Face-Off: Battlefield: Bad Company 2

By Richard Leadbetter Published 2 March, 2010

Modern combat.

Page 1 of 2

DICE is one of my favourite developers. Not only do they make great games, but this studio is a true innovator. Even when using third-party middleware, as in the case of Mirror's Edge, the Stockholm-based developer still managed to come up with something different and special. Battlefield: Bad Company 2 sees the team returning to its impressive, proprietary Frostbite engine, which specialises in large, open, expansive spaces and a proprietary physics engine that allows for some stunning, explosive, destructible environments.

Better yet, this is a newer iteration of the engine - Frostbite 1.5 - bringing with it a range of new features and performance enhancements over its predecessor. DICE's previous Battlefield games enjoyed a small but significant technological advantage on Xbox 360. So how does Bad Company 2 measure up? Let's kick off with the customary Face-Off comparison movie, and you can check out a triple-format 720p comparison gallery elsewhere on Eurogamer.

Bad Company 2: Xbox 360 versus PlayStation 3. Use the full-screen button to see full HD resolution, or else click the EGTV link for a larger window.

Graphically there are several differences between the two console versions, and just how much impact they have on the overall sense of image quality varies dramatically. It's safe to say that the main artifact you'll notice was one that was very prominent indeed in the multiplayer demo. Certain transparencies are handled in a much more visually pleasing way on PlayStation 3. Check out these shots for some idea of what we're talking about.

'Face-Off: Battlefield: Bad Company 2' Screenshot 360-screendoor1
'Face-Off: Battlefield: Bad Company 2' Screenshot ps3-screendoor1
'Face-Off: Battlefield: Bad Company 2' Screenshot 360-screendoor2
'Face-Off: Battlefield: Bad Company 2' Screenshot ps3-screendoor2

A 'screen door' texture dithering effect on some environment elements on the snowy levels does look quite unattractive on Xbox 360. Curiously the effect is completely absent on PS3.

A "screen door" dither effect on some foliage, most obvious in the snow levels, looks a touch rough on Xbox 360 while it is not an issue at all on PlayStation 3. While it's not exactly a huge problem, it's undoubtedly the case that the PS3 version looks better without it, using a more conventional alpha-test technique for its transparency. While it's most obvious in the snowy levels, a similar bandwidth-saving measure is also found elsewhere.

'Face-Off: Battlefield: Bad Company 2' Screenshot 360-beard
'Face-Off: Battlefield: Bad Company 2' Screenshot ps3-beard

The dithering effect turns up elsewhere in the Xbox 360 code, but it is not as noticeable.

Without technical insight from DICE, it's difficult to understand quite why these decisions have been made, but what we do know from the firm's brilliant archive of presentations is that the ethos of the engine development focuses on PS3 as the primary platform. Get it right there, and rolling out cross-platform ensures the highest-quality result.

That being the case, it might partly explain why the same issues are also seen on the PC version. Alpha to coverage (assuming that's what DICE is using here), blends with multi-sampling anti-aliasing and looks much nicer (see: Forza 3). Take away the AA and you see a similar effect to the Xbox 360 code.

'Face-Off: Battlefield: Bad Company 2' Screenshot 360-a2c1
'Face-Off: Battlefield: Bad Company 2' Screenshot pc-a2c1
'Face-Off: Battlefield: Bad Company 2' Screenshot 360-a2c2
'Face-Off: Battlefield: Bad Company 2' Screenshot pc-a2c2

The 'screen door' effect is also evident on PC. The lower the anti-aliasing setting, the more evident it is. Here you see Xbox 360 up against PC in '1xAA' mode in DX10.

The Xbox 360's individual charms are there, but they are much less noticeable compared to the hit to image quality found in the snow levels. Shadow filtering appears to be a touch more refined on 360, while the implementation of water on Xbox 360 also looks to be a cut above the PS3 version of the game, which looks as though it's using a lower-precision effect.

'Face-Off: Battlefield: Bad Company 2' Screenshot 360-water1
'Face-Off: Battlefield: Bad Company 2' Screenshot ps3-water1
'Face-Off: Battlefield: Bad Company 2' Screenshot 360-water2
'Face-Off: Battlefield: Bad Company 2' Screenshot ps3-water2

Implementation of water generally tends to favour the Xbox 360 version of the game, with the PS3 seemingly running a lower precision model.

