Battlefield 3 PC on Low is Console Settings, says DICE

Posted By | On 17th, Oct. 2011 Under News | Follow This Author @KartikMdgl


Well now we finally know the truth. Console versions aren’t comparable to the PC version at all. In fact, DICE has optimized the PC version so much that it towers above the console versions. Also, to run the game on ULTRA settings on the PC, you need multi-GPUs to maintain a 60fps framerate.

I recently previewed the multiplayer beta on the consoles and I thought it was decent, although, PC version is the way to go. This is what I said, “There are a lot of glitches and other technical issues in the beta. Hopefully DICE can fix all of them.

“Battlefield 3 is shaping up to be one of the best FPS games ever made, and if you have a good PC, it is recommended that you buy the game for that platform, as it is definitely the definitive version of the game.”

On which platform are you going to buy the game? Tell us in the comments section below.

Tagged With: , , , ,

Awesome Stuff that you might be interested in

  • Wes

    Probably get it for PS3, 360 and PC, just like I did with BFBC 2

  • Pingback: Battlefield 3: Konsolenfassung mit Low-Einstellung der PC-Version vergleichbar » playm.de()

  • Honestly its still not worth getting it on the PC. People fail to realize the actual gameplay upon release will NOT support most game card running Ultra or even High on the beta. People using the beta have used graphic cards significantly less than recommended on Ultra on the beta which has worked smoothly proves my point. Such game cards recommended by Battlefield which will allow smooth gameplay on higher settinga will run no less than $350 and those arent not even retail prices. Ill be fine with whatever free high resolution package they offer on the 360. Plus we’ve been playing the PS3 and 360 for years especially with CoD, why are people acting like they have Nintendo 64 graphics all of a sudden. Itll be fine.

    • First off COD is an ugly-recycled game, you don’t get what you pay for at all, an entire population community that is well over several million strong is against COD, clearly that game is just wrong.

      Secondly, the game isn’t that harsh to run at all, I ran everything on absolute maximum with 1920×1200 and 50-75+ fps, retail version, or not (beta) I’ll be fine. The game is well over blown with graphics intimidation, it’s absolutely beautiful on max settings, but having 60 FPS is not necessary at all with PC games, it runs perfect on 30+. therefor you don’t need maximum everything and you can spend under 300$ on a video card, 500$ is absurd, thank god I’m with AMD/ATI. It’s not just about your Video Card, if you build your own PC, and you’re an enthusiast, then you know how to balance out your hardware to make things run as you intend to.

      The PC version on LOW doesn’t look anything close to Maximum, Consoles don’t even support DX-10 MUCH less DX-11, the PC version is clearly the best, smoothest, most competitive, most beautiful version available. For the amount you spend on console for a few games, more than 1 controller, hard drive size, and other various annoying accessories you’re FAR better off buying the PC version with a controller if you so please to play with lack of control, newbie-style.

      They never said the graphics were BAD, they said it’s nothing in comparison to the PC version… and they are absolutely right.

      I strongly disagree with your post. It’s not all entirely about the Video Card either, which I’m sure you know, but you have to understand that people with good hardware to back up their cards will do just fine.

  • Um why didnt my post go through?

  • Getting the this game on PC still isnt worth it. People fail to realize that the graphics cards actually required for the game to operate smoothly on higher setting will cost no less than $300. People are mistaken usong the beta as a reference to test out their graphics cards. Many people have already used single 6870 ATI graphic cards for example and have ran High/Ultra (rumored to be the same which is not truley accurate) without any troubles. This will not work with the retail product. The suggested cards by Battlefield will require you to spend no less than $330 to run the retail game decently on High, not Ultra. Ultra can cost up to $500. Ill be fine with the free high resolution package offered. Plus people have been playing games on the PS3 and XBox 360 for years, especially with CoD, and never had an issue. Why do they depict the graphics as being so bad now? We’ll be fine 360 users.

  • Ignore the first two post. Then this one.

  • PS3 for me, but it’s great that PC-only or mainly gamers are getting more games that push the high-end rigs, and that consoles get the game as well. Everyone’s a winner :).

  • Pingback: Setting Grafik Low Battlefield 3 Versi PC Sama Dengan Grafik Konsol()

  • Pingback: DICE responds to Battlefield 3 console and PC settings comparisons - GamingBolt.com: Video Game News, Reviews, Previews and Blog()

  • Pingback: Battlefield 3 Discussion (Trailers + Screenshots) - Page 25 - Vortez Forums - PC Hardware News and Reviews()

  • us

    still getting for 360.
    im sure PC will look better and blah blah blah but when it comes down to it, i want
    1 to not play with cheaters and be on an even playing ground with every other player
    2 play with friends and have easy in and out game play with them
    3 play with different players every time, I cant stand playing the same clan of probros every day

    1 PC has more cheaters and a better rig = easier kills, if i get a fps drop i lose no matter what.

    2 friends, and ease of in and out gameplay.. NO bs, log on xbox join party chat find match or wait for buddies

    3 PC will NOT sell well, sorry fanboys but the PC version will not sell as well as people think it will. estimating less then 1 million total sales, i guarantee 2 months in less then 50,000 people online at any time. eh..

    console will sell combined 4million+


 

Copyright © 2009-2017 GamingBolt.com. All Rights Reserved.