Now they are aiming for the stars and consoles will scale to it.  

Looks good enough for me. I really only care about the framerate anymore. Will be getting this on PS3 initially. And whatever ends up on steam during a sale later. Fuck Origin.

BC2 on PC to a novice looks exactly like the console version, but there are subtle differences that really standout over the duration of a long period of play time.

I would prefer to play it on PC but I will enjoy it perfectly fine on consoles in the meantime. I just hope it has a decent framerate.

I haven't watched the videos yet, but if it looks as good as Bad Company 2, that's enough for me.

OH MY GOD, THE GAME still looks good.
 
I'd rather buy a console for £200-300 that I'd have to change every 6 years or so than buy a PC and have to pay £200 on a new graphics card every year just to have better visuals.
 
Also you can just get an adaptor to use keyboard and mouse on consoles.

Granted I watched the Fallon clip on YouTube but I didn't see any major difference from the PC vids aside from the console version looked darker. Lack of awesome lighting will not impact my enjoyment of shootin dudes in the face so I'm perfectly content with picking it up for 360 instead of building a super computer.

Jimmy Fallon. I could watch him read the phone book, and pay money to see it. 

it looks great on its own merits really. only when you make the comparisons are the differences really apparent.  
 
the main issue is the lower multiplayer numbers. hopefully it still works well 

Who cares it still looks good and @SuperSambo said:

@SadPatrol said:

@Roundlay

Looks pretty good to me.

I thought Fallon was meant to be a gaming guy? He seems as if he has never held a controller whenever he plays a game :S

@TwoOneFive said:

Who cares it still looks good and @SuperSambo said:

@SadPatrol said:

@Roundlay

Looks pretty good to me.

I thought Fallon was meant to be a gaming guy? He seems as if he has never held a controller whenever he plays a game :S

well give him a break the guy works a lot and probably doesn't have much time to play videogames. he is a huge uncharted fan though and he knows all about it.

When I watched him play Uncharted he seemed just as confused.

I really hoped they'll make the dynamic lighting more impressive on consoles. In the build seen on Jimmy Fallon, muzzleflash doesn't light up the environment at all. Guess that's just something that cannot be done on current gen consoles in the context of what BF3 is attempting to do.

Also - seeing all the shitty embed players on this page...  *AAAAARRRRGH*
 
  

Looks way better than I thought it would, still totally get this on PC though.

@GunGraveTZA said:

..I'd rather buy a console for £200-300 that I'd have to change every 6 years or so than buy a PC and have to pay £200 on a new graphics card every year just to have better visuals. Also you can just get an adaptor to use keyboard and mouse on consoles.

Now that's just wrong. If you want to experience multi-platform games on the PC with slightly better visuals than on consoles "right now" you need a 3-4 year old graphics card and it will still be good enough for another 2 or 3 years at low-medium settings. Depending on how many games you buy/bought it's possible that PC gaming has been even cheaper for people over time thanks to that insanely long console cycle, Steam sales, and generally lower prices for PC games. I really wonder if it will be the same with the next generation, but I will definitely get a next generation console, no matter what.

I've never used a mouse or a keyboard with my PS3. When they release a PS4 I will look into it for first and third person shooters, but somehow I can't imagine that it works good in games, and if it does.. it would be kind of unfair in competetive multiplayer games, wouldn't it? Either way, I'd like to be able to play games with the input device of my choice on the platform of my choice.

Looks pretty good to me.

I wrote a quick story about the console premier on Fallon.

Just in case you weren't thinking of building/upgrading a PC already...

I think a lot of what constitutes the niceness of how the console version looks is the deferred shading- it's the special sauce of some of the best looking console games out there. Complex as hell lighting with thick shadows (though they can be blocky) and nice contrast as well as those fancy blur and post processing effects.

@Seppli said:

Also - seeing all the shitty embed players on this page... *AAAAARRRRGH*

Here's the PC Version if people want to compare even more.

I think it still looks fantastic, it just doesn't look as good as it does on PC. Unfortunately my PC will never be good enough to run anything that actually requires...the usage of a graphics card at all, so the Xbox 360 version is the road I'm headed down.

@Seppli said:

The title had me mislead at first. I was like, what... 
But then it made sense. 
Yeah, not getting a new PC just for BF3. I'd like to, but it's not going to happen. 
As long as the graphics are bearable, and the game is amazing, I'll live with it on the Xbox.