So, plus and minus points for both versions of the game, but clearly the visual drawbacks in the Xbox 360 version are the more noticeable overall. Performance-wise, Xbox 360 usually has the advantage in these Face-Offs, and it's no surprise to see it's a similar state of affairs with Bad Company 2. However, anyone looking for a gulf in frame-rate or controller response is going to be disappointed.

Bad Company 2 360 has an ever-so-slightly higher average frame-rate, and a small, but noticeable advantage in terms of screen-tear. So how do we define a "small but noticeable advantage"? Here's where things get tricky, owing to the implementation of v-sync DICE uses on PS3, and how its effects diminish the usefulness of our measurement tools.

Here are a couple of clips taken from some pretty hardcore gameplay. The excerpts are unsynchronised, but are taken from the same areas of the game with the player following much the same course through the levels we've highlighted. The idea here is to see how each console version of Bad Company 2 deals with various important elements that define the game: plenty of action, things blowing up and large, expansive levels.

Four sections of Bad Company 2 gameplay are put through performance analysis. The game sustains frame-rates well, with varying levels of screen-tear in taxing scenes.

Results reveal that in the heat of gameplay, there is very little to tell the two version of Bad Company 2 apart. Both are capped at 30FPS and both will drop v-sync before losing frames, the idea being to maintain controller response and keep overall frame-rate as high as possible. In the clips above, lowest frame-rate was 25FPS on PS3, and 26FPS on 360: the difference essentially unnoticeable when averages are at 29.4FPS and 29.8FPS respectively.

Page 1 of 2

Comments (57) Latest comment 1 year ago

Comments threads automatically close after 30 days, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • feistycheese #1 2 years ago

    Glad to see a top quality game that looks and plays great on both consoles.

    Not that I'd be able to tell the minor differences between them anyway.

    Bravo DICE for putting in the effort.

  • frunk #2 2 years ago

    Sweet! Seeing this level of parity is rare and overdue!

    Now which SKU to get - I am erring towards PS3 so I don't have to renew my 360 subs... but the PC one will be cheaper... aghh!

  • bratmandu #3 2 years ago

    Which is better? Only one way to find out...

  • Skire #4 2 years ago

    Really impressive job done by DICE. As a PS3 owner I applaud great devs like DICE for delivering cross platform parity.

  • spongebob #5 2 years ago

    Did I decypher the article right: PS3 version looks just a little bit better than that of Xbox 360, but only if you look _really_ hard?

  • KayJay #6 2 years ago

    @designerheadache - Yeah I spotted that. Explanation required.

  • tiny_Eggy #7 2 years ago

    Conclusion, not a single soul will notice anything different in the console versions.

    Oh PC wins! ;)

  • _LarZen_ #8 2 years ago

    @tiny_Eggy : Pc lost many years ago

  • Psiloc #9 2 years ago

    @designerheadache

    "Shadow filtering appears to be a touch more refined on 360, while the implementation of water on Xbox 360 also looks to be a cut above the PS3 version of the game, which looks as though it's using a lower-precision effect."

    doesn't contradict with:

    "A "screen door" dither effect on some foliage, most obvious in the snow levels, looks a touch rough on Xbox 360 while it is not an issue at all on PlayStation 3."
    Edited by 2 at 02/03/10 @ 15:34

  • phAge #10 2 years ago

    @designerheadache

    Sounds pretty straightforward to me?

    The 360 version has a bunch of not terribly noticeable graphical effects (and not quite as much tearing) that are superior to those on the PS3, whereas the latter has one - big - edge over MS's console regarding that dithering effect-majig.

  • friel #11 2 years ago

    @ all

    Reading between the lines... the main difference is NOTHING... and if you want to split hairs its still pretty close to nothing.

    In other words... Platform parity at last

  • Matfink #12 2 years ago

    Screen door? Bleurgh. No need for it in this day and age :p

  • dsmx #13 2 years ago

    What you should be taking from this article is that xbox 360 and ps3 version are basically identical and the difference between them requires a side by side comparison to see. The PC version does look better and has more players so is essentially the best experience but all versions are very good.

    If you take anything else out of that article then you are a fanboy, stop trying to turn this into a war about which is best.

  • KillerMonkey #14 2 years ago

    "What you should be taking from this article is that xbox 360 and ps3 version are basically identical and the difference between them requires a side by side comparison to see. The PC version does look better and has more players so is essentially the best experience but all versions are very good.

    If you take anything else out of that article then you are a fanboy, stop trying to turn this into a war about which is best."

