Top
370°

Battlefield 3 vs Killzone 3: 720P Gameplay Comparison [VIDEOS]

GB: "We have recorded game play footage from both Battlefield 3 and Killzone 3 at 720P.
Killzone 3 is undoubtedly the best looking console shooter but Battlefield 3 in all its ‘pre-alpha build” glory is already shaping up to be a great shooter.
Check out the HD comparison videos in full screen below."

MORE VIDEOS ON THE SITE.

Read Full Story >>
gamingbolt.com
The story is too old to be commented.
cyborg2788d ago

looks better to me, I mean, atleast for now it does.

Nitrowolf22788d ago (Edited 2788d ago )

IDk both game look different to me, I just feel that BF3 has the more realistic look to it then KZ3. Both games look extremely great, but one of them looks more real then the other. It's kind of expected since it's PC and plus the setting BF3 is set in a more light warm climate, so better lighting and KZ3 is set in a cold dim lighting.

Which the lighting for BF3 is just amazing and does the game right.

evrfighter2788d ago (Edited 2788d ago )

bleh wtf

there's this horrible blurry low-res texture'd mess on the right side of the video whenever I try to play it.

Fix video please.

trounbyfire2788d ago

so your argument is realism by that standard MW2 blops mag and all other shooter set on earth look better. helghan a fictional planet that is radioactive so its completely different from earth

that means ART style/ direction

personally the uber clean look puts me off.

Nitrowolf22788d ago (Edited 2788d ago )

I never said Killzone 3 didn't look realistic i just said BF3 looks more of it.
MW2, M.A.G. ect more realistic looking?Hell no, and obviously you interpreted my comment wrong to think that. Aside from the fact that they all take place on earth, which shouldn't really matter. I was just stating which one looked more real, hell even science fiction game can look extremely real if they apply the right textures and color. Look at Killzone 3, the characters look extremely good and the enviroment looks pretty real.

LOGICWINS2788d ago

I think BF3 looks better, but I'm also impressed by how well KZ3 stands up to it.

zootang2788d ago (Edited 2788d ago )

I'll take real footage of KZ3 over doctored footage of a game yet to be released any day. Just shows what a powerhouse KZ3 is. Also the gun looks a lot more detailed in KZ3 and for a shooter that matters when comparing graphics.

Agent VX2788d ago

Not even close, BF 3 blows Killzone out of the water. Killzone looks like an arcade title while BF3 looks a lot more realistic. Don't get me wrong, KZ 3 looks great of a console game, probably the best, but compared to the PC version of BF3.... LOL!!!

Graphics department easily goes to BF 3.

BattleAxe2788d ago

Its a tough side by side comparison since Killzone 3 is on a different planet which is darker, with alot more dust and haze in the atmosphere. Battlefield 3 just looks alot brighter.

inveni02788d ago

While I don't think it's fair to compare a DX11 PC game to a PS3 game, I've got to say that this side by side really shows how awesome KZ3 really looks. And KZ3 will only look better when they do the comparison of KZ3 and the PS3 version of Battlefield 3.

Clarence2788d ago

I think both games look excellent. KZ3 looks amazing. This is why it is constanly being compared to the top PC shooters. I don't know which one looks better. I will say that KZ3 is standing up quite nicely against a PC game.

DualConsoleOwner2788d ago

because console version is not even out...

what is the purpose of comparing PC vs PS3 graphics??

Lawliet2788d ago

Hey I actually think that KillZone3 look better than Battlefield3. Maybe just BF3 have better fundamentals, but somehow when comparing the art direction, KZ3 just take the cakes. We witness everything of KZ3, we know the mass of the game. However we had yet to witness the mass of BF3. And when I'm referring to the MASS I'm not just talking about the Size of the area. I'm also speaking of the number of effects shown on the screen at one point in time.

HolyOrangeCows2788d ago (Edited 2788d ago )

A poor quality video of a comparison of the PC version of a game (running on a PC that 99.9% of PC gamers don't have half as powerful of a PC as) vs a game for a 5-year-old console.

