Battlefield 3 Best Graphics Will Be Available On PC Only

If you are impressed by Battlefield 3's screenshots and videos, then take note that they are all taken from the PC version and the console versions will have lower graphics quality.

DICE executive producer Patrick Bach has revealed that the console versions of Battlefield 3 will lack the "higher resolution, the higher framerate, the anti-aliasing, the motion blur, stuff like that" that were shown in the trailers released so far.

Of course, the PC exclusive graphical effects will be available only to the tiny fraction of PC gamers who have high end DirectX 11 capable rigs.

Add new comment

This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.


thanks dice

Here is what the game will look like, but not for most of you. We won't actually show you what it will look like for you. What a stupid Swedish company. Oh boy cant wait for the 100s of bugs just like every other Battlefield release has had at launch.

um? backwards thinking much?

um? backwards thinking much? yes not to many people have dx 11 cards but they've been out for over a year, the only way dx 11 will ever catch on is if big title games use it. you people whine and bitch and complain out how it won't look as amazing for you. won't look as amazing on pc either. your probably the same losers who say graphics mean nothing and angry birds has the best game play in the world stop getting mad at game devs for pointless reasons and because your own life sucks. the game will still look amazing in dx 10. and name a single multiplayer centered game that didn't need lots of patches? most of your 'bugs' are common in all multiplayer games and or are simply adjusting the game to make it more fare


"most of your 'bugs' are common in all multiplayer games and or are simply adjusting the game to make it more fare" - Bugs are completely unrelated to balacing issues. They are errors made by programmers which affect gameplay in unintended ways (usually in negative ways). While bugs are somewhat common, it's natural to fix them before releasing the product, that has somewhat changed in the gaming industry as impatient kids will rage if the release date is delayed much. - "name a single multiplayer centered game that didn't need lots of patches" - starcraft1 (almost all the patches were balancing patches, not bug fixes), same for diablo 2 and other mp games released back in those days when quality was the top concern. Back then games were fully playable on release.

Simple as this...


Simple as that. You get what you paid for. Crysis 2 is great but the nanosuit is fictional. In BF3, everything (non-living things) is almost factual. :D Nothing beats that. If you wan't realism, you'll have to pay for it :D

So sorry but realism and BF games dont mix...

Excuse me? BF games? Realism? Sorry to say but you are extremely misinformed. There is NOTHING realistic about battlefield other than the graphics. All the vehicles work in a completely unrealistic (and easy to play) manner so the masses of kids playing them don't rage over not being able to take off, you can parachute off of small buildings, you can change weapons almost instantly, getting tired doesn't affect the soldiers aim, you can be revived eternally by medics and that's just a few examples of the unrealistic kind of combat you have in BF games. If you're after realism you have to go play simulation games. A good and fairly realistic military simulation is ARMA2, give it a try and feel the difference between playing an uber soldier that can hop and go prone in mid air while shooting and a realistic soldier that takes a few seconds just to get over a fence while carrying all his gear and aims like shit after sprinting for cover because hes breathing heavily. Don't get me wrong though, I love BF games for their unrealistic game mechanics and will buy bf3 for certain. I'm just conscious of what kind of simulations I play.

Are you f$cking kidding?

Iv been playing arma since OFP was released( the very first one) and let me tell you arma II alone beats the pants off of bf2 PR, armaII just vanella FFS...then you thnk about ACE II...holy crap i dont even know where to start wiping your comment with my A$$.


Most of the flaws I pointed out remain on project reality. Does your camera shake when you run, just as your head does when you run in real life? It sure does in ARMA2, although many people don't like it because its too realistic. I like both, and BF2 (with any kind of mod) is still far from the level of reality you get with ARMA games. That's what makes it fun though, so it's not a bad thing.


I'd rather play something innovative like Portal 2, regardless how it looks. Plenty of games look like shit even for a console, like ME2. The ME series is centered on dialogue, being a space opera yet it had some of the shittiest facial expressions & movements I've ever seen in a game. NOLF 2 had better graphics & character animation & it came out on the PC in 2002! Even South Park characters have more realistic mouth animations & they're supposed to look like cardboard cutouts!


Finally I can get some real use out of my rig! I'm tired of playing all these ported console games. I own a xbox 360 and a i7 920 OC'd with 12gig 1600mhz and 2x Radeon hd5850. I can tell you that there is a huge difference between the 360 and a good rig. Its about time I can get the performance I pay for. The dominance of the PC is comming back. Digital purchases are going through the roof, and PC games outsell console games 3:1 when compared vs each console seperately.

[url removed]

Here is a quote from Intel

Today, PC gaming generates 43% of the total gaming revenue. The next closest platform is the Wii, which generated 24% of the total gaming revenue in 2009. And the PC share is growing – by 2013, the forecast is that PC gaming will represent 56% of the total pie.

No Wonder

Its no wonder the Developers are loseing money, They are developing games that are geared to platforms that do not sell large amounts of games, while ignoring the benifits and potential of the power behind the PC. Thats why I do not buy ported console games, they suck and are not worth the money. Why buy a blue ray player if you are only going to watch non blue ray dvds?? Same concept here.


