Battlefield 3 on Xbox Looks Awful Without HD Texture Pack
- Thread starter Hevva
- Start date
Awww that just looks bad. I am sure if they could have managed to fit all the HD graphics data onto the disk for 360 they would have, and this was the easiest and probably the best method of dealing with the issue with having so little space.
On these kind of notes though, when you're facing these kind of differences between platforms, surely we're expecting some update to the xbox console - like a new one - soon anyway?
On these kind of notes though, when you're facing these kind of differences between platforms, surely we're expecting some update to the xbox console - like a new one - soon anyway?
For one, you're measuring the tertiary platform of one game versus the primary platform of the other. And CoD doesn't need an HD texture pack, because it's on a 10ish year old engine. BF3 is the first game to use Frostbite 2.0. It might need more space, to you know, stretch it's legs. Space a DVD clearly wasn't going to provide.arealperson said:
Saying you can't include the HD texture pack in the comparison is like saying to compare BF3 and CoD but saying you can't count the CoD multi-player in the argument.
That's something a (possibly) vocal minority of 360 owners never do.MiracleOfSound said:
Oh wait...
And this is precisely why we need new consoles. The PS3 and the xBOx 360 are holding EVERYBODY back. The PC has the power but very few companies actually use it because they're all too console centric in their development.
But seriously, no, the frostbite 2 engine is a serious step-up on the Frostbite 1/1.5 engine. Holding back progress just because of Sony and Microsoft refusing to update their seriously outdated hardware? No thank you.
Out. Get out, right now.Frost27 said:
But seriously, no, the frostbite 2 engine is a serious step-up on the Frostbite 1/1.5 engine. Holding back progress just because of Sony and Microsoft refusing to update their seriously outdated hardware? No thank you.
If if looks like that... They don't look awful? Those graphics look pretty great to me... Am i missing something here?
Did people not watch Major Nelson's segment when he announced that X-Boxes would now be able to use usb flash drives? Seriously there's a video explaining it on X-Box live under the hardware tutorials section. You don't even Gold account to watch it. Just go to Walmart and buy a five dollar flash drive if it's that much of an issue. Considering the software used to make Battlefield 3 it's a miracle the X-Box can run it at all.
This is nothing. All the patches and map updates for Battlefield: Bad Company 2 took up about 2.5 gigs of space when it was all said and done.
This is nothing. All the patches and map updates for Battlefield: Bad Company 2 took up about 2.5 gigs of space when it was all said and done.
No, this is what happens when one of the platforms your are working on doesn't allow huge storage space and is starting to show it's age.Hevva said:
If it were about having the PC as a lead platform surely it would follow that the PS3 version would suffer from the same problems?
The one multiplatform AAA game that comes out this year(and in a long time) which finally uses the PC as lead platform and still people moan.
Also BF was always a game originating and made for the PC.
Grant us at least the few specs of happiness we can gleam from these bad-console-port infested times PC gamers currently live in.
Consoles already get everything everything else. Custom made with a huge budget. PC gamers tend to get the budget-cut scraps most of the time.
/grumble.
What I want to how, is how much the gameplay experience is really enhanced by the admittedly much better looking HD graphics. Or are they just there to distract players from the fact that the gameplay doesn't live up to what would now be considered a low-definition graphics experience from 10 years ago?
some how, i knew you'd say that, and it still sounds as stupid as i figured.Vibhor said:
its not about 'keeping up', your making the mistake in think 'just cause its older and thus under powered it has to look like shit with out this texture pack' which is laughably wrong and ignorant. I've seen Nintendo field some jaw dropping graphics on their underpowered systems, i see ZERO legitimate reason they could not mange to make the game just look good. especially with all the hype surrounding 'how pwetty' it is . which ironically looks MORE fake and plastic-y to me. *shrugs*
>.> AND WHY THE HELL AM I ARGUING OVER A GAME I'M NEVER GOING TO PLAY ON A SYSTEM I'D NEVER BUY >.<
Even if the textures are bad, if the game runs and plays well does seeing a wall's graffiti really matter? It's not like it's using 8-bit sprites or something inferior. So what if you can't gaze lovingly at that treads of a tire you're using for cover. As long as I can see the enemies coming at me, I can live with not being able to make out a broken bricks on a wall 30ft away.
This has been the new trend lately it seems. And its one i have a big issue with. There is never any indication on the box that such a texture pack is required, so people with 360 arcades, have zero warning that the brand new console game they just payed 60 dollars for looks like total ass. And since theres no way to know that until you actual open it up and play it you can't return the damn thing for full retail. It doesn't effect me because i've got a 360S but it makes me angry. Its shady, and underhanded.