Stop making this stupid comparison. Besides, we all know why GamingBolt chimed in; they'll do anything to make the PS3 look bad. Too bad they failed again.

+ Show (10) more repliesLast reply 2788d ago
2788d ago Replies(6)
the_kutaragi_baka2788d ago

[email protected] i agree bro...Killzone 3 looks better.

and omgf look for the disagree of haters of killzone 3!

taylork372788d ago

I love KZ3...but come on. BF3 looks better.

That isn't saying anything bad about the PS3. The fact that they are able to do a reasonable comparison between a maxed out PC to a 5 year old conosole says quite a lot about how good the console is.

Agent VX2788d ago

ROTFLOL... you got to be kidding me. This site is sooo pathetic with console fanboy's, there are no words for it.

BF 3(PC)easily, and I mean easily beats KZ3 in the graphics department. Take the PS3 fanboy goggles off sport... you sound silly!!!

Now if your comparing the PS3 version of BF 3 with KZ3, then you might, and I mean might have a case. After all, the PS3 doesn't have much more room to grow in the graphics department.

2788d ago Replies(3)
DigitalAnalog2788d ago

To me, Killzone 3 looks better just like how ICO & SoTC "looks" better than most games out there. It's called "art direction".

Graphic-wise, it's a oxymoron. A blind man could tell which is the more graphic intensified game.

-End statement

bluwulf2788d ago (Edited 2788d ago )

Its hilarious that no one on earth ever compares these high power games from the PC world...to the 360..ever.

Yet 360 owners always want to claim that PS3 games look 'slightly, if at all' Better. And that Gears2/Mass Effect are the gold standard.

Yeah, shocking no one ever does a BF3 vs Gears2. Or Crysis2 vs Gears2. Why is that Xbox fans?

elmaton982788d ago

Maybe because the 360 is not worth comparing to.

BlackKnight2788d ago

You are assuming that videos that compare PC to PS3 are fair. These videos are dumb.

I could easily say these videos are posted by PS3 fanboys on N4G (which is pro PS3) just to give the games more credit graphically. Anyone can make a comparison video.

Just because there is a comparison doesn't mean it is vaild. These aren't.

Bottom line is these videos are posted because it gets hits because people argue over it.

cannon88002788d ago

BF3 looks pretty good actually. But I'm dying to see the new and improved proprietary engine from killzone 3 in earthly environments. Because people are crying over the lighting making the game superior than everything else and thats not the case. You need to look at polygon count, textures, shaders, lighting, animation, weapon detail and weapon animation and then everything else that different game engines have. NOT just freaking lighting.

awi59512788d ago

Is it just me or did this guy use the crappiest version of the B3 video to make killzone look better

finbars752788d ago

I dont get how you can compare a console game to a pc game running that engine.Its so stupid and makes no sense to me.KIllzone3 looks stunning on a console and Battlefeild3 looks sick on the PC.The two are so different in styles that this comparison is terrible.I think both look good and right now Killzone is the game to beat.BF3 will be much better of a game due to its style and in depth team work.

Justanothergamer2788d ago

"Killzone 3 looks better than Battlefield 3."

"ps3 is the future and future is ps3" -> 34 agree/17 disagree.

That's it, I'm done with this joke of a website.
May all the fanboys (of any platform) gather in this place, the other websites will only be better.

hiredhelp2788d ago (Edited 2788d ago )

Hmm another comparison. wow awsome. jees

ok lets look at somert that first hit me when seeing this comparison. multi vs firstparty.
always a bad sign.
ok battle field looks AWSOME. agreed.? i think it is
KZ3 awsome it is good.

but look here batlefield has more lighting looks smooth. WRONG
LOOK AT THE SKY. ones blue clear sky so gonna have light the other in psace dull place.
detail on dice engine very nice smotth for the objects but not really got emense detail like killzone's structure.
this cos every bit of pixel gonna take up space cos this is going on a multiplatform it take space. gurilla has space. to do uncompression lighting textures the whole shabang.

However im not saying witch is best because im a fan of both games. but last note yes this is pc. and shouldnt be compared full stop!

