@zodiac_motherfucker said:

IT LOOKS FUCKING AWESOME AND FUCK A PC

It does look great.

I don't think that elitism bullshit (from both sides, there shouldn't be sides..) is going on here though.. at least not yet.

There's more then just the advantaged of graphics on PC there's also the 64 players which mostly means bigger maps like BF2 had but for the console players I hope they enjoy the game.Even if this game doesn't beat COD in sales I would hope it would start a trend of more tactical shooters out there then the run and gun arcade style that the FPS genre has turned into.I would like to think people are getting sick of it and would want a change for a smarter more challenging FPS games.

@SuperSambo:

He plays, just a casual gamer. But he's willing to play and show off games on his show so he's ace in my book. Anyway, the game looks great on PS3. Too bad he couldn't let that demo go a little further. The DICE guys were kinda stunned about how fast he wrapped it up and thanked them. Of course it's sp, this was exposure for the mainstream or those who might not even be aware of how fucking amazing games can look and play these days. Very cool.:)))

There are reasons other than just graphics to get this game for PC.

That said, anyone getting the console version probably won't be disappointed.

@zodiac_motherfucker said:

IT LOOKS FUCKING AWESOME AND FUCK A PC

QFT!

Looks good enough on consoles to me, will be getting this on PC though, just upgraded so it'll look effin sweet if nothing else.

@emem: I definitely agree with that. With new PC hardware coming out every 6 months or so, there will be PC games that utilize that hardware. The Witcher 2 is a great example you made. I have a 2-year old PC (DX10 gpu). I play Witcher 2 on High averaging at 30 FPS. I would love to play the game on Ultra with Ubersampling on and get 60fps. To do that, I would need a GPU that came out this year. Personally however, I do not necessarily need it. I have other financial priorities than 60FPS and enabling Ubersampling on a single game. Same thing goes for playing BF3 with max settings. I guess it's up to the person when he or she wants to run a certain game maxed out and finally upgrade. Money is always a factor. The number of games utilizing the technology could be a factor. Or, like you said, it could be a single game that that person really wants to play in it's full graphical glory. There is no doubt I will be upgrading my GPU at least in the next couple of years. It won't be because of BF3. It will be when I cannot tolerate medium settings anymore on so many games or when I finally have some spare change again. Or maybe I'll just buy the next-gen console and wait a couple of years after until PC hardware and PC games surpass that console's graphical power. What drove me to buy my gaming PC two years ago was that I wanted to play current gen games (games on 360 or PS3) but with better graphics. I was not satisfied with how multiplatform games looked on my PS3. The PC I had back then was a single core pentium 4 with an AGP 4x GPU. Games like Fallout 3, GTAIV, MW2, RE5 were several games I wanted to see in their full glory running at true 1920x1080 with AA and AF on. Neither my PS3 nor my PC at the time could offer that. I wasn't particularly looking at PC games at the time. However, with that hardware, I was able to appreciate Starcraft 2 and Crysis. For now, I'm fine with my current hardware. Most likely, I can play BF3 on medium. Since it's a great engine, it'll probably look awesome even at those settings similar to how Witcher 2 was for me. Yet with that, I can probably still play Batman: AC, Mass Effect 3, Bioshock Infinite, Assassin's Creed: Revelations, and MW3 on high settings as well. Like I said, it depends on the person's perspective on when to invest on an upgrade- whether it be for one game, or several games representing a new generation. For me, it's the latter.

That was such a lame demo, instead of talking about the destructible environment why not show it. They just stood in the same area and shot dudes for 3 minutes.
 
Everytime they have shown this game it just looks like a boring MW.

@defaulttag: Yeah, all of that makes sense and I definitely agree that you will be able to play games with your current 2 year old hardware, on medium up to high settings, for at least 3 more years.. as long as they do not prioritize on the PC or are badly ported, of course.

Sometimes it's hard to decide whether to invest in new hardware for the PC or maybe get a new console. Well, right now it's not, but when the next generation comes around I also might get me a PS4 or a new Xbox, simply because it's cheaper. And we will still be able to play all of the upcoming great indie games for quite a while, even with older hardware. Indie games are great, by the way. :)

I own a PS3 for exclusives as well and I wouldn't want to live without it, but when it comes to multi-platform games I feel the same way.

@zombie2011 said:

That was such a lame demo, instead of talking about the destructible environment why not show it. They just stood in the same area and shot dudes for 3 minutes. Everytime they have shown this game it just looks like a boring MW.

