Sections

Battlefield 3 on consoles will still look “very good,” says DICE

Friday, 4th March 2011 14:07 GMT By Johnny Cullen

Worried the PC version of Battlefield 3 will overshadow the console versions? DICE says stop panicking: both PS3 and 360 SKUs will still look “very good.”

“The positive thing is that the new rendering technique allows us to do more complex calculations at no extra cost,” art director Gustav Tilleby, speaking to NowGamer.

“That’s the magic. The game will look very good, even on 360.”

Tilleby also said the game’s new Frostbite engine is “a step beyond our competitors, and it allows us to do more.”

Producer Patrick Bach backed up the console statement, saying it will look “amazing.”

“We knew that people would think that this demo was running on PC, but the good thing is that it’s all based on streaming,” he said.

“I can promise you that the console versions will still look amazing because of the core technology. If you have a 360, we want to use that machine to the maximum.”

Battlefield 3 launches this fall for PS3, 360 and PC. Read Steph’s impressions from EA’s GDC event here.

Latest

50 Comments

Sign in to post a comment.

  1. StolenGlory

    Good news! Hopefully the PS3 folk get equally good treatment too.

    #1 3 years ago
  2. DSB

    It’s starting to look a lot like BF3 is just going to pick up where BC2 left off.

    #2 3 years ago
  3. OlderGamer

    I enjoy BF games a lot. If my PC can’t handle it, gonna have to pick this up for PS3(if they don’t mess the conversion up). I am getting beyond sick of my xb360s breaking.

    I played MAG/KZ2 on PS3, takes soem getting used to the controller – but it ain’t terrible.

    #3 3 years ago
  4. StolenGlory

    @2

    Is that a bad thing in your opinion?

    #4 3 years ago
  5. M2Kx

    Don’t care how it’s going to look like. I want good controls! I mean, come on dice, other devs can do it too, why not you? Compared to Crysis or CoD BC2 plays very slow and not direct enough, even for consoles. So stop talking about your awesome looking engine and make a decent console port plx!

    #5 3 years ago
  6. DSB

    @4 Bad compared to BF2? Definitely.

    I thought BC2 was a pretty clumsy game. It wasn’t outright bad, it was just very average. Personally I like developers to design their gameplay a bit tighter than that.

    If BF3 had meant a departure from that and going back to BF2′s much tighter style, I would be very excited.

    #6 3 years ago
  7. sickgamer

    good news .. thx dice ;>

    #7 3 years ago
  8. Gekidami

    lol i Still remember when EA said BC2 on consoles looked as good as Uncharted 2. I find it hard to take anything DICE or EA says at face value these days.

    #8 3 years ago
  9. Fin

    but not as good as my 128xAA 16GB GEFORCE GTZ CORE i12 with 2TB RAM.

    hahahah shitty sub-720 consoles are so shit.

    #9 3 years ago
  10. Gekidami

    ^ And another PC fanboy shows that gaming on PC turns you into a retard.

    #10 3 years ago
  11. M2Kx

    You here that? It’s Erthazus’ theme! :D *getssomepopcorn*

    #11 3 years ago
  12. Hunam

    It’s about time the PC got a few lead titles itself. Kinda getting sick of the lacklustre ports from the consoles. Yes, I’m looking at you Crysis 2 MP demo.

    #12 3 years ago
  13. StolenGlory

    @6

    I see your point.

    Hmmm, well the console versions are more likely to be hobbled by comparisons to BC2 due to similiar player limits (and likely reduced map sizes as a result), but the PC version at least, with it’s 64-player limit and other stuff that we don’t know about stands a much better chance at comparing favourably to BF2 than the console editions of BF3 will.

    #13 3 years ago
  14. Hunam

    I don’t see why they don’t just make BF3 for the PC and BFBC3 for the console. EA is big enough to do that sort of thing and that would keep everyone happy no?

    #14 3 years ago
  15. Gekidami

    ^EA might be, DICE probably arent though. Porting the game is cheaper then making 2 different products.

    #15 3 years ago
  16. Gadzooks!

