Battlefield 3 Standard Versus HD Textures Comparison (Xbox 360) | GameBlurb

GameBlurb writes, "Developers have been struggling a bit lately when it comes to porting games that have been designed around current PC specs down to the now aging home consoles. We saw it last month with the console version of ids Software’s RAGE with its rather lackluster texture and model streaming and now the latest disappointment is the Xbox 360′s on the disc HD texture pack. DICE had quite a challenge ahead of them when porting to the Xbox 360, not only were they limited in terms of space of a dual layer DVD, but also the fact that they couldn’t force people into a standard install like they can on the PlayStation 3 due to a lack of hard drives in the Xbox 360 Arcade models. Battlefield 3 was designed around streaming in textures and models to be more efficient and without the guaranteed speedy access of a hard drive some corners needed to be cut."

[jaidek]

Wow, Xbox 360 wins hands down. :)

But seriously, those textures are PS2 era.

[farhad2k8]

Does the PS3 version have the ability to install texture packages?

Why does the game look so bad without the texture packs, it's 2011, and we need a texture pack to make it look good? I thought we were advancing in technology, not going back.

BF3 was a let down for me.

[Animal Mutha 76]

Video ram.

Consoles dont have enough for the large mesh environments and high qual textures hence the need to stream.

I really dont know why MS and Sony only put 512 in. That was lower than average for a pc in 2006.

Can you imagine the diff if both units had a gig each or more.

[farhad2k8]

@Animal
Why can Uncharted make a game that looks as good as a PC game being played on ULTRA settings?
Why can't Battlefield pull that off? Until it can do something like that, it's not the 'best' FPS out there. Even MW3 has a shot at being equal, or even better.