@Meowshi said:

@REIGN said:

@Mcfart said:

Another reason to buy console BF3 - the beta already looks better then the PC running at Low settings, so this will hopefully be competitive with the PC at Highest.

Are you high?

Oh, nevermind. Your name is green.

BF3 look fantastic on PC.

Does it look fantastic on the lowest settings? Because that's obviously what Mcfart is talking about.

The majority of PC gamers who will buy BF3 in the first 3 months of release won't be buying it to play on lowest settings so that whole argument is fucking stupid.

His argument is completely valid. The question is not whether one WILL play it on higher settings. It's a question whether one CAN play it on higher settings - without first investing in new components that cost far more than what buying a new console would. In most cases buying a game on a console will yield a far higher quality experience than on PC, at least when comparing hardware costs.

Let me reiterate: Most of the people who will be pre-ordering and buy BF3 within the release period are not the average PC gamer. They are fans of the franchise. Fans of the franchise are extremely likely to be reasonably hardcore PC gamers. Hardcore PC gamers have modern hardware. I know, you're trying to negate my point with broken logic and that's fine because to you that makes sense, but it's still broken and it remains even more apparent when you ignore my working logic and put your broken logic in its place.

Oh and by the way low settings on PC do look better than that 

@mnzy said:

@Winternet said:

@theswoosh said:

@Anathem said:

@Winternet said:

@Tarsier said:

@TobbRobb said:

@Rekt_Hed said:

@Siriusface

@JacDG said:

@Tarsier said:

@REIGN said:

@Tarsier said:

@MrKlorox said:

A: What the fuck?!

B: The map in that screenshot is not from the multiplayer beta.

@Tarsier said:

@zoner said:

@Tarsier said:

@Andorski said:

@Tarsier said:

next generation of consoles need to be upgradable. have a panel on the back thats easy to open that holds the ram and graphics card... then they can just release upgrade packs instead of entire new consoles, to keep up with the technology thats always evolving..

I can't tell if you're serious.

What you want is a PC.

how can you not tell that im serious? who wouldnt want to be able to upgrade consoles. the only people who dont want to do that are microsoft because they dont want people to think its just a PC in a box.

Yeah, dude. It's called a PC.

no dude, it isnt.

Yes, it's EXACTLY what you described. A PC.

no. for frigs sakes. its a console (like the xbox) with a panel on the back that can be easily opened, and a slot with a graphics card/hard drive/ram or whatever, for upgrades when the console becomes outdated compared to whats being played on the pc, such as what is happening now with games.. you PC gamers are arguing against me and insulting me because you dont want your precious little gamer cred to go out the window. you want to be the special guy who can upgrade his system any time a new game with new technology com

es out.

PS. i have a pc, and a very good one, and i can play all the new games on it with high settings. however, pc gaming is a solitary experience, and i enjoy the xbox controller and the streamlined xbox live interface and the controllers more than what pc has to offer. the feeling of playing games on a pc for me is anti-immersion.

anyways this doesnt have to be a pc vs console battle like you feebles always try to make it. think about THIS IDEA. BY ITSELF. CONSOLES THAT ARE UPGRADEABLE. END OF STORY. WITH A MASSIVELY LONG CONSOLE CYCLE LIKE WE HAVE RIGHT NOW WE COULD HAVE BEEN BETTER OFF WITH AN UPGRADEABLE CONSOLE FROM THE VERY BEGINNING. ITS COMMON SENSE THAT THE NEXT GEN SHOUD HAVE THIS.

thank you and have a nice day.

What is this I don't even...

How could this ever make sense...

it makes sense you just have to have the comprehension levels of at least a turd toilet

PersonalComputer.

This is the biggest quote line I've ever seen

...wow them bitches be crazy! Also fuck you guys I'm playing battlefield on my upgraded zx spectrum. The textures look soooo good

Gotta keep the quote line running. Also you guys are so obviously being trolled... Why even argue with him.

for your information i am not trolling i am giving my honest insights into this subject, if you cant understand that then you are probably either a communist, a socialist, a nazi or an anime fan.

I wanna be in here too.

Battlefield 3 . . . biggest disappointment for 2011.

Upgradable consoles? Greatidea!

Do what i did... Take the $599 you were going to spend on a PS4 or 720 this year and go buy a GTX 590. Battlefield is a biblical experience on my beautiful PC.

Dudes, dudes, dudes. BF3 is going to suck terribly.

I think he has a point!

The aforementioned backplate should also be upgradeable. Maybe you want one with an extra fan for cooling? Or a some soundproofing for silence? And let's not forget the power supply, I really don't like having it outside the console. Maybe with a few upgrades to the chassi, you could put it inside? A new motherboard would probably be neccessary for some of the upgrades, but that could be a good thing! Imagine a 360 with usb3/thunderbolt/Esata, sweet!

Then maybe, just maybe, third party manufactures could put out portable versions! O-o More insanity. Gaming on the go taken to the next level! Imagine BF3 on a machine you could take anywhere!

This is just the beginning I tell you!!111one

The revolution starts here!