    Personally I’m expecting BF3 to be quite lovely on a very high end PC, in terms of visuals, destructability and controls.

    In all honesty though I can’t see it working well on consoles. The PS360, in my opinion, isnt even powerful enough to run the current Frostbite engine, let alone Frostbite 2.0.

    I totally agree with M2Kx that BC2 felt really stodgy and innacurate. Adding more visual/destro overheads can only make that worse, IMO.

    I’d love to be proven wrong by a demo though.

    #16 3 years ago
  17. Hunam

    @15

    But then you have two products people can buy. If they did that I can safely say I’d buy both.

    #17 3 years ago
  18. DSB

    @13 Well, size is size. What I’m worried about is map, damage and weapon design.

    I get a bigger thrill out of playing 8 v 8 on an excellent map with excellent weapons than I do on a map that isn’t really made to be played, and weapons that are designed to miss.

    I would love a new Planetside-style game where two sides just revel in strategic and tactical warfare in a virtual world, but this won’t be that kind of game.

    @16 You’re forgetting that on average, consoles will still probably have better performance than the average PC gamers rig. If you look at Steams hardware survey, most PCs used for gaming will likely choke on BF3.

    DICE has been making console shooters for their last few projects, I strongly doubt the talk that they’re suddenly loving the PC again. I think that’s just a standard statement to make themselves look “refined”, which seems to be very hip right now.

    Looking forward to seeing some more of it too, though.

    #18 3 years ago
  19. Hunam

    @18
    Erm… they aren’t being refined, BF3 is a PC game first as it’s the lead platform. They’ve even been demoing the PC version over the console version.

    #19 3 years ago
  20. DSB

    @19 So… In spite of them saying that that isn’t the case above, it’s a PC game first?

    How would you know, exactly?

    #20 3 years ago
  21. Hunam

    They’re not saying at all that it’s not the case. They are saying yes, the PC version will be the lead, but don’t worry, the 360 version will still look great.

    Also: http://news.bigdownload.com/2011/02/08/report-battlefield-3-pc-to-be-lead-platform-mod-tools-might-no/

    Points out that PC is lead platform.

    #21 3 years ago
  22. StolenGlory

    Yep, PC sure is the lead platform.

    http://www.tomshardware.com/news/Battlefield-3-DICE-Frostbyte-2-64-player-PC-gaming,12154.html

    If further proof was needed.

    #22 3 years ago
  23. DSB

    Well, fair enough.

    I guess I should’ve been a bit more specific.

    My point is, even if the PC is the lead platform, what difference does that make if the only manifestation of that is bigger servers? It will still be dumbed down for consoles, and as is made obvious from the above, there’s no way that EA would ever allow Dice to short the consoles in favor of the PC.

    To me, publishers go “We love PC” whenever they want themselves to look cool and “core gamer”. When they’re talking to investors, it’s a different story, for obvious reasons.

    Plus, like I mention above, the idea of a dedicated PC game focused purely on hardware is fundamentally not very smart, since you’ll probably be able to deliver a much prettier experience for most people on consoles. Very few people have highpowered gaming rigs.

    I just think it’s a little hard to see the silver lining in the PC being the lead platform with that in mind.

    #23 3 years ago
  24. spiderLAW

    I agree with DSB
    We love PC is the “Cool” thing for developers and publishers to say. That is all. PC gaming isnt leaving but it is surely being dumbed down for the sake of console gaming. Shame.

    #24 3 years ago
  25. frostquake

    To be honest I don’t really care, as long as they do the best they can, on PC and Consoles!! I can’t afford to PC game anymore, so the only way I could get to play this, is if they put it on the Consoles. So what if it doesn’t look as good as the PC! At least I am getting to play it since it is also coming out on the Consoles, otherwise, if they said, “well since we can’t get it to look as good as the PC, we won’t release it on the consoles.” Tons of people like me wouldn’t even get to play it! As long as they do their best with what they have on each platform, I will be happy!

    All this, I look better then you crap, is something 3 and 4 year old children do to each other.

