MW3 and BF3 Graphics Comparison

It’s safe to say that we all knew it already, the new Frostbite engine can rest even easier than it was already as the graphics on the new call of duty just don’t seem to compare. The first 4 images are the closest we could get to similar environments; in the first we have a night scene, whilst the second puts the protagonist in the seat of a mounted turret in a brightly lit environment.

Taken on PC these images compare BF3 to MW3.

The images on the right are of Battlefield 3 and the images on the left at Call of duty: modern Warfare 3.

The rest of the images are screen shots taken from the game.

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
Septic2357d ago (Edited 2357d ago )

I'm sorry but there is no comparison between BF3 and MW3 when it comes to graphics. Anyone arguing otherwise is just deluded or severely misinformed. Battlefield 3, even on consoles with their various issues, looks brilliant (and much better than the ageing engine used for COD). Obviously on PC, it is a sight to behold (along with 60fps).

chriski3332357d ago

Yea the graphics looks really old im sad but I look and I see battlefield 3 and I tell my self its all good:)

mike_d_2357d ago

Agreed 100% !! MW series needs to step up from the 4-yr old engine they keep recycling.Yea it runs 60 fps,but thats because it doesn't have anywhere near the amount of detail that BF3 runs.I don't have any problem playing 30fps in the years to come.Everyone acts like every game that comes out has to have 60fps.

Ghoul2356d ago (Edited 2356d ago )

4 year old ?? waaay older mate

Cod4 ran on the IW Engine wich is explained below.
The Engine is used since 2005 the base construct is even older

Updating an engine is absolutly ok but you reach a point sometime where you have to completly start from scratch sinice to many factors have changed/increased.

"The engine was first used for Call of Duty 2 in 2005 under a proprietary license of id Tech 3 created by id Software in 1999, as at this time, the engine was a heavily modified version of the Quake III engine. The engine did not have an official name until IGN was told at the E3 2009 by the studio that Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 would run on the "IW 4.0 engine""

egidem2356d ago

Agreed - this comparison is pointless - there shouldn't even be one! If you run Battlefield 3 on the highest settings and look at how pretty it is and compare it to MW3 highest settings, you really wonder if IW did try to put any effort within their development on the PC front, or they just wanted to make a quick buck on all platforms. It's clear to know which.

PR_FROM_OHIO2357d ago

COD can not touch BF3 in graphics period!

Fishy Fingers2357d ago (Edited 2357d ago )

Pretty poor comparison, I mean the website lay out. But obviously, at their peak Frostbite 2 is the better "looking" engine and there for produces the better looking game.

That's at their peaks though (PC), personally I think on consoles, COD would be my preferred choice, FB2 looks slightly better, but it's doing so at half the frame rate, technically I still think COD engine suits the console better. Gameplay is more important than graphics in the end.

Personally, talking visuals alone:
PC: BF3, no contest and no need to sacrifice gameplay (FPS)
Console: BF3, by a small margin, but at the heavy sacrifice of frame rate.

pandehz2357d ago

Your forgetting destruction and all the effects, shading , shadow and particles that come with it.

One big chunk that COD doesnt have at all.

Forgot to mention the massive maps and vehicles. Imagine rendering such a huge map. BF3 on a console is a friggin miracle. COD umm not so much.

Somebody2357d ago

"Gameplay is more important than graphics in the end. "

aahhhh...haven't heard that sentence in a while. They (some of the console gamers) always say that. There's a shred a truth with that comment and yet the moment a console exclusive with beautiful grahpics comes out (Unchartered 3, Gears of War 3, Resistance 3, Red Dead Redemption, Rain, Alan Wake-take your pick), you can't wait to shove it on the PC's face.

Really. Everyone repeated that sentence incessantly during the months leading up to BF3's launch. When UC3 is launched however, everyone seem to forget they ever uttered it.

Have you seen the comments in the early Unchartered 3 reviews? They all talk about how prettier it is than UC 1 and 2. Or how UC 4 will rock when the PS4 is out. Honestly, I thought I was in a PC forum.

Talking about next gen consoles, better graphic is what everyone's talking about. How a Microsoft rep teased about the 10GB rams in the new X Box. How the next CELL cpu will made in smaller die so that it will be efficient. How Epic talks about DX11 for the consoles. I haven't seen an article about the next gen consoles talk about gameplay or controllers. They all talk about better graphic. These guys make great graphics, not just gameplay. You'd be insulting them if you keep saying the texture/model/lighting effects that they've designed for years is not important.

That BF3 PC graphics that you said is not important will eventually end up in the next BF in you next gen consoles. Like Crysis 1. When it first came out, not important. When it came to the console....

Kinda funny, though. A bunch of guys talking about "graphics not important" only to chatter endlessly how awesome the next-gen graphic will be in the PS4 and X-Box 720.

MasterCornholio2357d ago

The frostbite engine is a lot more advanced than the quake engine that Activision uses. Dice did a really great job with the visuals in the game.


Nunchez2357d ago

This is actually a pretty pointless comparison.

Show all comments (15)