You know, if you are a perfectionist like me when it comes to gaming, and don’t like most of FPS games out there, you will agree with me. No game like Battlefield franchise ever gave FPS games what they deserve.
"We all knew already that PS3 is a console right? Well what did you guys expect? PS3 tech is at least 5 years old and we already know that even PS3 is limited. Even with the powerful CELL which was a great way to enter this Generation." Lol if the Cell was so powerful why did Sony at the last moment decide to include a GPU into the mix instead of a second Cell? Quit deluding yourselves PS3 fans, the only reason Sony chose to include the RSX GPU instead of a 2nd cell is because they knew Cell wasnt good enough. Had they gone for a 2nd cell you would have gotten a PS2 1.5 Even today when they are planning for a PS4 they will certainly be looking to get a GPU for the graphics from either AMD or Nvidia, Why? because they know even a faster Cell will be no match when it comes to graphics. Cell is actually a flawed design, Sony wanted to create a Chip that could to CPU intesive tasks and GPU intensive tasks however it ended up flopping at both. Cell would get butchered at the hands of a Dual core cpu when it came to general processing tasks and against a GPU it would get butchered when it came to graphics. With all the crap Sony feeds people its obvious many of the fans on this website are clearly misinformed. Before anyone of you PS3 fan girls screams 360 fanboy, lol no i dont own any of the piece of shit consoles.
Your comments amuse me, after all it is not at all like many devs are praising CELL for its power. No, not at all. at least in your world. and please, troll somewhere else, this article isn't about console wars. Thank you, don't come again >,< @The Meerkat agreed, the GFX is very good on PS3 too
Lol its only Sony devs praising the Cell atleast most of them anyways. Anyone else is only doing lip service to Sony at best. You only delude yourself by considering these paid statements as facts. If the Cell was so powerful you would be seeing First person shooters running in 1080p. Its not hard i could list you PC hardware from the PS3 release time which is doing 1080p in 95% of its games. Guess what PS3 only manages that in 5% of its games. So much for the power of the cell lol.
@reynod You do know the Cell is in PC's right? Plus it can make things do higher then 1080p, try reading up on it before opening your mouth without a clue. Oh yeah, your troll is showing.
@Neko What PC are you reffering to which uses the Cell? I am not aware of anyone i know that uses a PC equipped with a Cell. I personally work in a company where over 300 computers are used, none of them use a Cell.
what the ps3 was first supposed to have two cell processors the ps3 was also supposed to have a fully working 7spe cell but instead its working with 6 would of had 512 MB of xdr ram add that with hoe versatile cell is Animation Audio Glass Physics collision Physics Simulation Particles Water Anti Aliasing AI Shaders shadows video decoding reflections texture mapping who knows what could of happened if it used 2 cell processors but then again people couldnt even get games working well with a gpu and cell processor do you know the outcome of two cell processors and no gpus ps3 wouldnt even be around
Sorry but the cell isnt versatile, if it was more devs would be taking advantage of it. you would also see it being sold as a PC upgrade if it was so good. The xdr ram is nothing special either even when compared to the ddr 3 ram installed on 3-4 year old gpus.
i would use the power of the cell for uncompressing files or burning movies... that's pretty much it
i think ranshak tottaly missed the point and tried to make his point without taking into the fact of how developers had a hard time working with the cell processor its versatile but that doesnt mean its easy its not like versatile things are easy right
Well it's not often that we get to hear a rant from an aloof PC fanboy. But seriously, What IS wrong with the PS3 BF3 graphics? I thought it look pretty damn good. Yet people are talking like its the end of the world.
You see what happened was, when DICE showed the PC footage of Battlefield 3, the anti-Call of Duty movement that exists on the internet jumped on the Battlefield bandwagon proclaiming it the new king of FPSs. Why? Because it seemed to succeed in the one area Call of Duty had failed miserably , graphics. Never mind it displayed the same generic set pieces and mediocre story telling. When it was insisted by even the Dark Emperor himself, Bobby Kotick that the game would not look that way on consoles, the anti-Call of Duty elitists got their panties in a bunch. Even EA CEO, Riccitello (s/p?) jumped into the fray knowing they were setting fans up for disappointment. People ask, what did console game expect? Well from the shit DICE and EA were spewing, they expected better than the saw. They expected a game changer. What the got was barely an evolution or BFBC2. So yeah, DICE deserves the shit they're getting now!
Im looking forward to PS4 so you PC gamers can go back to that shit hole you crawled out of for another 5 years! Why do consoles sell more, lets see, because they're better? ... Yep!