    #25 3 years ago
  26. OlderGamer

    ^What Frosty said, really.^

    #26 3 years ago
  27. spiderLAW

    @25
    Why cant they separate the 2. Why cant make it the best PC experience possible and then do the same for consoles separately?
    Cost? Time? There has to be a way to save both. That would be nice :0
    Just thinking out loud

    #27 3 years ago
  28. loki

    still no thx

    #28 3 years ago
  29. DSB

    Basically – If DICE are challenging the status quo in which consoles are considered golden and PC is considered just under a third of the market in the eyes of publishers and investors, then more power to them. I would definitely hope they succeed and turn some heads in the industry.

    My problem with that is the odds, and the fact that DICE’s recent work is BC, BC2 and the Medal of Honor multiplayer. If they put my doubts to shame, I’ll be thrilled.

    Most of the old PC mainstays like the tactical shooter, the turnbased tactical game, and the graphical wargame has been all but wiped out by consoles, and otherwise relegated to Russian publishers or dedicated, but restricted indies. It would seem like the RTS and the RPG are heading the same way.

    Hope as a PC gamer just isn’t something I have in large quantities, with that in mind :P

    #29 3 years ago
  30. OlderGamer

    I think they could Law. Prolly anyways.

    But I wonder if doing that makes much sense. The games market has expanded alot in recent years. But the number of those folks that play games on PCs that have high enough rigs to play high end PC is a pretty small %.

    I don’t think cranking out a high high high end PC game makes much sense. Too much investment. You would get a Crysis of sorts. Beautiful, but not playable for enough people to make it worth making. A middle ground is best, and I think that is what they are aiming at.

    Gotta keep in mind economies are still pretty bad. I spend a good 100plus USd each week on gas alone. Food is priced thru the roof. Personialy I have two teens(one collage aged in spring). Money is tight, and I am lucky I still have a job(wife does, I don’t work anymore). Paying to keep a PC rig powerful enough just doesn’t make sense. Not when you can have a PS3/xb360 for the price of a medium level graphics card.

    And I love PC gaming. Just have to make choices. What gives me as a gamer the best game coverage at the lowest cost. DICE has to do the samething when making their games. Where do they sink their resources and what gives them the best return on that investment.

    I will buy this game when the price drops, for my PC if my PC can run it. If not, I will keep playing BFBC2 or Mag.

    #30 3 years ago
  31. spiderLAW

    Older…great read and i agree
    also i have asked this before but somehow never added you.
    What is your PSN name

    #31 3 years ago
  32. DeathJynx

    I think MAG is a shining example that you dont need to dumb down the scope of a pc game like this on ps3. As far as size and players. X box is sadly another story it seems. Anyway, I think DICE/EA are choicing PC as its lead platform for a more strategic reason other then to be cool. Both this and COD are coming out this fall. COD is not a giant to topple easy. I think they are looking at where their best opportunity lies to steal a big market share. PC is their biggest fan base and CODs smallest. Seems like a wise choice. They may not beat COD this year, but this seems like the best move to take them down in the near future. What I dont get is why he mentions X box specifically. Seems like their smallest fanbase. Maybe because he sees it as the least capable system?

    #32 3 years ago
  33. Uncontested

    Saving for a new PC and bigger monitor just for this game fuck the console version. (And any other uber PC games that happen to come out)

    #33 3 years ago
  34. _LarZen_

    It wil look stunning on PC, very good on X360 and good on PS3.

    The cold hard truth…. :(

    #34 3 years ago
  35. DeathJynx

    Why would it look better on x box? This looks very physics heavy and ps3 is clearly the better number cruncher.

    #35 3 years ago
  36. _LarZen_

    @35 Still more easy to port over from pc to X360. Even Crysis 2 is atm the worst of em all..IGN reported from GDC that was performing and looking poor compared to X360.

    #36 3 years ago
  37. DeathJynx

    Link please?

    #37 3 years ago
  38. Moonwalker1982

    Most if not all multiplatform games are better on 360, it’s a simple fact.