I wouldn't have let Jimmy Fallon play something with a lot of action either. :P

The more impressive stuff will come, I don't think they have to go all out like MW3 just yet. I mean, CoD nowadays shows almost all the great action scenes in their trailers.. I prefer to be suprised, the unknown is sexy. Hopefully the game will be great and offer some crazy shit.. I've got a pretty good gut feeling, but we will see/know once it's out.

@zodiac_motherfucker said:

IT LOOKS FUCKING AWESOME AND FUCK A PC

You don't know what awesome looks like.

It looked fine calm down.

For me the main reason why to play it on a PC instead of consoles is player count/map size, but yeah.... the difference in the graphics is hard to ignore.

Game looks very nice on consoles, look forward to seeing more of it.

I couldn't see much wrong in it, but I wear eyeglasses and I don't really pay attention to detail.
 
But I am sure, This definitely looks better than Black Ops.

I have been saying I would get it on consoles since it was announced, and this just solidifies that. The game looks great.

@Roundlay: Thanks for posting the vid. Looks pretty good to me. I think console buyers will be plenty satisfied.

@StingingVelvet: I made similar comments in another thread. IMHO it's quite a significant downgrade, much less than let's say Crysis 2. My first impulse reaction was to say "wow this looks awful". After I slept on it, I realized that it looks just like Bad Company 2 on console, which is to say it looks "OK". The most jarring thing for me was the muddy textures, all of the aliasing, and the lower frame-rate.

The jaggies tried to poke my eyes out, and it's much lower res overall, as well as having post processing effects not look that great. Still though, it looks totally fine and like the best looking games on console anyway.

I was playing Bad Company 2 on the 360 the other day, the singleplayer mission where you're in the desert. The sandy vistas looked like a reasonable console quality version of BF3's desert visuals.

This demo looks pretty much how I expected it to. And that's perfectly fine.

Come on. That looks very nice to me, and I agree with whoever said "10 feet away from a TV is different then being a foot away from a Monitor." 
PC beats consoles, no doubt, but friends beat PC.

@Funkydupe said:

Funny how they always show the singleplayer missions and not the multiplayer.. I guess they really do want this to be more than a multiplayer game these days. I don't see what's wrong with just doing multiplayer really well. We've seen this exact same part on PC and I couldn't see the difference. Show me multiplayer and we'll talk.

You dont have to convince the MP crowd to get the game, they will get it no matter what. What they are trying to do (I think) is convince the people that never played a battlefield game to get it. By promoting the singleplayer they can do that.

@Grillbar said:

yeah ill proberly buy it for the ps3 even though i just spend 2700 bucks on a pc that is basicly just for civ 5 and diablo 3 if it ever comes out.

You spent nearly 3 grand on a pc and you are going to buy BF3 for the consoles? Dude.. what?

Damn...i wish i had the PC to run this...but i dont have the cash. Even if i did, id probly buy other things i need more or save the money. I intend to get a nice compy one day, but i feel like that wont be for a while.

i still don't know if I want this or Twisted Metal, I guess I'll wait for the reviews. I'm glad Starhawk is coming out next year or else my multiplayer gaming would be all over the place. 

I still thinks it looks great one PS3 so will be buying in instead of spending £1000 on a PC. Obviously it doesn't look as good but it will definitely suffice.

Come on. That looks very nice to me, and I agree with whoever said "10 feet away from a TV is different then being a foot away from a Monitor."

as long as it looks better than BC2 on consoles I don't care. I'm in for the gameplay.

@StingingVelvet said:

Not trying to be Mr. PC Elitist McJackass here, but that looks a lot worse than the PC footage. Worse than I expected it to look, frankly. I'm kind of shocked. I'm sure it looks "good enough" though, which is the console standard I suppose. In the end the real thing you guys should be upgrading a PC for is the 64 player battles and massive maps.

This a million times. Forget all the people who talk shit about graphics, the real reasons why the PC version of BF3 is the best are maps, mods and player caps.

@NDart said:

@StingingVelvet said:

Not trying to be Mr. PC Elitist McJackass here, but that looks a lot worse than the PC footage. Worse than I expected it to look, frankly. I'm kind of shocked. I'm sure it looks "good enough" though, which is the console standard I suppose. In the end the real thing you guys should be upgrading a PC for is the 64 player battles and massive maps.

