All consoles continue to improve over time...that's been the say it has been for decades.

Uncharted 2 is better than Uncharted 1....and Uncharted 3 will be better than Uncharted 2.

Infamous 2 will be better than Infamous 1.

BFBC2 was better than BFBC1....and I'm betting that when/if BC3 comes out, it too will be better.

That doesn't sound like "maxed out" to me, imvix

So why arent the Console versions performing close to the PC version, and before you console users throw a fit and point out PC gets updated hardware. No i dont mean PCs with current hardware. BC2 even with 4yr old PC looks superior to console versions and runs at higher FPS.

If consoles did have power left over. They would atleast be beating 4yr old PCs.

In regards to Uncharted 2 and 1, they look about the same, both run at 720p 30fps, why wasnt uncharted 2 running in 1080p? if PS3 had so much power left over?. When I mentioned jumps in graphics i ment such as the one between Quake 2 and quake 3, or the one between half life 1 and half life 2, those are big jumps imo.

Changes between infamous 1 and 2 are just art design changes. Not graphical leaps at all.

There are technical changes between Uncharted 2 and Uncharted 1. Play the games. While Drake's Fortune has great visuals, Among Thieves really ups the texture count and the physics effect of the game. The set pieces are larger and more destructive. The explosions are more realistic and have more particles. There is a very high quality depth of field that you don't see in UC1. The use of hand-drawn textures allowed the developers to create very life-like environments in the forefront while using less resources in far-away landscapes. UC2 also has almost zero texture pop-in, whereas as UC1 had very noticeable texture pop-in at the start of every level.

UC2 also has 0 percent torn frames while UC1 had a significant percentage of frame-tearing. UC2 also has better motion capture animations, and much better water effects. The water in UC2 is one of the best on consoles, and the levels with rain are amazing.

You're pointing out the obvious fact that there aren't multi-generational leaps in game visuals on one gen of console. That's not fair. PCs experience new generations of raw power increases every 2 or 3 years.

Of course the difference between Half Life 2 and HL1 are great. HL1 was released in 1998 on PC and HL2 was released in 2004. That's like a 6 year difference. How can you compare that to UC2 when it came out 18 months after UC1?

PS3 games in 2012 will look a shit ton better than PS3 games from 2006. Killzone 3 looks a whole lot better than Resistance 1, doesn't it?

"Of course the difference between Half Life 2 and HL1 are great. HL1 was released in 1998 on PC and HL2 was released in 2004. That's like a 6 year difference. How can you compare that to UC2 when it came out 18 months after UC1?"

Because of huge GPU advancements on PC. The different between HL1 and HL2 are HUGE, basically like a leap to a new console gen. The different from Uncharted 1 to 2 is there, but it's not THAT big, they both still look like they would be on the same console.

It's called optimization. It's the reason console games look a bit better over the years, because devs learn new tricks and coding to make things run smoother, and they cut graphics in other areas. Say, Uncharted 1 was rendering an unnecessary sharp texture in an area nearby that you'll never see. What do they do? They learn in the next game to lower the texture resolution in nearby areas that aren't even seen by the player, and implement texture streaming.

Or maybe some sharply rendered real-time shadows from buildings in Uncharted 1 look nice, but it's hurting the performance more than they would like. In Uncharted 2, they figure out that buildings and certain other objects are completely static anyways, and so is that light source over their. Why don't we just bake those shadows to save FPS?

It's little things like that. On PC, I think their optimization style is a bit different, where they'll mainly focus on optimizing the highest settings and work their way down from there, saying "hmm in medium settings that lighting will be static and those textures will be the same, but a bit blurrier. And on low, there will be no dynamic lighting at all". There's a LOT more to it than that, and every dev does things differently, but that's really the basis. Of course the focus will always be on optimizing the engine and shaders themselves, since those are honestly the biggest factors in how something will look and run.

"All consoles continue to improve over time...that's been the say it has been for decades.

Uncharted 2 is better than Uncharted 1....and Uncharted 3 will be better than Uncharted 2.

Infamous 2 will be better than Infamous 1.

BFBC2 was better than BFBC1....and I'm betting that when/if BC3 comes out, it too will be better.

That doesn't sound like "maxed out" to me, imvix"

Yes, but those differences won't be looking like a completely different generation, where on PC, we don't exactly have generations, and we just get used to games looking better on their own after time. Every once in a while, we'll have a year or two where every game seems to get a huge graphics leap (2003-2004, 2007, possibly 2011). But Battlefield BC2 looks miles better than the console version, almost like the remastered HD PS2 releases, except the differences are a LOT bigger than just a resolution and texture increase. We get nicer shaders, post processing effects, better lighting, self-shadowing, ect.

I'm looking forward to this game more than any other shooter right now for "military" shooters.

@ Letros,

BC2 has pushed the capibilities of the 360, not PS3. Console gamers never asked for games to be easy, so I'm not sure why any developer would change any console version from the PC version.

The map size is mainly down to memory limitations. Even with worse graphics, 256 MB of system memory wouldn't allow for more epic battles.

Can someone please explain to me why Raztad is trying to hold MAG up to BF2? I am very much confuzzled.

is one seriously dated looking game as a result. I own the PS3 and MAG looks like a first gen release in order to deliver the gameplay mechanics they were after.

He's comparing their maps because they're both known to have large maps. We know at least the PS3 can handle large maps, but DICE can't take advantage of it. I swear if you just pay attention Clizzz...

WTF Cliff?

Fishy Finger said:

"The consoles dont really even offer anything on the scale of BF2/2142"

And I was wondering if that is really true. I even asked Fishy what he meant by scale, just to make sure he was actually talking about map size or number of player, number of vehicles, or whatever related to scale.

Regardless your opinion about MAG, something is true is that MAG has HUGE maps. Even if the visuals are not the best ones.

With all that said. I dont see why PC version of BF3 should suffer at all. A worthy sequel should be capable of hosting 60 players. If I remember well that was the cap.

@Raztad

If Mag has crappy graphics, then thats the compromise with having larger maps. Clearly the PS3 hardware is dated and cant handle large maps and good graphics at the same time.

If you dont think PS3 is dated, then go on please tell me 1 first person shooter on the PS3 that runs in 1080p @60fps. keep looking there are none. This is due to the fact that first person shooters are the most resource hungry genre. Consoles simply dont have the hardware to handle these games in anything beyond 720p.

Previously when consoles didnt get PC games. Games actually used to progress in graphics. Newer hardware would be needed to play newer games. Since the release of consoles and games being made with consoles in mind, even 4 yr old pc hardware plays anything consoles can and better this was simply not possible before, as newer games always looked better and demanded more powerful hardware. Thus the current misconception that PC needs upgrades every few years (or how some console fanboys keep spouting crap like updates needed every 6months).

Mag had to make some serious graphical concessions to achieve that high of a player count with large maps. Battlefield 2 on the other hand was amongst the best looking games when it came out, and as a result had some pretty high RAM requirements.