    I'd say the screen door effect is pretty blatant and ugly.
    Edited by 1 at 02/03/10 @ 16:18

  • CaptainQuint #15 2 years ago

    I'd get this for the PS3, if it wasn't for the fact that everyone I tend to play online with is Xbox Live based. Looks like I'll be getting the 360 version, once again.

  • butler` #16 2 years ago

    i wouldn't call it 'nothing'.

    screen tearing drives anyone that's used to a properly vsynced 60hz or 75hz crazy

  • karooo #17 2 years ago

    Freeing that 70MB ram really helped the third party developers, good job Sony.

  • Nebula #18 2 years ago

    SPAM wrote: "PC version is obviously limited by the assets of the 360 version."

    Well yes it is not console "matching" PC version but instead PC version being an uppgrade of console version and thus not barely tapping PC capabilities.

  • CaptainQuint #19 2 years ago

    @Deskfan
    I run your mum at 100fps, ya gimp!

  • TitusCrow #20 2 years ago

    @ Deskfan - I hate to break it to you son, but the great white hope you have for PC gaming will be out on multi format. I of course am a PC guy myself though I have both consoles and they have their place and games. This said however Nothing does a FPS like a high end PC.

    But there is no way a company out for maximum profit and exposure of their flagship title will only develop it for PC in today's market. It's just not realistic. Though rest assured that a full feature set will be tailored for the individual platforms (mostly )

  • Ryboy #21 2 years ago

    tiny_Eggy +1

    PC pwns all once more.

  • Nebula #22 2 years ago

    Something that is a bit confusing is that in Gametrailers review of BFBC2 state that cutscenes primarly are in-engine recordings (console version atleast) and thus video files though they are bits that are realtime when doing camera switching allowing player to pan FOV a bit. I'll pack up the games archives and check when I get the game in my mailbox.
    Edited by 1 at 02/03/10 @ 18:44

  • GI-Joel #23 2 years ago

    Will get on pc. I can at least use all that lovely hardware i have spent my hard earned cash on. Which up till now has not at all been tested. Oh and its a better platform .........
    Runs and hides in a house up stairs hoping no one has a tank.

  • hiscore #24 2 years ago

    If DICE targetted its development to PS3 as the main platform, why is it suffering 10% more torn frames than 360?

    I played the demo on both consoles and altough PS3 looked smoother, it didn't convince me DICE was on top of its game, technically speaking. I'll stick with M.A.G. for now (256 players online, 30 fps vsync locked..).
    Edited by 1 at 02/03/10 @ 19:30

  • des #25 2 years ago

    "The destruction model is simply unrivalled"

    Wrong.

  • Dizzy #26 2 years ago

    Another Fps engine barely evolved for the sake of equality.

  • Froggit #27 2 years ago

    ""The destruction model is simply unrivalled"

    Wrong. "
    Correct (Edit: About it being wrong)

    "The destruction model is simply unrivalled: no other game makes you feel so immersed in what feels like an actual warzone"
    Correct
    Edited by 1 at 02/03/10 @ 20:10

  • Badassbab #28 2 years ago

    360 owners should get a patch to turn the dithering effect off and hopefully increase performance as a result.

    But congrats to DICE for actually trying to keep console parity

  • thesombrerokid #29 2 years ago

    @designerheadache
    read the passages again. It clearly says in both secions the 360 has more nicer effects but the one thing the ps3 has over the 360 is more noticable.

  • BlackANUS #30 2 years ago

    All things being equal and owning both consoles, I'll probably end up with the 360 version just for the sake of the install to hard drive option. Not having the option on the PS3 makes me worry about all the DVD/Blu-ray drive failures. The DVD drive in my 360 is also close to (or at least sounds like it will be) giving out as well, but the install to hard drive option has no doubt prolonged the life of it.

  • Nebula #31 2 years ago

    Badassbab wrote : "360 owners should get a patch to turn the dithering effect off and hopefully increase performance as a result. "

    Wouldn't disabling dithering reduce perfomance when rendering alphas?

  • Miths #32 2 years ago

    This is the first time I've actually been sitting around waiting for a face-off :).
    Some of the screenshots I had seen had made me fear the PS3 version had been shafted this time, and I was seriously considering whether I should buy the PC version instead - even if it meant taking a break every 20-30 minutes because of motion sickness (always been a severe problem for me when playing shooters on a PC monitor, but not an issue on a larger HDTV because I sit much further from the screen. Hooking up my PC and juggling keyboard and mouse in my lap or sitting hunched over the coffee table is too much of a hassle though).