"Why buy a blue ray player if you are only going to watch non blue ray dvds" - Because there is no such thing as a blu-ray dvd and its "blu-ray" not "blue ray". Theres DVD (digital video disc or digital versatile disc if you burn regular data into them) and BD (blu-ray disc), no mixing two different technologies plz, ty.

not pwnt

Bet you felt smart when you said that...(hurr durr its blu-ray not blue ray )...everyone else understands what he means. Why buy something when your not able to utilize it to its full potential.

the game will fail if

Crysis 2 looks amazing for a console was made for a console....Bf3 need to keep it real and not just develop for pc users as the BIg market is consoles. Consoles make these games massive and we dont have $10 000 to buy a good pc. Good graphics can be on consoles...just comes down to smart graphic engine.

$10,000 for a good PC?

You are a good example for the argument that consolers are dumb. A good PC can be had for less than 10% of $10,000 if you know what you're doing & can last longer & do more than any shitty console. You obviouly already have a PC since you're posting on here. Add the cost of any console to the cost of it & it can play anything if it can't already. A new mobo, memory, CPU & video card is the most you'll ever need & usually a new video card is all it takes. Do a little research, the big market is not consoles. PCs do it better when the developer gives a shit & that's how it's always gonna be.

You can't beat a GTR w/a tricycle.

The Market is swinging toward PC again

The gaming market is swinging toward PC gamers again. There are more PC games bought than consoles, and the PC is far more powerful. BTY, you can get a good PC for 1000,00, and not 10,000.00. Not to mention the games are typically $20.00 cheaper. When you factor in a maxed out xbox is upwards of 400.00 and using technology that is 6 years old, Id go buy a 500.00 PC, and you could still get better graphics than a xbox360, and do way more with it.

Note: Soon, it will be easiier to pirate console games than PC. Which way do you think the developers go?

500.00 rig

Here is a 500.00 rig that wuld kill and xbox 360/

Intel e7500 = 89.99/
case = 19.99/
RAM = 4gig 1066 = 50.00 on sale/
Radeon hd 4890 = 90.00/
PSU = 40.00/
Gigabyte GA-M68M-S2P = 46.00/
500 gig hd = 30.00/
dvd rom = 19.99/
fans 20.00/
OS 100.00/.......
$506 total.....

This Rig would blow away and Xbox 360 in dx9c, and is DX10.1 compatible with excellent performance, not to mention, it can be over clocked......

Why, why, why, buy an console ???

Not what I'd build but....

that's one of the beauties of the PC, you can build whatever the fuck you want & do whatever the fuck you want. It would certainly blow away any console, plus do all that a PC can do. My current sys has an E7200, 2GB RAM & a 512MB Radeon 4850 & it runs everything I've tried on it maxed out w/4XAA & 4XAF w/no problems. Butter smooth. Fallout 3 looked significantly better on it than my friends Shitbox 360. I've had this system for over 2 years, it's still strong & didn't cost more than $600 to build @ the time from Canada Computers. I probably didn't need a new PSU but grabbed one anyway.

I'm not sure why you wouldn't put a BD-ROM DVD/CD-RW drive in since they don't cost much.

Point made either way. Consolers are stupid.


I was gonna get a hd 5870

I was gonna put in a HD 5870 but after seeing that a HD 4890 out performs the high end dx11 cards in dx10.1, and is 300$ cheaper, for a spare rig I went with the 4890. I tend to like to run my resolutions close to 2560 x 1600 though. With the HD4890, I can play Metro 2033 in dx10 at high detail with no frame rate issues. On DX9c, It runs very high detail smooth as can be in any sitution. Its an awesome card, in crossfire, for $200 it cant be beat for the value, if your happy with DX10.1. Currently I have 2x Visiontek HD 5850 in my main rig and it kicks butt. I read that they can be overclocked massively, but have not seen a need to do so.

Kinda I guess....

I can notice a difference, but not so much as to affect my enjoyment of the game. I must admit, a few times I thought I was playing in DX10 mode, when after checking the video settings, it was DX9c. Its easier to tell a difference in some games than in others. After playing lots of games in DX11, when playing a game in DX9c, I can always tell. DX9c still kickes the poop out of anything xbox360 or PS3 can do. Play Shadowrun on xbox 360 then in Windows 7 DX10 and look at the difference. Its huge.

500.00 rig

Here is a 500.00 rig that wuld kill and xbox 360

Intel e7500 = 89.99
case = 19.99
RAM = 4gig 1066 = 50.00 on sale
Radeon hd 4890 = 90.00
PSU = 40.00
Gigabyte GA-M68M-S2P = 46.00
500 gig hd = 30.00
dvd rom = 19.99
fans 20.00
OS 100.00
$506 total

This Rig would blow away and Xbox 360 in dx9c, and is DX10.1 compatible with excellent performance, not to mention, it can be over clocked.

Why, why, why, buy an console ???

Long live the PC

Of course PC is going to have the latest and greatest graphics!! This console generation is over 5 years old for crying out loud who would play the latest and greatest games on a console when the latest PC tech has over 10 times the graphical power! And if you are a PC gamer and dont have a DX11 card - You R Lazy! A DX11 Card is cheap as nowadays. under $140 for a card that'll knock your socks off!