It will borrow left over parts from the PC tech :) Will be funny if all the games you bought this gen dont work on the PS4 ;-) imagine having to buy HD remakes of everything you own now rofl. Oh wait Sony will certainly be cool with that :) And no consoles dont sell more.
what like how some XP games arent compatible with vista and 7? And you think Gaming PCs outsale PS3s! hahaha... What a mug, I've gotta tell you something. Other than these websites for hardcore gamers, no one bothers gaming on PC!
yeah, developers just need to learn how to program
The sell more because they are cheaper. Better is subjective. I have all systems and love them all. My pc is used for hardcore gaming
The PS4 wont even have a graphics card as powerful as the one I'm running now. Stop kidding yourself. You'll always be 4-5 years behind because consoles are meant to be affordable for the consumer and profitable for the manufacturer.
Oh your one of those people. So since CoD sells more than the battlefield series does that make it better? No. Stop being such a whiny fanboy and go play with your CELL or something.
^^ ok I will do. PS4 will only be behind 4-5 years if you've spent about £2000 on a PC. simple as. And that would be pointless because most games are all built with the console in mind so they won't utilize the specs of the minority (the losers who actually pay that much for a PC). This only happens every 5 years or so. It was like when Half life 2 and Far Cry 1 came out. The PS2 wasn't capable of those graphics, but the PS3 shits on those graphics... Like the PS4 will on Battlefiled 3's for PC... This is a fact. BF3 is not, repeat not a gen ahead of PS3. Its about a 1/3 of a gen ahead. I dont care about the cell or the specs of the PS3 because I don't get kicks out of looking at how much RAM ive got. I care about the games. And on console IMO they're better. You've got Crysis 1 - we've got Red Dead Redemption. Crysis, a good game, but not as good as Red Dead by a mile in my opinion. In fact that is about it. All decent games come to console anyway. You'll play better games on console than you will on PC. Look at metacritic to see you lot are in the minority!
Not sure where the myth of a second cell as the GPU comes from. If anything, Sony tried to pull off a HW rasterized in silicon similar what the PS2 EE/GS combo was doing (read Shippy's book: http://www.goodreads.com/au... ). Given that Kutaragy was the mastermind behind both, and if you take a very close look at the original design ideas and why he thought he needs a very strong vector CPU is an indication that the PS3 was indeed a super scaled PS2. EE with a risk core (MIPS) and two vector cores (VU0/1) and a high bandwith rasterizer (GS attached through a 2560 bit bus straight into the EE). That was the core design for the PS3. A strong new risk core (PPU/PowerPC), custom VPU (SPUs, 8 of them) and well...Sony was responsible for the rasterizer, which never materialized. Last minute change to the RSX. That's about it. Yes, Sony ignored what GPU manufacturers were predicting - or actually was ahead its time. Computergraphic was moving from fixed to programmable functions, but what they couldn't imagine was, those vector cores actually moved into the GPU. Big mistake - but shader cores were not powerful enough in 2005 either. Well, that changed dramatically right after that time. But the CELLs vector power is designed with the "Shader" paradigm in mind. And it gives programmable graphics a nice boost on top of what the RSX does. Still batch work, but it works. In in Re; to BF3. Dice is one of the few studios using the SPUs to implement a deferred renderer which we know from other 1st party games. It looks just fine; not sure who started that FUD campaign. Somebody sure did.
i still want to know "what controversary?". but i guess when you constantly drive a Ferrari then you are given an Escort....
You know the controversy that console only gamers can't believe their console of choice can't keep up with the PC. I say: Console gamers are lucky to even have a game so massive on their console. They should have kept this game on PC only. Its the only platform that can handle the massive size of this game at full force.
I laugh when I see a third party dev saying they're ready for next gen console when I've yet too see a third party dev put any serious work on the cell. @ kane its been 4-5 years devs has been telling us that.
I agree with you, but yet CELL takes time to learn
We are near the end of the generation, how much more time do they need. Personally i only see Sony devs praising the Cell.
@Substance101 you do know what time do they need. They need to focus on the CELL to learn using it just like 1st party guys did. I how ever do not expect them to do that since it is not their job and they should take the fastest and easiest way, after all they want to make a game as good as possible and as easy as possible. But if they want to work with it, that's the way
How do you know they aren't? We've seen many reports where third party devs are leading on the PS3 and saying they are utilizing the spes. I think third party devs are saying they are ready because....they are ready. If you haven't noticed, the major third party devs have already started work on next gen engines. Some have even showed them, like Epic. I think they are ready because they now have a taste for what they can do with the new hardware that will be coming out. http://www.youtube.com/watc...