Vorgier2788d ago

Because BF3 is still pre-alpha or alpha, and it already looks that good. Plus we've hardly seen anything.

Killzone 3 looks good for now, but BF3 is definitely going to look better.

Stempel2788d ago

PS3 blind fanboys everywhere

+ Show (10) more repliesLast reply 2787d ago
RedDead2788d ago (Edited 2788d ago )

PC versus Ps3 is just unfair. It would be weird if BF3 didn't look better, the hardware is 5 years ahead of the Ps3 now. It should be compared to other Pc games like Crysis 1 and 2

@Above...please

cannon88002788d ago

you do know that some of the things in the ps3, like the cell processor still beats the intel core i7 processors in terms of performance? something like two and a half times more performance points in pretty much anything. So it's still up to date in terms of performance. But the video card is getting old obviously, but thats not stopping the smart ps3 developers from using the cell to run most of the graphics and the rsx to do the computing and calculations. But i understand your point.

BlackKnight2788d ago

"like the cell processor still beats the intel core i7 processors in terms of performance?"

source?

The cell can do some graphical work that the RSX/GPU is supposed to do. The Cell is a sort of CPU/GPU hybrid.

Anything non graphical, the Cell will be DESTROYED by an i7 or i5 or even an i3. The thing is, PC doesn't need the CPU to make up for a weak GPU (RSX). PC has GPUs that can do what the cell does MUCH MUCH faster.

The Cell has 6 SPU or "cores". The Nvidia 580GTX has 512 cores!!! And the cores in the 580 can render a GREATER variety of effects than the Cell. The new AMD 6990 has 3840 shader units (a different architecture with smaller cores but many of them).

"using the cell to run most of the graphics and the rsx to do the computing and calculations"

So graphics is not computing and calculations? What are you even typing? Graphics is ALL MATH, COMPUTING AND CALCULATIONS. There are different types of algorithms and methods of calculating (floating point, single or double percision, etc.). The Cell excels in some graphics area which is why it can be used to support the RSX. The RSX still does 60-80% of the job in most PS3 exclusives. The cell will just do a few things like AA (MLAA) and Depth of field (UC2) and so on.

You are just buying into PR. Why would PC video card manufacturer's be unable to produce "cell" performance yet? Guess what? They did back when the geforce 8 came out on PC and passed the Cell and RSX combined. The cell supports a weak CPU where on PC the CPU does what it is suppose to (AI, sound, physics [unless done through GPU], scripting, event handling, etc) and the video card does ALL graphical work like it is supposed to.

cannon88002788d ago

Read this
http://gear.ign.com/article...

Forbes has a rating system that tests the performance of processors in Gflops
The cell tops out at about 230
The i7 should be at about 90

http://www.tomshardware.com...

halocursed2788d ago

The lightings effects just take the cake in Battlefield 3.

Death24942788d ago

Yeah I'd have to say Battlefield has some very nice lighting. These are two completely different art styles though. One is mordern military shooter and the other is scifi shooter.

Munky2788d ago

Why are their so many articles like this? The comparisons are a joke to say the least. In no way shape or form is KZ3 or any PS3 game, or any console game that will come close to BF3. The tech is leaps and bounds above what consoles can do, so any notion of even trying to compare the two games is ridiculous.

Belasco2788d ago

Yet they still say KZ3 looks better.

Munky2788d ago (Edited 2788d ago )

Their are certain people who will "see" what they want to "see". The difference is pretty obvious.

xAlmostPro2788d ago

Im not gonna be blind and say killzone 3 looks better, because fact is modern upto date PC's will always blow consoles away when developed right such as battlefield 3..

However PC from a true gamers(no stupid fanboy antics) point of view killzone 3 is damn impressive visually to say its running on 5 year old hardware, even beside battlefield 3 gameplay footage it still looks good.

Munky2788d ago

Fair enough. I'm not saying KZ3 looks bad at all, it deserves all the praises it has received for its graphics. But to compare these two games is a stretch, and that's putting it lightly.