Battlefield Bad Company 2 Graphics comparison (PC Vs. Console)

DEMO is console and PC is BETA.

im pretty sure its a given pc version will look better but those are really poor screenshots (they arent even of the same shot).

its not like the devs have to do anything anyway "allow higher resolution, graphics card will do anti aliasing on its own even" probably took them a week to port the game.

DICE said that the PC beta was just low/medium textures. They affirmed that the PC version on high will look much better.

DICE said that the PC beta was just low/medium textures. They affirmed that the PC version on high will look much better.

andrewt1187

Okay, NOW these pictures make sense, haha.

looks the same but they are down scaled images and the pc version has bloom enabled and the game looks better without it imo. but judging by these screen shots there aren't any major differences and the higher texture detail of the pc version hasn't been implemented in the beta.DJ_Headshot

b-b-bu-bubbuuut...Pc has MODS??..!!!...ohhhssssnooooOOOssss...:)

On a serious note, they look about the same. Im sure the PC version will have tons of mods, and the graphics will be the usual 5% better. "puts on pcfanboy flame shield"

The full game for both PC and consoles will look much better than that. The Beta on PS3 at Arica Harbor looked tons better than the Beta

demo isn't dx11.

They don't even differ, plus DICE said that the PC version would be available for higher settings above medium for the full game. xD

demo isnt dx11, and ssao is off

They look the same, maybe some extra lighting effects on PC and higher rez. Anyways wasn't the beta limited to medium settings or something like that?

They look the same, maybe some extra lighting effects on PC and higher rez. Anyways wasn't the beta limited to medium settings or something like that?

glez13

The beta has an option for high settings

The PC Beta has only been given low resolution textures. The only thing that can be cranked up in the beta are the models.

[QUOTE="glez13"]

They look the same, maybe some extra lighting effects on PC and higher rez. Anyways wasn't the beta limited to medium settings or something like that?

GTSaiyanjin2

The beta has an option for high settings

Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe the beta on PC didn't include the high quality textures so as not to make the file size too large. Because of this (and the obvious fact that this is a beta) we should not bother with any comparisons until the full game comes out. Another thing that bothers me about comparisons with screenshots is that you cannot show how the game is smoother on PC.

Pc looks better by a little like every multiplat. When hermits say superior version this is exactly what they mean...which is actually little difference graphic wise. Don't get me wrong, i have a pc.. but pc multiplats NEVER blow away the console versions.. but they do look alittle better graphically.. PS not talking about mods just graphics.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe the beta on PC didn't include the high quality textures so as not to make the file size too large. Because of this (and the obvious fact that this is a beta) we should not bother with any comparisons until the full game comes out. Another thing that bothers me about comparisons with screenshots is that you cannot show how the game is smoother on PC.

arto1223

If you look closely you could see the PC version has better lighting, shadows and antialiasing. Also the beta has low res textures which will be replaced in the final product.

I wish they had given the option to download the larger file so we could try it with higher settings. When i tried the beta i thought it looked like crap to be honest.

All the PC version really needs to look better than the console version (or PS3 to be more exact since that is the one I played) is AA, becouse the PS3 demo is jaggy as hell.

Pc looks better by a little like every multiplat. When hermits say superior version this is exactly what they mean...which is actually little difference graphic wise. Don't get me wrong, i have a pc.. but pc multiplats NEVER blow away the console versions.. but they do look alittle better graphically.. PS not talking about mods just graphics.

xOMGITSJASONx

Game looks terrible on the PS3 at least so yeah the PC version is the one to get. As a matter of fact its so bad it actaully messed with my eyes a bit.

To many Jaggies! Shame that this gen of consoles didnt cut it GPU wise it really shows in wide open games like this. Im actually not buying the game after playing the demo, No Prone? On a game where cover can be destroyed are you KIDDING?

Maybe i will get the PC version god knows.

Game looks terrible on the PS3 at least so yeah the PC version is the one to get. As a matter of fact its so bad it actaully messed with my eyes a bit.

To many Jaggies! Shame that this gen of consoles didnt cut it GPU wise it really shows in wide open games like this. Im actually not buying the game after playing the demo, No Prone? On a game where cover can be destroyed are you KIDDING?

Maybe i will get the PC version god knows.

jwsoul

Yeah no prone did seem kinda silly especially when playing a sniper.

Looks very near the same. Consoles and PC's are very much catching up with each other. Yes PC can inherently do better but even three or four years back the difference between a console game and a PC game was much more drastic. These days you can still tell that the PC version looks better, but the difference, the bridge between the versions is becoming less and less, year in year out...alextherussian

Looks very near the same. Consoles and PC's are very much catching up with each other. Yes PC can inherently do better but even three or four years back the difference between a console game and a PC game was much more drastic. These days you can still tell that the PC version looks better, but the difference, the bridge between the versions is becoming less and less, year in year out...alextherussian

Unless the PC version was enhanced in some manner; I'd expect the cross platform orientation of the game to hold it back. If all the assets and settings are the same between versions then the only real main difference you will note is resolution and quality filtering, which you are hardly going to see in these downscaled images.