A couple ppl on twitter complain and now it's a controversy? Gaming journalism...... I knew thee well. @Yellow Guess I didnt get the memo. Anyway, I think the game looks great so far. If it ends up being the best looking ps3 game then Sony's first party will have to answer some questions.
twitter is serious news source didn't ya hear/s
Yeah this is so lame. Nothing like this has ever happened. It's almost as if some activision employees are being paid to pose as ps3 fans. Either that or it's some CoD fanboys. One or two people complain and it has managed to turn into something big. Why battlefield 3? it has shown some quality ps3 footage. Why not all the other multiplats which were actually inferior quality on ps3 when compared to the 360 never mind the pc. There's something fishy about all this.
Well, it sure looks like a smear campaign to me. The game looks just fine. But you usually hear the (few) hooligans in a group, never the quite majority. OTOH, I am not sure if anybody outside of n4g even cares...
LOL. Now Activision is in on teh Conspiracy against ps3 owners! It can't just be that there are some whiney ps3 owners out there, no, it has to be some sort of elaborate plan by activision or cod fanboys. Lol you my friend need to take that tin foil hat off, it may be protecting you from alien rays, but the heat is frying your brain
I wrote chaos at first, My boss ( ;) ) changed it to controversy. and it is that annoying that EA guys have been talking left and right about it for past week, and dozen of articles came out about this taking side with one of the sides. BF3 has definitely made a lot of fuss
I think EA made a mistake showing off all the footage for the first few months on a super high end PC that nobody really has or can afford. If they truly wanted to get a piece of the COD pie they needed console footage from the beginning. I admit it looked like Battlefield 3 might do well, but now it seems we have a lot of people upset that the game doesn't look THAT great on consoles and it's only 30 FPS. As a competitive gamer and a person who knows a lot of competitive gamers I can safely say it hinders the excitement. It is making EA look more and more like liars and with the way they were bragging earlier in the year, I admit I expected better. There is no way they compete with COD, not with 30 FPS.
Why would it hinder your excitement. Its not going to cost an arm and a leg to get a good PC, actually that can run this NEAR maximum settings could be had very cheaply around 600usd (which is the launch price of a next gen console). BF3 still looks amazing on console. Why are you complaining about 30fps? dont most Sony exclusives which supposedly use the Cell to its potential run at 30fps? Just because we are getting a game that actually pushes PC hardware and is pushing Console to max there is no need to be less excited. PC gamers can pay anywhere between 100-600usd for a GPU. Why should the experience then be simular between PC and console? who woud then buy PC hardware? Nvidia and AMD need these games to promote their hardware its not just consoles that they sell chips on. I think EA are doing a good job promoting the PC version after all BC2 did sell the best on PC. @below Have fun limited at COD and Halo then as there isnt any other FPS on console i am aware of that runs at 60fps both of which are sub hd to begin with. 600usd isnt much, next gen consoles easily cost near that much.
As I said, for me personally I am a competitive gamer. 30 FPS is unacceptable at this late time. Especially for a FPS. I'm also not a PS3 user, though I own one I mostly play my Xbox 360. I'm not spending $600 on a PC you crazy or something?
. You can make all the excuses you want for EA and Dice, they sure haven't stop making excuses. They lied and deceived everybody by claiming their game was going to be something that it is not. Sony did the same thing at the start of this gen with all the CGI they were showing claiming that the games were going to look that way. Killzone, 8 days and Motorstorm to name a few and those games were nothing like that and still nowhere near that level of fidelity. Sure the cut scenes look nice but that is not game play that those CGI video's clearly implied. Dice has done the same thing knowing COD could not be beat and I have said from the first moment I saw the live game play trailer released months ago that there would be a price to pay for this...there always is. 360 and PS3 consoles are well over 100 million sold and EA and Dice expects those gamers to pay $10 more for a gimped version of the game...Sorry, it should be $10 less than the PC version, no questions asked.
Just one question... How is the console version gimped? Do you REALLY think the PS3 and Xbox360 can run this game like a PC? Really? Seriously? You actually expected these aging consoles (5 years or 6 years old) to run this game at [email protected] frames per second when ALMOST ALL PS3 AND XBOX360 GAMES RUN AT [email protected] FRAMES PER SECOND WITH NO ANTI-ALIASING? Name me just ONE PS3 or Xbox360 game that LOOKS THAT GOOD like the pre-alpha version of BF3 shown recently on the PS3 that is doing: 1) Real Time Dynamic Global Illumination 2) Natural Lighting and Dynamic Soft Shadows in Real Time 3) Eye Adaptation/High Dynamic Range Lighting in Real Time 4) Subsurface Scattering in Real Time 5) Dynamic Volumetric Light Beams/Light Shaft Effects in Real Time 6) Fully Dynamic Procedural Destruction in Real Time I will answer it for you: THERE IS NO GAME DOING ALL THOSE THINGS LOOKING THE WAY BF3 DOES ON THE PS3 OR XBOX360 RIGHT NOW. Not Uncharted 2/3, not Gears of War 2/3, not God of War 3, not KillZone 2/3... None of them are performing ALL those tasks looking like BF3 even on consoles. Only 12 yeaold fanboys would EVER consider the console of their reach around choice could even come close to a modern day PC.... A system thats GPU ALONE (mid-range or high end) has more bandwidth and graphic processing power than the entire PS3/Xbox360 put together. You people are living in magic Pixie Fairy Land
Just a few whiny kids who think their console is the be all, end of of technology. I'm surprised 'this' has got so much attention, the vast majority of gamers will be more than happy with the games visuals, whatever platform they use.