Nice to see they aren't downgrading the pc version giving us so many frames and slight DX11 in exchanged for lower quality graphics. Now they are aiming for the stars and consoles will scale to it.   If only crytek remember this was like them before, aiming high and everything else be damned. Instead of constantly selling out.

Building a new pc at the end of this year, have been upgrading this 2004 Dell for far too long.

I have never been able to play multiplayer shooters on consoles, the auto aim is irritating and I spend the whole time wishing I was on a mouse + keyboard. Chances are high that consoles will only have 24-32 player limits while pc is at 64. These two bother me far more than the graphics difference. Then there is the whole call of duty console community buying it, those are not players I particularly want to deal with.

Here's a question:  
 
Is anyone who has a capable PC NOT picking this up for PC? 
 
My PC is more than up to the task, but even if it looks better on PC, I can't see it being the best experience compared to sitting in my room with my big screen, speakers and comfy chair.

@somejerk said:

Sofa + joypad = good enough for a crazy amount of people. I have to say though, keep an eye open and don't buy into a pre-order just yet if you want the 360 version and can choose between 360 PS3 PC, words say FrostBite 2 has been a bastard to get running well on the 360 compared to the PS3, which already has taken a downgrading with its very own port. Looks freaking amazing for a console game though. Hope you CoD fans are looking forward to another three four years on the same Quake 3 engine.

Quake 3 works fine for me. The graphics on consoles are not going to make a huge leap so ill stick to my 60fps.

Is anyone who has a capable PC NOT picking this up for PC?  

The reduced player size is so much more significant that what the fucking graphics look like, but people are silly and obsess over silly things.

Never fails, whenever a battlefield game comes out I end up buying it for a PC that can't hope to run it bigger than 800x600. Downgraded or not, if the frame rate's good on the 360 version, I think that's the only way I can go.

I hope the tank combat in this game is amazing, that is most important to me.

Gun play looks great so far, I love the idea of suppression bonuses and stuff like that, movement has always been the worst thing about Battlefield games, if that is fixed it will be amazing too.

@Riddell: Get a long cheap HDMI cable and connect to your PC to your TV. Problem solved. You could even use your 360 controller if you want.

I hope my PC can run this.

I think the difference is pretty striking. That should be expected though given hardware differences.

@Applederp said:

I would rather play it on PC All you guys thinking it won't matter on consoles are sorely mistaken. Even Bad Company 2 (a Battlefield game MADE for consoles) was ten times better on the PC.

If it was 10x better that means you'd be willing to spend $500? I'm guessing no. If it was 2x as good does that mean you'd be willing to spend $100? ($90 with steam pre-purchase?)

I only ask this because this is why I choose to play so many games on consoles...they cost a fraction as much as their pc counterparts. Even with a $50 game I can play it for less than $10 if I consider how many games I'm going to be playing and trade in credits, resale, goozex, etc. The PC is literally 10x more expensive for me to game on if I'm buying things at $5...which I am.

So if it was 10x better I could see paying $50 for it, but I'm guessing you would not pay $500 for it so it's not 10 times better. Will you pay $100 for it? Is it 2x better?

comparison shots.
 
they are not frame by frame however , but yeah.  
 
PC vs PS3  ( click for large images )
 

I play 360 and the graphics seem good enough to me. I don't need over top, amazing graphics like PC, although it is nice lol. 

@Tumbler: Uncharted is ten times better than Mindjack, doesn't mean it's worth paying ten times as much...

All of the evidence I needed to know that I am getting this on PC is that I tried playing Bad Company 2 on my Xbox before I had an OP gaming machine and hated it. Thought it looked like shit and played it for about 30 minutes then returned it. But bought it on PC and love the game so much, one of my new favorites.

Looks perfectly good to me.
 
Don't have (and don't really want) a gaming PC, so it'll be 360 for me.

Video's been removed.

Don't know if anyone saw this, but on one of their twitter accounts a developer mentioned that they have an impressive lighting technique for the xbox 360 version. Its quite possible it will look significantly better than the PS3 version, and I'm eager to see since I'm getting in on both the PC and on the xbox (to play with friends)

@kurtdyoung: the 2nd video with both in one screen still works (one of the later pages of the thread)

it was either new pc... or the dentist...  i chose my teeth.... hope it was the better decision.

I will probably not see the difference