‘Battlefield 3′ On Lowest PC Settings To Be ‘Similar To Consoles’

Published 3 years ago by

Battlefield 3 PC Lowest Settings Similar Consoles

It’s no secret that the Xbox 360 and PS3 are approaching the end of their life cycles, now with the better part of a decade under their belts. The most outspoken PC fans have been saying that consoles have been left in the dust for years, some since the consoles first landed on store shelves. But now it seems that even the most modest expectations for Battlefield 3‘s visual fidelity on consoles will be lagging sorely behind the PC. During a recent briefing in which DICE explained how the different visual settings for Battlefield 3 would change the overall performance, the absolute lowest settings available for the PC version were said to be similar to the console version of the games.

There are likely few console fans who aren’t aware of the fact that the years-old hardware powering the Xbox 360 and PS3 are frozen in time compared to the ever-advancing computer components, so there’s little chance of this starting a panic. After all, it’s not as if the console versions will be any worse a game, with the same amount of content available and DICE already bragging about “massive” plans for DLC.

Pretty pictures aren’t everything, but it’s never nice to know that a better looking or crisper version of the game you’ve been looking forward to for a year exists. And while the Xbox 360 version of Battlefield 3 allows players to install Hi-Res texture packs, this recent description of just how large a discrepancy there will be between the standard console version and the standard PC version is likely to bring about renewed cries for a new generation of home consoles.

When speaking at GeForce Lan 6 this past week, DICE’s Johan Andersson gave a presentation on what PC fans could expect from Battlefield 3. The various graphics settings were shown, with a few bullet-points on how the increase or decrease in performance would be noticeable. While the ‘Ultra’ visual settings will be the version PC fans will be killing for, there’s a good chance that only the extremely-hardcore will have the hardware necessary. But even if they need to stick to ‘High’ settings, they’ll be far better off than console players.

Battlefield 3 PC Graphics Options

That’s right, while DICE has maintained that console fans can look forward to a game that will still impress visually, it still will only be able to compete with the PC version’s “lowest possible” settings. Now that may be saying more about the incredible power of the Frostbite 2 engine on the PC, but it’s likely going to upset a few console fans who are already more than willing to spend money on a new generation of system.

And even though there are rumors circling of an imminent Xbox 720 announcement, and games already being developed for the next generation, the jump forward can’t come soon enough.

What’s your take on this discrepancy, console owners? Are you disappointed to see that the console version won’t match up to even the ‘Medium’ settings of the PC? Or are you confident that DICE will still deliver one of the best looking games to date on Xbox 360?

Battlefield 3 will be released for the PC, PS3 and Xbox 360 on October 25, 2011.

Follow me on Twitter @andrew_dyce.

Source: Gameranx

TAGS: Battlefield, Battlefield 3, DICE, Electronic Arts, PC, PS3

  • Valisk

    Even in the beta, without the HD texture installs, console visuals were really, really impressive and, if those are low settings, then I expect Ultra to look better than real life.

  • ATG

    I ran the beta at 30fps (minimum) and 75fps (maximum – viewing the scenery from a distance or flying), and roughly 45-50average. I was told the beta was capped at medium and it looked great to me. So that’s fine with me lol. I plan on upgrading when Nvidia releases their new cards in 2012, OR when next gen cards hit.

  • Ken J

    I’ve been trying to explain this to people for so long. The only reason you’d “need” to upgrade your PC is if you want to run new games at MAX settings. Your old PC will run games at lower settings. The minimum specs for this game were actually quite low and my PC before the upgrade actually met and surpassed that a little bit. My friend’s 3.5 year-old PC also surpasses the minimum specs and played the beta just fine without a hiccup. Even on Caspian Border which is a much bigger map than Operation Metro.

    But my current PC will probably run the game on max settings no problem. Core i5 2500 CPU (3.3GHz that automatically “turbo’s” to 3.7GHz), 8GB of DDR3 1600 RAM (G-Skill Ripjaws), and keeping with my ATI 4890, which is a DirectX 10 card and is plenty fast. Think Crylyl was asking me about this before and it wasn’t letting me post it for some reason, lol.

    • http://www.pcgamingalliance.org/ Juan

      “The only reason you’d “need” to upgrade your PC is if you want to run new games at MAX settings. Your old PC will run games at lower settings.”

      Agreed. That’s what I love about PC games is the choice to upgrade or not.

      I played on medium settings and invited my cousin (owns 360) to play the BF3 Beta and was blown away playing the beta. Not to mention my 2.1 speakers with virtual surround just put a big smile on his face.LOL.

      I’m building a new PC build with the i5-2500K Processor, HD 6950, 4GB RAM, in January. So I might just sell him this old build just to have him start off, since the console’s are getting very old. He’s has an acceptable knowledge of how to Game on the PC, so that’s good(No PC noobs lol). I’ll just tutor him along the way.

      • Ken J

        There are some good deals on 8GB (2x 4GB) of memory. But whatever you choose, make sure you get it in 2 dimms, most motherboards support dual channel, so it’ll run faster that way.

    • ARticle REader

      Nobody cares about your friend bitch

      • Ken J

        Aww, I’m sorry, did I hurt your feelings?

  • aberkae

    A hd 4890 on max settings? This game is directx 11 so that’s a big nono! You will not have a problem on med to high settings depending on resolution and antialiasing as well! And 30 fps in a first person shooter is too low, I prefer 60+

    I can’t wait for the 7980 amd gpus launching soon more power @ less energy way less!

    • Ken J

      Uh, lol, someone doesn’t have a clear understanding of the differences between a directx 10 and 11 card and it has nothing to do with how fast or how many fps’s it is capable of… 😀

  • Wtf

    Why is ultra recommended for multi gpu? if a gtx560ti can run on high, then surely a gtx580 will be fine for ultra with a single monitor. I suppose if you want 60+ fps

    • aberkae

      Because nvidia wants more sales
      a gtx 580 classified is plenty for 1080p max settings

  • Spider-Abu

    LOl, not surprised. Game looked really good on my PS3 anyway, I could was able to enjoy the gameplay at 30fps and the graphics were really impressive aswell. But on the PC though, if I put the settings at HIGH with any antiliasing, I would get some skipping here and there…I wasn’t sure if it was net lag or fps lag, doubtly fps though cause things would still be happening just I would sort of teleport around…anyway, when I turned off antialiasing on my GTX 260 MAXCORE 55 on Q6600 running on high at 1680×1050, it ran like a charm and after experiencing the higher framerate and better graphics on my PC, I didn’t bother playing the PS3 beta at all. It was a blast, can’t wait to buy this game.