Battlefield 3 - HD Texture Pack Comparison Graphics Test on the Xbox 360

Battlefield 3, before and after graphics comparison with and without the HD Texture Pack installed on the Xbox 360.

Battlefield 3 gives the player an option to install an HD Texture Pack to their hard drive for a gigantic 1.5 gigabytes of hard drive space. The comparison above shows the difference between the regular textures and HD textures.

From the results of the video, the HD textures are almost mandatory for a High Definition screen, as declining the install will make the game's textures look fit for a PlayStation 2 title. When the pack is installed, it will stream these quality textures from your hard drive and quickly fade in; a process almost invisible to players while shooting hoards of bad guys.

The pack is most likely due to disc space limitations. The single player disc, when installed to the hard drive, is a gargantuan 7 gigabytes, which, even with the new disc format, is not enough to store the high-rez textures.

Be sure to watch the video in 720p.

By RvBFreak

• Category

  Gaming

[thebisciouts]

cool

[fizatrickz93]

I have hd textures

[LallyOfTheValley]

I can tell the difference between 30 and 60 FPS wat

[Trogdor8freebird]

I completely agree with the frame rate comment. Most people really can't tell a difference between 30 and 60, look at Killzone Shadow Fall, for example.

However, when it comes to the graphics, the Xbox 360 doesn't hold up to medium-high end pc's (Even the $350-400 ones). The reason is due to advanced Ambient Occlusion, Anti-aliasing, Anisotropic Filtering, upscaled resolution, and so on. If you looked at a good direct comparison between the two, there would be no doubt as to which looks better.

[Antonio Manna]

no texture hd no party

[SophosHD]

FILTHY CONSOLE CASUALS

[brantleynt]

its not fake

[yannickbond98]

Fake Asshole

[The Cloud Maker]

both franchises have become shit. Battlefield was about realism and strategy, not graphics and ease. Call of duty was about unique campaigns, not online. They're both shit in my book. Hopefully Arma doesn't go in that same direction.

[steven shearing]

How many times have I got to say it, 30fps is perfectly playable and many users can't tell the different between 60fps and 30fps.

and if your playing on a console you are normally more then 3 meters from your screen at which point you can't see the different between 720p and 1080p.

Slightly less graphics will save big bucks.