@Munkatten said:

@mnzy said:

@Winternet said:

@theswoosh said:

@Anathem said:

@Winternet said:

@Tarsier said:

@TobbRobb said:

@Rekt_Hed said:

@Siriusface

@JacDG said:

@Tarsier said:

@REIGN said:

@Tarsier said:

@MrKlorox said:

A: What the fuck?!

B: The map in that screenshot is not from the multiplayer beta.

@Tarsier said:

@zoner said:

@Tarsier said:

@Andorski said:

@Tarsier said:

next generation of consoles need to be upgradable. have a panel on the back thats easy to open that holds the ram and graphics card... then they can just release upgrade packs instead of entire new consoles, to keep up with the technology thats always evolving..

I can't tell if you're serious.

What you want is a PC.

how can you not tell that im serious? who wouldnt want to be able to upgrade consoles. the only people who dont want to do that are microsoft because they dont want people to think its just a PC in a box.

Yeah, dude. It's called a PC.

no dude, it isnt.

Yes, it's EXACTLY what you described. A PC.

no. for frigs sakes. its a console (like the xbox) with a panel on the back that can be easily opened, and a slot with a graphics card/hard drive/ram or whatever, for upgrades when the console becomes outdated compared to whats being played on the pc, such as what is happening now with games.. you PC gamers are arguing against me and insulting me because you dont want your precious little gamer cred to go out the window. you want to be the special guy who can upgrade his system any time a new game with new technology com

es out.

PS. i have a pc, and a very good one, and i can play all the new games on it with high settings. however, pc gaming is a solitary experience, and i enjoy the xbox controller and the streamlined xbox live interface and the controllers more than what pc has to offer. the feeling of playing games on a pc for me is anti-immersion.

anyways this doesnt have to be a pc vs console battle like you feebles always try to make it. think about THIS IDEA. BY ITSELF. CONSOLES THAT ARE UPGRADEABLE. END OF STORY. WITH A MASSIVELY LONG CONSOLE CYCLE LIKE WE HAVE RIGHT NOW WE COULD HAVE BEEN BETTER OFF WITH AN UPGRADEABLE CONSOLE FROM THE VERY BEGINNING. ITS COMMON SENSE THAT THE NEXT GEN SHOUD HAVE THIS.

thank you and have a nice day.

What is this I don't even...

How could this ever make sense...

it makes sense you just have to have the comprehension levels of at least a turd toilet

PersonalComputer.

This is the biggest quote line I've ever seen

...wow them bitches be crazy! Also fuck you guys I'm playing battlefield on my upgraded zx spectrum. The textures look soooo good

Gotta keep the quote line running. Also you guys are so obviously being trolled... Why even argue with him.

for your information i am not trolling i am giving my honest insights into this subject, if you cant understand that then you are probably either a communist, a socialist, a nazi or an anime fan.

I wanna be in here too.

Battlefield 3 . . . biggest disappointment for 2011.

Upgradable consoles? Greatidea!

Do what i did... Take the $599 you were going to spend on a PS4 or 720 this year and go buy a GTX 590. Battlefield is a biblical experience on my beautiful PC.

Dudes, dudes, dudes. BF3 is going to suck terribly.

I think he has a point!

The aforementioned backplate should also be upgradeable. Maybe you want one with an extra fan for cooling? Or a some soundproofing for silence? And let's not forget the power supply, I really don't like having it outside the console. Maybe with a few upgrades to the chassi, you could put it inside? A new motherboard would probably be neccessary for some of the upgrades, but that could be a good thing! Imagine a 360 with usb3/thunderbolt/Esata, sweet!

Then maybe, just maybe, third party manufactures could put out portable versions! O-o More insanity. Gaming on the go taken to the next level! Imagine BF3 on a machine you could take anywhere!

This is just the beginning I tell you!!111one

The revolution starts here!

oh you so funnayyy!!!!

@Krisgebis said:

Is this because the game can't handle the higher texture when streaming from the disc?

It's probably just their way of keeping it down to one disc for 360. Dead Space 2 used high-res textures, but it ended up being two discs on 360. Having the high-res textures as an optional download pack is a smart idea on EA's part, and hopefully, they can use this as an option in many of their later games...

...ya know, until they make a new console that actually has media disc storage...if they use media discs at all.

 @jakob187 said:

@Krisgebis said:

Is this because the game can't handle the higher texture when streaming from the disc?

It's probably just their way of keeping it down to one disc for 360. Dead Space 2 used high-res textures, but it ended up being two discs on 360. Having the high-res textures as an optional download pack is a smart idea on EA's part, and hopefully, they can use this as an option in many of their later games...

...ya know, until they make a new console that actually has media disc storage...if they use media discs at all.

Word. Whatevs. I'm game!

this should come with a disclaimer - DO NOT ATTEMPT on 90nm XBox 360's!!!

Or at least make sure you have a fire extinguisher close by.

Apparently it's not optional on PS3, according to this tweet it's an automatic install:

http://twitter.com/#!/Battlefield/status/129564767542185984