    Now I'll be picking up the PS3 version on Thursday without worrying further.

  • smithdown #33 2 years ago

    Watched the PS3 v 360 vid, couldn't see a difference. Dithering?? WTF is that? Didn't see it, sorry. Only thing I noticed is one instance of better water effects on 360, but better lighting/clarity of distance on PS3 (e.g. in the snow levels).
    Clearly I ain't no tech head but I know what I likes! I'll be getting it on 360 purely because the controls feel nicer and my mates will be getting it for that. I have the first game on PS3 and loved it though. Either way is a WIN.

  • Dave52 #34 2 years ago

    hiscore: "I'll stick with M.A.G. for now (256 players online, 30 fps vsync locked..)"

    My Son bought MAG at the weekend, it looks pretty impressive.... must... resist....

  • polaris70 #35 2 years ago

    I think DICE are turning into my favourite developers. With BC1 and 2, BF1943 and DICE's understanding of its community and what it wants. Not to mention Mirror's Edge which was one of the most refreshing games I've played in years. Keep up the good work and lets get some info on ME2.

  • Buran #36 2 years ago

    I think that the article is biased against PC and the PC version utterly destroys the consoles ones. I'm talkiing as a PS3 beta player and PC beta player. Things to notice:

    1- In my "main PC" (Q6600, 4 GB RAM, GTX 275) the game runs at X2 resolution (1680 x 1050) X2 framerrate (average 50 fps) compared against PS3, and with HSAO -that works BOTH in DX 9, 10, 11. The aliasing in the PS3 version is also a crap.

    2- My "secondary PC" is a W7 Ultimate 64 with i920, 6 GB and HD 5870, seems like you didn't unlock the "ultra quality" for textures (only in DX 11) which is a shame, since the cheapest graphic cards around with DX 11 support (5570) cost no more than 80 €.

    Myself playing the beta: <a href="http://www .youtube.com/watch?v=RpfIuNQA4CA
    ">http://www .youtube.com/watch?v=RpfIuNQA4CA
    </a>

    So, Battlefield Bad Company 2 in PC provides much better filters, textures, resolution, antialiasing, shadows and particles effects, HSAO and framerrate. This is not a "marginal win". Gameplay wise the game is equally fun and greath in all systems, but in terms of visuals and technical quality is like comparing an Aston Martin against a Lada.
    Edited by 1 at 02/03/10 @ 23:30

  • fknetwork #37 2 years ago

    @ Buran
    Shut up you poo eating pc playing terd head, everyone knows the 360/ps3 can beat a pc at arm wrestling

  • Collymilad #38 2 years ago

    "They seem to conflict, on page 1 you stated the 360 graphical drawbacks were "more noticable overall" and then in conclusion told us the 360 had some "nicer" graphical implementations.

    Which is it? "

    Er, the 360 has nicer water? So it has some "nicer" bits, but the it has some bad aspects that are more noticable overall.

    @pcgamers - we know PC's are more powerful, they are competing with static pieces of hardware than are coming on 5 years old. Why you feel the need to come into these h2h's and state how mighty your pc is i do not know. Give it a rest and stop stating the bloody obvious.
    Edited by 1 at 03/03/10 @ 02:22

  • Nebula #39 2 years ago

    @Buran

    It seems they didn't have HBAO enabled as I didn't notice any SSAO effect on dark areas with objects close to surfaces. In beta that made quite a visual difference giving depth so I think you got some points. Maybe DF thought they where running in DX10 when it was DX9 or didn't restart after changing settings as you must restart game after changing some type of settings even if it doesn't say to you to do it.

    [link url=http://img85.imageshack.us/img85/8669/bfbc2pcdx10hbao.j pg
    ]http://im g85.imageshack.us/img85/8669/bf...[/link]
    [link url=http://img99.imageshack.us/img99/830/bfbc2pcdx10hbao4.j pg
    ]http://im g99.imageshack.us/img99/830/bfb...[/link]
    [link url=http://img14.imageshack.us/img14/7594/bfbc2pcdx10hbao3 .jpg
    ]http://im g14.imageshack.us/img14/7594/bf...[/link]
    [link url=http://img205.imageshack.us/img205/2776/bfbc2pcdx10h bao2.jpg
    ]http://im g205.imageshack.us/img205/2776/...[/link]
    [link url=http://img39.imageshack.us/img39/1480/bfbc2pcdx10hbao1 .jpg
    ]http://im g39.imageshack.us/img39/1480/bf...[/link]

    Edited by 3 at 04/03/10 @ 00:38

  • womble #40 2 years ago

    "I played the demo on both consoles "

    Heh, of course you did. And then you went right back to MAG...