    #38 3 years ago
  39. _LarZen_

    http://ps3.ign.com/articles/115/1153266p1.html

    #39 3 years ago
  40. Moonwalker1982

    But let’s be honest. The first MP beta of Crysis 2 360 graphically wasn’t anything to write home about. Sure it played nice, and the touches like how you climbed onto things was cool, but it had jaggies and framerate problems too. The second map looked alot better but it still wasn’t ‘OMFG’ material, so to speak. I haven’t tried the new demo yet.

    #40 3 years ago
  41. DeathJynx

    @38, that statement is irrelevant as 360 is the lead platform for most multiple platform games (and i think most gamers suffer cause of this), so it doesnt really apply. And the 2011 year is slowly swaying ps3 into the lead console slot which gives me small hope for 2012-2016.

    #41 3 years ago
  42. DeathJynx

    @39 Thanks for the link. Sad news :( I had a feeling though, so I didn’t pre order. I have low hopes for that games actual user reviewed success.

    #42 3 years ago
  43. spiderLAW

    actually DJ is right
    PS3 is the better number cruncher (floating point capabilities in PS3 are almost 100x more than xbox360). Physics and particle effects are PS3s strong points and in the case of Battlefield games, that’s what they are most heavy on.
    @38
    This comment is simply not true and you like to say it all the time. You cant base a games performance on a few screens that lensoftruth decides to pick out of a handful (or digital foundry, they are by far the worse). Or base it on the FPS and Screen Tearing performance data from single frames and partitioned sections. Usually, if a multiplatform game is better on the Xbox360 it is only by decimal points of frame rate and less than 10% screen tear. This is usually the case with UE3 based games (and the poor RAGE engine that Rockstar uses. Even the PC versions of Rage made games are poor performers…RDR wasn’t on PC for this reason). As for games using other engines like HTframework and Frostbite, it isn’t the case.
    But more importantly, the difference is usually non-visual but rather technical. The performance difference between the 2 consoles is most realized in the exclusives for each console.

    So to sum that up. It will look fucking glorious on a high end PC and still look really good on both consoles equally (particles and destruction being better on PS3, server stability and some mapping slightly better on 360. Although its a shame because PS3 can easily beat the 360 in all areas if it didnt cost more time and money to build for)

    #43 3 years ago
  44. spiderLAW

    so again moonwalker, your statement of most if not “all” multiplatform games are better on xbox360 is false.
    Its not all games. There are more than a handful of multiplatform games that are better on PS3. And when a game is better on either console, its usually a small difference that isn’t very noticeable.
    Bayonetta, RDR, and GTA4 are an exception for 360.
    MvC3 and Final Fantasy 13 are the exceptions for PS3…
    the rest isn’t noticeable without a magnifying glass.

    #44 3 years ago
  45. Moonwalker1982

    Do we always have to do this? I only said something that is true, ok so maybe a few multiplatform games were better on PS3, i certainly don’t know which ones honestly. I’m not asking for a reason why the mp games are better (even when it’s a small difference…some are not small though. Fallout 3, GTA IV)

    But everytime someone says PS3 is better, i can only say it’s not the case with many mp games, and again…i’m not asking for the reason because of that. We already know that very well, but it is what it is.

    As for PS3 becoming the lead console Deathjynx, do you for developers or PS3 being the leader of the two? Cause i could agree with you on that in terms of exclusive games. PS3 will see several awesome exclusive releases this year, 360….not so much. But for me the PS3 won’t be the leader this year, cause most games i buy are multiplatform games and if they have online support, all the more reason to go 360 for them.

    #45 3 years ago
  46. OlderGamer

    Ironic part is, last gen the PS2 was the lead platform. This being despite the fact that the xbox one(and even the GC) could blow it out of the water techwise/performancewise.

    I was a pretty heavy XB user last gen. It used to drive me up a wall. I wanted to play online focused games, split screen co-op, and the graphics alone on a game like Halo CE, Mechassult, Rallysport Challange, 2K Sport games, Crimson Skies, etc were head and shoulders above. Yet each and every Multiplat game(esp ones made in JP), that got ported over to xb were less then steller when compared to the systems dedicated exclusives.