PC looks obviously better but the console version is incredible aswell. Imo its the best looking mp game on a console

I compared the 360 demo to the PC Beta side by side and the difference was huge tbh. The 360 demo had so many jaggies and the frame rate was all over the place. The PC version was nice and crisp with the frame rate locked at 60fps :) but the textures need to improve.

[QUOTE="alextherussian"]Looks very near the same. Consoles and PC's are very much catching up with each other. Yes PC can inherently do better but even three or four years back the difference between a console game and a PC game was much more drastic. These days you can still tell that the PC version looks better, but the difference, the bridge between the versions is becoming less and less, year in year out...windsquid9000

The difference isn't that much and beta's are usually a bit better quality than demo's.

Looks very near the same. Consoles and PC's are very much catching up with each other. Yes PC can inherently do better but even three or four years back the difference between a console game and a PC game was much more drastic. These days you can still tell that the PC version looks better, but the difference, the bridge between the versions is becoming less and less, year in year out...alextherussian

[QUOTE="alextherussian"]Looks very near the same. Consoles and PC's are very much catching up with each other. Yes PC can inherently do better but even three or four years back the difference between a console game and a PC game was much more drastic. These days you can still tell that the PC version looks better, but the difference, the bridge between the versions is becoming less and less, year in year out...anshul89

Looks very near the same. Consoles and PC's are very much catching up with each other. Yes PC can inherently do better but even three or four years back the difference between a console game and a PC game was much more drastic. These days you can still tell that the PC version looks better, but the difference, the bridge between the versions is becoming less and less, year in year out...alextherussian

Why is it people only recognise under-utilization when it comes to consoles?

holy crap the console version running on 2005 hardware holds up so well against pc version likely running on latest hardware.

holy crap the console version running on 2005 hardware holds up so well against pc version likely running on latest hardware.

sikanderahmed

Do I have to re-emphasize my above post?

[QUOTE="sikanderahmed"]

holy crap the console version running on 2005 hardware holds up so well against pc version likely running on latest hardware.

AnnoyedDragon

Do I have to re-emphasize my above post?

the point still remains...console version of BFBC2 holds up well against pc version.

the point still remains...console version of BFBC2 holds up well against pc version.

sikanderahmed

And my point still remains.

Cross platform games have historically been limited by the capability of the lowest common denominator, only on occasion do the developers choose; or are paid to enhance the PC version in some manner by a stake holder. This results in most cross platform games being a carbon copy across all target platforms, regardless of whether they are capable of more.

This however doesn't mean the PC version cannot still look better, as additional resolution and quality filtering can significantly improve the image quality of what is essentially identical assets. In this case the images being used are far too small to show the resolution difference, for all we know the PC version is running at 1600x1200 and the consoles 1280x720, the images don't show this.

What you and some others are doing are looking at two versions of a console limited game and declaring consoles are being nearly/just as powerful as PC, not recognising that the game was built with console limitations in mind. This is particularly hypocritical if the person making this claim is a console gamer, as they are refusing to recognise PC hardware is going underutilized in this case; while spending days arguing over whether a game is utilizing their console platform fully.

Common sense says PC hardware, even cheap PC hardware, is significantly more powerful because it is 2010 tech vs 2005. If this game doesn't look that better on PC when compared to consoles; it is evidence of under utilization, not that 2005 hardware can magically transcend 5 years of technological progress.

The PC version is running with low res textures...
How much alike the different versions look depends on the developer.
Games that began the development on console usually don't look that much sharper on PC.
There are many better looking games than BBC2.

[QUOTE="sikanderahmed"]

the point still remains...console version of BFBC2 holds up well against pc version.

AnnoyedDragon

And my point still remains.

Cross platform games have historically been limited by the capability of the lowest common denominator, only on occasion do the developers choose; or are paid to enhance the PC version in some manner by a stake holder. This results in most cross platform games being a carbon copy across all target platforms, regardless of whether they are capable of more.

This however doesn't mean the PC version cannot still look better, as additional resolution and quality filtering can significantly improve the image quality of what is essentially identical assets. In this case the images being used are far too small to show the resolution difference, for all we know the PC version is running at 1600x1200 and the consoles 1280x720, the images don't show this.

What you and some others are doing are looking at two versions of a console limited game and declaring consoles are being nearly/just as powerful as PC, not recognising that the game was built with console limitations in mind. This is particularly hypocritical if the person making this claim is a console gamer, as they are refusing to recognise PC hardware is going underutilized in this case; while spending days arguing over whether a game is utilizing their console platform fully.

Common sense says PC hardware, even cheap PC hardware, is significantly more powerful because it is 2010 tech vs 2005. If this game doesn't look that better on PC when compared to consoles; it is evidence of under utilization, not that 2005 hardware can magically transcend 5 years of technological progress.

Yeah you don't need expensive hardware to match the gaming consoles.

[QUOTE="AnnoyedDragon"]

[QUOTE="sikanderahmed"]

holy crap the console version running on 2005 hardware holds up so well against pc version likely running on latest hardware.

sikanderahmed

Do I have to re-emphasize my above post?

the point still remains...console version of BFBC2 holds up well against pc version.

Yeah it holds up against the PC beta which only has medium settings with most of the high end features blocked off. I may be wrong but BC2 has dx11 support.