    Sorry, it does not reek of truthiness. ;-)

    Anyway, good work as always DF.

  • M_of_the_sys #41 2 years ago

    @Collymilad

    "@pcgamers - we know PC's are more powerful, they are competing with static pieces of hardware than are coming on 5 years old. Why you feel the need to come into these h2h's and state how mighty your pc is i do not know. Give it a rest and stop stating the bloody obvious."

    Amen and +1

    Can't watch the video's from here but from the pictures that are up I have to say that the article seems pretty spot on.

  • tiny_Eggy #42 2 years ago

    Two things i tend to disagree on:

    "The destruction model is simply unrivalled: no other game makes you feel so immersed in what feels like an actual warzone: it's the next-gen evolution of Criterion's Black that we've been waiting for and it all takes place in levels with a sense of scale and wonder reminiscent of Crysis."

    The destruction isn't as impressive and dynamic as in Crysis, which is probably the reason why Crysis doesn't support destruction in multiplayer. Would be way to taxing on the netcode.

    "Remember when Digital Foundry posed the question of whether consoles could run Crysis? Some of the stages in Bad Company 2 answer the challenge much more convincingly than Crytek's own tech demos, and with DICE setting the standard here, I can't wait to see how Crysis 2 measures up in comparison."

    If you get close to objects like statics, undergrowth/overgrowth, AI etc. the texture quality is very very poor. This doesn't happen in Crysis. From a distance some of the vistas look similar but they are fake and not like in Crysis actual terrain that is part of the game.

  • Nebula #43 2 years ago

    tiny_Eggy wrote: "The destruction isn't as impressive and dynamic as in Crysis, which is probably the reason why Crysis doesn't support destruction in multiplayer. Would be way to taxing on the netcode."

    There is a huge difference. BFBC2 destruction is pretty much fully pre-computed and not realtime. This is why houses collapse in the same manner each time. Only side part rubble and generated rubble from house destruction has physics until it fades away. In Crysis it all runs with newtonian physics and nothing is precomputed. Also in Crysis there is more loose objects to rip apart and if you play multiplayer in DX10 mode you have full physics appliced to environment. And yes it is very taxing on netcode.

    tiny_Eggy wrote: "If you get close to objects like statics, undergrowth/overgrowth, AI etc. the texture quality is very very poor. This doesn't happen in Crysis. From a distance some of the vistas look similar but they are fake and not like in Crysis actual terrain that is part of the game. "

    I feel that comment from DF is very ignorant and your response is good. I find DF comment as foolish as to say MW2 visuals are as good and advanced as Uncharted 2 based on initial look disregarding tech behind each and how it looks in MOTION. Obviously Uncharted 2 is pulling much more tech.

    In the same sense comparing 'first catch visuals' and using it to claim a game with inferior tech proves X machine can handle a game with vastly superior tech in use like Crysis/CE2/CE3 is ridicolous at best. How about dynamic moving vegetation with SSS using ray casting, or high detail parallax occlusion mapped surfaces, godrays, volume clouds, 3D water, real distant landscape and not backdrop mix like BC2, physics driven individual particles counting up in the 1000's, smooth day-night dynamic light, incredibly better looking shadows etc etc you get the point. All the hightech shading that defines. What on a technical level makes BC2 look like a midget in comparision to CE2/Crysis.

    Sure artistic and first visual impressions is one thing but what is on a technical level is based around facts not opinions and BFBC2 barely touches CE2/Crysis despite me wishing it would becouse pushing the tech envelope is always good.
    Edited by 1 at 03/03/10 @ 13:03

  • CHAZBIGPOTATO #44 2 years ago

    Score draw... Nice!

  • Retroid #45 2 years ago

    Nice to see another as-close-as-damnit multiformat game.

    Hurrah!

  • Miths #46 2 years ago

    Damn those modern digital download options :). I was planning on buying the PS3 version at Gamestop tomorrow (which I probably still will, trading in MAG and Heavy Rain), but it was just too tempting to get the PC version from the EA store which should have unlocked here at Midnight (I'll find out in ten minutes).
    And you can blame EA for many things, but slow download servers certainly isn't one of them - it's maxing out my 50 Mbit line at a steady 6 MB/s.