    Fast forward to today and it is almost the samething all over again.

    PS3 has more power. It has a stronger line up of exclusives. And its tops dedicated games excede the XB360 ones. But no one cares.

    Within reason(not like Wii is going to be the lead platform), in todays world the lowest common denominater system is going to be the lead system. Esp with Multiplat games. EA is going to want to put out the same level of quality product on each system. They are also going to want to make said game for the easist and cheapest system they can. And if the installed user base is even remotely close, the lowest common denominater is where they aim.

    A multiplat game isn’t interested at all in making the highest quality product on each system they can. Only in keeping the level of quality as close to one another as they can as to not alienate perspective buyers/fanboys. They don’t want one version to seem broken or sloppy when compared to the other version.

    Its just a joy of a multi system market.

    I am looking forward to the day when games become streamed. they will be the same on a higher powered monster system as they are on a cell phone. So long as the internet is strong and fast, it won’t matter. When that day comes 400usd dedicated systems will die. The focus will be on the games, not hardware. I’m ready sign me up.

    #46 3 years ago
  47. spiderLAW

    @45
    We dont always have to do this. When you state something that is completely true, i wont respond with corrections. You’re statement, whether being close to the truth or not, was false. Maybe it was your wording but it doesnt matter because it was indeed false.

    @OG
    I agree with you 100%
    I was primarily an Xbox player last gen with Gamecube being my second child. I only owned a PS2 for a year before selling it. And yes, it seems that the day when all games share the same treatment and quality cant come soon enough. Although, it makes you wonder if this will affect the quality of some games. Will games like GEARS, KZ3, UC2, Alan Wake, God of War, Heavy Rain see the same level of detail without competition from another platform exclusive?

    #47 3 years ago
  48. DSB

    Man, I really feel like smacking you console bitches for whining about your games’ pixels being slightly out of place :P

    Look at what it’s done to us PC players:

    Tactical shooters – Wiped out
    Graphical wargames – Critically endangered
    Turnbased tactical games – Critically endangered
    Adventure games – Sudden resurgence, after about a decade of zero investment/still marginalized
    (Classical) RPGs – Dragon Age: Origins seems to be the last mohikan
    RTSs – Endangered
    Business simulations/Tycoons – Contact lost. Presumed extinct
    Vehicle sims – Critically endangered

    The loss of the PC as a primary platform essentially means that we’re stuck playing sports, FPS or TPS action games restricted by consoles, seemingly for an indefinite time into the future.

    Of course the corporate race to maximum profit is also to blame, but once Microsoft hit the scene, the PC gaming establishment was in a fight for it’s life. And creatively that war is well and truly lost, with consoles defining at least 80% of the gameplay out there, by my own rough estimate.

    Basically, we get to whine. You guys get to cheer and pump fists and what not. Rejoice scumbags, gaming is yours for better or worse :P

    #winning #planbetter

    #48 3 years ago
  49. DaMan

    ‘When you state something that is completely true, i wont respond with corrections. You’re statement, whether being close to the truth or not, was false. Maybe it was your wording but it doesnt matter because it was indeed false.’

    ‘floating point capabilities in PS3 are almost 100x more than xbox360′

    er, right..

    actually, like Moonwalker said Overlord, WWE Legends, Ghostbusters.. most of the multiplat games looked bad on the ps3 up until about 2009. the RSX gpu is totally inferior, the quincunx anti-aliasing (which made the games look so blurry) is the whole reason they started to perform that ‘morphological’ stuff on the cpu.

    both 360 and ps3 have their strengths and weaknesses, ultimately ps3 is a little bit more capable due to hdd being present in all models and the cpu being able to aid the pos that is rsx.

    #49 3 years ago
  50. strikkebil

    DICE is one of the better multiplatform devs when it comes to the PS3. i have faith in them and expect BF3 to b on par with 360. lets just hope they show some footage soon, cos im dying to see what it looks like on consoles.

    #50 3 years ago