As a disclaimer, I played the BF3 beta and while admitedly the lack of a texture pack made the game look far inferior to the retail product, there was still a certain visual fidelity to the game that was recognizable. You could see that you were playing the same game as was shown in trailers.
The Warfighter beta just does not look that great. The textures and models are decent, but it's just really missing the sort of visual flair elements of Battlefield. For example, in Battlefield when you look at the sun you can see dirt on your goggles, I've been fairly impressed with their lighting and things such as shadows from trees cast onto your first-person weapon... Little details beyond the straight textures and models that make the game feel more immersive.
Beyond the lack of all that, while it helps to have your team mates outlined, it's so contrasting to have a game with so many busy HUD elements when the graphics seem so dull.
The sound seems equally dull to me as well. BF3 does a great job at making even a Glock sound powerful, while maintaining the distinct difference between it and an LMG or a sniper rifle. Warfighter seems to have the same BB-gun like sound effects that in Call of Duty would straight up make some weapons unenjoyable to use.
What I'm confused about is that the trailers look great. Obviously, BF3 did the same sort of misleading advertising wherein all footage was taken from the game playing maxed out at 60FPS on PC, but even the console versions, including the beta, looked like you were playing the same game seen in the trailers. I feel like what I've been playing is some completely different game lacking any form of visual fidelity. I'm wondering, does anyone else feel the same way? Like they're playing a completely different game? It doesn't even look like Frostbite 2 to me, I feel like I'm playing something like Operation Flashpoint or something on a different engine.