  • TaoJay #47 2 years ago

    I'm going for PS3 over the PC, it's a while since I FPS'd on my PC, downloaded it on PC to take a look, also played the PS3 multi demo to death before making my decision, was a little disappointed with the PC Gfx on my GTX 260 & felt the PS3 is the way to go. Have it on pre-order, looking forward returning to my Killer Medic ways! :D

    Props to DICE, I didn't bother with MW2 but this is the real deal!

  • solidmgsnake #48 2 years ago

    A very well written face-off. Its good to know the technical differences between the 360 and ps3 are minimal. Good job on that Dice, but you always gotta wonder just how far they could've gone. Most of us know the console specs are very limited compared to the ultra omg awesome power from new pc hardware.. but the visual fidelity is still pretty good as seen in the vegetation scenes. Frostbite engine is lookin good. The game is also pretty fun as well as the multiplayer online. Brings back the good ol days of BF2 from PC =)

  • TheJuriel #49 2 years ago

    Finally both consoles are pretty much equal. Nice job, DICE. I've liked you ever since Pinball Fantasies on Amiga!

  • orangpelupa #50 2 years ago

    aaaa cant wait to play BFBC2 on my PC on dx10 :D (stuck with Radeon 4770 here).

    hopefully early next month the game disc will arrive in my home :D
    currently the importers said that they have problem importing original games with the police/customs ugh.

  • freakzilla #51 2 years ago

    Nice, I just became a big DICE fan. Despite time constraints, 3 platforms, and good platform parity BFBC2 looks very good in terms of graphics.

  • Miths #52 2 years ago

    Aside from Far Cry 2 (where I played the PS3 and PC versions months apart) and Street Fighter 4, I think this is the first time I've actually had a chance to compare PC and PS3 versions on my own setups.

    I'm several chapters into the singleplayer campaign on both versions (I'll be playing the PS3 version from now on, though I'll probably give PC multiplayer a try some time - when it's fixed, I couldn't find a single server last night), and aside from some fairly heavy aliasing here and there in the PS3 version, there really hasn't been anything at all yet that made me go, "that looked a lot better on PC".
    Hell, I haven't noticed any differences, but I guess that's what many of us feel it usually boils down to with these face-offs anyway, unless we're talking about crippling framerate issues or massive screen tearing, most of us would often have to scrutinize screenshots side by side to notice minor variations in textures, shadows, lighting etc., and that's obviously not how you typically play a game.

    One thing is a bit odd though - the PS3 version actually seems a tad smoother to me than the PC version, despite running at 30 fps, where I was usually between 35 and 50+ with the PC version (running Fraps to check) at 1920x1200, all settings at high, except HBAO turned off, as that made a rather significant impact on framerate (almost 10 fps).
    But I guess that might be down to the smoother movement and aiming when using a pad. I'm not used to playing shooters with mouse and keyboard, and I honestly didn't care all that much for it. Better speed and precision, but an overall much more jerky and erratic feel (given that you can move a mouse pointer so quickly), a left hand pinky that was killing me after a couple of hours of being tortured with CTRL and Shift for sprint and crouch (and there was no crouch toggle), and the lack of rumble effects on guns, vehicles and explosions that really add a nice touch to the console controls, in terms of immersion.

  • Lunatic4ever #53 2 years ago

    i fuckin hate fanboys...
    i own a 360 but of course sometimes i wish i had a ps3.
    why start being unfair? fuck it.

    cant have it all,can ya?

  • Dave52 #54 2 years ago

    Got this on the PS3 and it is truly amazing - a great game, and fantastic to see such a close comparison across all platforms.

    Well done to Dice...!

  • doulema #55 2 years ago

    Well the water is the onlything that looks really bad and thats on PS3. If i had only a PS3 and 360 Id get it on the 360. Firstly cause FPS games generally play better on the controller for me from MS and even more basic and actual reason is cause online is just better and more stable on XBL.

    As an owner of all 3 platforms released I got the game ofc for my PC and I can't bother any further ;)

  • hiscore #56 1 year ago

    DICE would have deserved a medal if they could have locked framerate WITHOUT screen tearing issues on console. I like the graphics, but it's always a shame to see those frames being torn up... Nevertheless, gameplay is fun!

  • RKOwned #57 1 year ago

    Im thinking of maybe getting that ultimate edition one day. Might go PS3 since I have atleast one person that plays it regularly on my friends list.