I agree its funny kids are complaining about the console version not looking as good as PC version. Well kids its not hard building a PC and can be quite educational.
What I'm surprise about is that they expect it to look as good as the PC version. For the longest time, I thought almost everyone knew and witness in other titles that games simply look better on PC. I didn't realize this was a new concept to most people. Honestly, I'm just glad they decided to also bring BF3 to consoles as I don't have the money to make myself a gaming PC. Also, BF is a PC title for the most part so I can't see why the PC won't be the best version.
and DIPE oh I mean DICE says: "Frostbite 2 engine "next generation technology for current gen platforms" LOL
All I really care is that the push each system to the limit and not copy and paste things to a disc. I'm sick of games that don't even use most of the power in my consoles, I buy consoles games not for the to look good but to play them on something that won't cost me over 1,000 to play them and worry about if the game supports my hardware/software. Then again I do have a 200 dollar computer then can run pretty much anything that has came out.
Ha! Your post looks just like mine! I want your computer. Link to where you got it/ model? seriously. The cheapest I can find is about $600 that will run something like BF 3
I think my was cheap because the hard drive in it had a huge fail rate -_-. I wish I knew about that before buying it, but I spent about 80 bucks and got 1TB 7,200RPM hard drive for it. ^-^ now it runs good, I think the starting price was 2,000 but like I said the hard drive was well know to fail.
Is the 360 version single disc? I've said it a few times in other posts, but I hope they do the PS3 justice and don't just port the friggin' thing like every other 360/PS3 multiplat in existence. I know, they've denied this already, but I'm just sayin'.
disc space isn't important crysis 1 is only 6 gb yet wipes the floor with anything onn ps3. crysis 2 pc also makes ps3 exclusives look like ps2 games hell even bulletstorm pc looks better than anything on consoles and its only 6gb. crysis 1 enviroments aree HUGE fully destructible and explorable yet it only takes up 6gb and kz3 that takes up 40 gb is a linear fps with prebaked lighting terrible low res alpha effects and textures,lots of jaggies, pre computed physics lol blu ray only HOLDS the game doesn't help with processing. RAM,MEMEORY BANDWIDTH, CPU and GPU power is what determines how good a game can look and all consoles are lacking in ALL those departments. you think the cell is powerful ? if it was why can't it emulate ps2 ? a core 2 duo can emulate ps2 completely so why can't the cell ? because core 2 duo>>>>cell. technology didn't stand still for 5 years because of ps3. the ps3 like the 360 is OUTDATED. before you start to talk about how powerful you THINK the cell is please check this out and witness the true power of pc cpus http://www.youtube.com/watc... http://www.youtube.com/watc... http://www.youtube.com/watc... http://www.youtube.com/watc... http://www.youtube.com/watc... http://www.youtube.com/watc... http://www.youtube.com/watc... http://www.youtube.com/watc... http://www.youtube.com/watc... http://www.youtube.com/watc... http://www.youtube.com/watc... http://www.youtube.com/watc...
I wasn't saying that... And lol @ youtube links I was comparing PS3 to 360, comparing it to a high-end PC would be silly.
Battlefield Bad Company 2 was 4,5 GB on Xbox 360 and it now when developers has an additional 1GB space I doubt it will be multi discs.
This Battlefield 3 crap is getting pretty old...
Really? There's a controversy? What controversy. Why the f is there a 'controversy' ? Half baked nit wits stewing up their 'controversy' bs.
the pc nerds come out to play in this article daym. your all full of it. go grab ya keyboard n mouse and sit under ya stairs. jeeeez
I'm really sick of seeing the word "controversy" attached to too many articles. It's excessive. It's not a freaking controversy chesus... PC gamers should be happy with the graphics and my fellow ps3 gamers should be happy with the graphics. See how controversial I can be? ;)
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.