Sure DX9c is fine butt.....

Sure DX9c looks great and gets awesome performance on any game, but why look at DX9c when you can look at DX11?? I see it this way, my wife is DX9c, great all the time, always dependable, and never fails. But sometimes on TV I see this girl on a beer commercial and think, "WOW, I'd love to have her for a weekend"! And for and for only 100.00$??? I'd pony up the cash for that.....

After playing DX11 games, DX9c never looks quite as good. Cant say the same for my wife though, never tried anything else, never will. Hmm... now about my car....


Great! I have much respect for DICE for making this game on PC from ground up and not like most other developers who just do a cheap port from a console version. I will buy this game to show my respect, which btw is rare for me.

I build a new PC about every 3-4 years and in the meantime upgrade what's necessary. Also overclocking is something everybody should learn how to do to give their pc a longer life. It's so easy to do these days and if right hardware is bought a major increase in performance can be achieved with little risk.

Well put.

I'm about the same, longer for complete overhaul, maybe a new video card every 3-4 years if they haven't made some physical interface change preventing it. I played a pirated version of BFBC2 & was not too stimulated by basically another CoD clone. I was hoping for something along the lines of Operation Flashpoint where I could steal a helicopter if I wanted or sneak in & plant bombs or fly airplanes. What I got was a bunch of invisible walls & forced pathways through a very uninteresting "cookie-cutter" campaign. The original OF was a far better game than BFBC2 or any CoD even though it looked like shit. I don't give credit to anyone making PC games w/better graphics than consoles because it should be automatic. The PC version of any game should always look better & play better than on any console. BFBC2s graphics were nothing spectacular either. Resolution, AA & AF are all things that are not special features. They're all pretty standard things. I don't remember any game that wouldn't let me change resolutions & AA/AF can be done outside the game. Good on you for supporting someone you think is deserving, I'll do the same, by giving my money to Valve.

Not so

OnLive is ahead of its time. The internet still isn't good enough for such a service to compete with normal console or pc games on equal grounds. If it manages to get by until the webs infrastructure is upgraded enough then it will become interesting, otherwise it will die and a new one will be created in due time.

Are you stupid?

Come on guys!
Are listening to yourselfes? Don't celebrate the PC towards the consoles in this sense. Myself, I am playing both. PC (5 year old notebook with 128MB ATI X700) and PS3. For everybody that hasn't got the money to buy a new PC every 3 or 4 years, it's a sad experience not being able to play all games.
The consoles allow to play every game for that platform until the generation of hardware will be released.
Since I am reengineering or patching the very old NBA Live 2004, I know the PC has its own qualities, but for everybody that's playing more genres than strategy and third person shooters consoles are a better way to play...


Are you stupid?

No one needs to buy a new PC every 3-4 years. A PC is not a console. You don't just go to the store & buy the one in your price range w/the Dell or "God" forbid, Sony logo on it, unless you're an idiot. If you're not, you go to a COMPUTER SHOP, not a department store & buy the parts you need to build a real system for a fraction of the price. That system will last as long as any console while doing a better job @ many more things.

I'll assume that I didn't get you right when you implied that consoles are better for FPS's 'cuz certainly no one can be so dumb to think that a stick beats a mouse & I don't have the time to bestow you w/the ridicule you'd deserve if you did. PC's rule, hands down (that's my CAPTCHA).

No, are you?

So just because not everyone can afford a new pc every few years those of us who can aren't supposed to rejoice when a new game that actually uses the hardware we pay for is made? If you can't play it on PC then play it on your console, either way you'll be playing so whats the problem?

Yeah but those consoles cost

Yeah but those consoles cost us Offline LAN, Private Hosting, Private servers, Quality bug free games on release, Optimized games and now we get crappy DLC forced down our throats.

I should make you aware that because games aren't optimized anymore these days due to the mass amount of porting due to Koticks greed and business model, you are now required to have better hardware to play them.


Sure, it's a benchmark for the hardcore like Crysis was. Hardcore pc enthusiasts get no love for whatever stupid reasons (and I'm not just talking about by game devs). I'm sure it doesn't mean the engine won't scale for average to lower end systems so pc gamers of all kinds will be able to play (look at unreal engine3). You pay for the right to have the best graphics, especially if you build your own system, it's a bit of work so if you drop the cash or time you deserve the extra little sparkle in your games. Don't hate.

Not so

Battlefield games never were, aren't and never will be benchmark games like crysis 1 was. Why? DICE belongs to EA and EA made games have the shittiest coding ever. Try installing battlefield vietnam then try uninstalling. Notice how it partially fails and you'll always have bf:v partly installed unless you know how to manually remove registry entries.

Try updating bf2 from v1 through all the patches released, notice the size of the updates even though theres no new content (save for one or two patches) and the amateur patching process.

Don't get me wrong, I love the battlefield series (except the bc games). Will buy bf3 but I don't expect it to be any different from the previous games from a coding/quality perspective (save for graphics quality).


Add new comment