This a million times. Forget all the people who talk shit about graphics, the real reasons why the PC version of BF3 is the best are maps, mods and player caps.

Exactly. 12 v 12 is not a Battlefield game. Not after BF2. BF3 on consoles will be, at best, a sequel to BFBC2.  Most of the people buying this game on console will be Call of Duty players in any case, and that's ostensibly what they're going to get; small maps (for a Battlefield game), and a handful of enemy infantry to shoot.

@zudthespud said:

My PC meets the recommended specs so it prolly won't look as good as the pc demos but it should run alright. If it looks as good as Bad Company 2 then I will be happy.

The PC demos are probably max settings with super-sampling, no one is likely to run the game like that on release day online for performance reasons.  Singleplayer maybe, if you have the newest gear.  I really need a new processor (running an Intel Q9550 right now) before the game comes out.  My processor kept me in the 40fps range in Bad Company 2.

@Jayross: No steam, no sale.

I guess I'm the odd man out here, because I cannot stand playing most games on a couch. Even when I play my PS3, I'd rather play it hooked up to my monitor while sitting at my desk.

As for the quality of the PS3 version, probably best to hold final judgement until a proper video direct from EA/Dice comes out instead of a re-compressed clip from tv on youtube. That said, it looks pretty much like I thought it would.

i don't even see a big difference. it looks really good to me. 

Normally I would get this type of game on a console, but I'm actually going to have a new computer when this is out. I will also be able to play all these PC games I own that don't run on my 5+ year-old computer.

Looks very good to me. Not as good as PC, but that is expected.

 
Looks really good. I will buy it on 360 though, since i have a laptop that is shit for games. I remember i had GTA: SA and i tried to run it on my laptop (i bought the GTA: SA game when i had a gaming pc, i had to sell it to pay up for student debts). And it lagged to the edge of broken after 10 minutes.

Looks decent as I would expect it to.
 
Still heading to PC for the higher player count though.

@zudthespud said:

My PC meets the recommended specs so it prolly won't look as good as the pc demos but it should run alright. If it looks as good as Bad Company 2 then I will be happy.

The PC demos are probably max settings with super-sampling, no one is likely to run the game like that on release day online for performance reasons.  Singleplayer maybe, if you have the newest gear.  I really need a new processor (running an Intel Q9550 right now) before the game comes out.  My processor kept me in the 40fps range in Bad Company 2.

Bad Company 2 isn't CPU limited so it won't be your processor keeping you in the 40FPS range.  http://www.legionhardware.com/articles_pages/battlefield_bad_company_2_tuning_guide,7.html  Even dual cores can run that game at 60FPS consistent with the right graphics card.

@Ygg said:

Bad Company 2 isn't CPU limited so it won't be your processor keeping you in the 40FPS range.  http://www.legionhardware.com/articles_pages/battlefield_bad_company_2_tuning_guide,7.html  Even dual cores can run that game at 60FPS consistent with the right graphics card.

I have a GTX 480.  Bad Company 2 likes AMD cards much more than nVidia, which is why the numbers on that comparison are so high with a 5870.

@Ygg said:

My friend has a GTX 460 and gets a consistent 60FPS on BC2, I believe he has an E6600 overclocked to 3.4Ghz, I have another friend that plays it maxed with 4xAA, he has a Q6600@2.8 and 285 or something, although I've not been to his house and see it play but from what he's said it runs super smooth. I have a 4Ghz i5 though so my own results are a bit irrelevant. I find it odd you're getting such low numbers with a 480. :|

Well I thought the game performed below what it should but when I googled it everyone kept telling me my performance was about right. Note that my processor is at stock speed, 2.8Ghz.

Even dual cores can run that game at 60FPS consistent with the right graphics card.

It's looking great. I just wish the multiplayer could have 64 players like the PC version. Oh well.

The stuff on Jimmy's show looked fantastic. Not as fantastic as the PC version, but still great. 

Why is it that when it comes to multi-platform games, the PS3 version is always the worst looking? I've always noticed in comparison shots it generally has muddier textures and less AA.

Why is it that when it comes to multi-platform games, the PS3 version is always the worst looking? I've always noticed in comparison shots it generally has muddier textures and less AA.

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. It will be the same thing with Battlefield 3. Granted not everyone has a good rig to play it, which is a tragedy.
 
Also, anyone who says you need $1500 to make a decent gaming PC doesn't know jack about PC Gaming.

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.