Submitted by MattyF 1534d ago | news

Battlefield 3: 30FPS on Consoles, Dice Explains Why 60FPS Not Possible

New information has surfaced today about how the game will run on home consoles and it has been confirmed the game will not hit 60 frames-per-second. Instead the game will run lower due to technical restraints of the current technology level of the home consoles. (Battlefield 3, PC, PS3, Xbox 360)

Alternative Sources
« 1 2 3 »
NYC_Gamer  +   1534d ago
new hardware is needed for this reason and many others
Abash  +   1534d ago
I'd rather have nice looking visuals than dated tech running at 60 fps (Modern Warfare 3). I'm sure DICE worked as hard as they could to get the game looking like that on consoles. If Battlefield fans want 60 fps and 64 player matches, they should shell out the cash for a PC that can handle it
#1.1 (Edited 1534d ago ) | Agree(77) | Disagree(32) | Report | Reply
MitchGE  +   1534d ago
God Of War III runs at 60fps and looks a lot better than Battlefield 3 on consoles. Hell it's still the best looking console game out there in my eyes.
gamingdroid  +   1534d ago
I would rather have faster response time i.e. 60 fps, as I care more about game play than visuals.

Then again, 30fps is still decent if it maintains that.
#1.1.2 (Edited 1534d ago ) | Agree(70) | Disagree(6) | Report
meetajhu  +   1534d ago
Rage looks and runs better in 60fps and its a sandbox game.

console footage:

not every one is john carmack
#1.1.3 (Edited 1534d ago ) | Agree(45) | Disagree(61) | Report
St0  +   1534d ago
You can see they had to reduce texture resolution for the consoles to achieve 60fps on Rage though

mtm5925  +   1534d ago
60fps is nothing to to with low res textures in Rage.

media storage is the only limiting factor in virtual texturing.
flankhim  +   1534d ago
Yet it is possible for call of duty. Take that BF fanboys!
St0  +   1534d ago
Ofcourse texture resolution makes a difference to framerate lol. Your also right about disk space though
Angels3785  +   1534d ago

Thats because MW3 is running on ancient tech and is not even in the same graphical league as BF3.
Newtype  +   1534d ago
MW never ran at 60FPS on console.
mtm5925  +   1534d ago
@St0 You're right on static or dynamic texturing, but not on virtual texturing.


Inside_out  +   1534d ago
More Dice excuses...
WoW, since E3 it's excuses and more excuses. First Johnny boy at EA was like Booby Kotick thinks that the E3 footage was PC then he is in real trouble, then it was console footage would be shown on the Jimmy Fallon show for the first time...O_o...then all the excuses of why the PS3 footage looked no different than an Xbox 1 game from 2004. Now it's something else, 60 fps is to hard and resource sapping...lol.

Some games will run better at 30fps than others and the same for 60 fps. Where 60 fps really pays off is in very fast moving scene's and action like in Forza 4 or GT. MW3 is all about fast, explosive action and the devs from the get go wanted 60fps and in that case it really paid off as there is a clear advantage in COD over the wannabes. Another area is in all the in game cines that look so great in MW3 and Battlefield 3 like when they were running down that alley with the dog barking in the background behind the fence...extremely smooth. That scene and others like it will have to be cut scenes to maintain the same level of fidelity. Lately, motion blur has come to the forefront as a way to try and blend the background and make things appear smoother at lower frame rates. KZ3 and Gears 3 are a couple fantastic examples.

As more and more information comes out as the final release date nears, people will see that big mouth Dice, while calling all other devs lazy, will be shown to be no different. They are gimping the console version and everybody suppose to pay $10 more for the privilege.
#1.1.11 (Edited 1534d ago ) | Agree(19) | Disagree(50) | Report
vulcanproject  +   1534d ago
St0 - Texture fillrate is kinda important...

In the case of framerate, its all about getting your frame rendered and output to the front buffer in time. The more you add to it, the more complex it is, the more passes you add, the more difficult it is to fit it inside that 1/60th of a second on console hardware for 60 frames.

Most console games start out with a budget of 1/30th of a second for 30 frames and i think they will continue to do so, exceptions being where developers value a fast response over better visuals. This is still mostly racing simulations on console, with the odd shooter.

In the end it is a developer's decision, and developers might feel that console gamers care more that their title looks good compared to competing games rather than how much quicker it responds- which isn't something you can easily convey in screenshots or videos. This is why most would still choose 30 frames.

As for the COD games, we know how they make 60 frames, and it is by compromising elsewhere. Most signifcantly for me is the resolution where the titles run only about 67 percent of the res of a 1280 x 720 title on console.
#1.1.12 (Edited 1534d ago ) | Agree(13) | Disagree(1) | Report
AAACE5  +   1534d ago
It's starting to feel like DICE are saying..."F*ck console gamers, no matter which system they own!"

Why even show the footage to us if that's not what we're getting?

I guess they are trying to get us to buy high end PC's! I am starting to downgrade this game in my day 1 buy list!
#1.1.13 (Edited 1534d ago ) | Agree(8) | Disagree(39) | Report
ALFAxD_CENTAURO  +   1534d ago
Even at 30FPS, BF3 still looking better than the rehashed COD in every way.

COD is using the same engine over again. BF3 is a Generation above MW3.
#1.1.14 (Edited 1534d ago ) | Agree(30) | Disagree(9) | Report
NBT91  +   1534d ago
MitchGE - God of War 3 is an irrelevant example in comparison. It is a different genre for one, and an exclusive for another.
Ducky  +   1534d ago
"Why even show the footage to us if that's not what we're getting?"

They're showing you footage of a game that you can get. They never state that the game you buy will look like that, only that it can look that good, and anyways, it doesn't make much sense to be showing an inferior version of a game in order to promote.
#1.1.16 (Edited 1534d ago ) | Agree(11) | Disagree(2) | Report
BeOneWithTheGun  +   1534d ago
@mitchge In all fairness, GOW 3 does not have destructible environments and is really linear. If Kratos was able to interact with all that stuff going on in the background, in a non-scripted event, then there is no way they could have kept it locked at 60fps.
#1.1.17 (Edited 1534d ago ) | Agree(19) | Disagree(4) | Report
Shackdaddy836  +   1534d ago
@mitch God of War is a completely different type of game.
Lifendz  +   1534d ago
I'm beginning to feel like how a non-hockey fan in Vancouver must have felt following the recent riots. Guys, I don't get why so many of you are outraged over this game. Every story to come out about this game thus far have resulted in nerd rage and I don't get it.
1) Pre-order exclusives. No biggie to me but you would've thought BF3 said no DLC for a console.
2) Live-footage of the PS3 version not looking as good as the PC version. Seriously, who expected it to. Still looks better than MW3.

and now we're upset it's not 60 fps?
evrfighter1  +   1534d ago
hopefully by now DICE is sick of the console community and starts pushing EA to let them get back to their pc roots.

and cod is not even hd lol
#1.1.20 (Edited 1534d ago ) | Agree(12) | Disagree(3) | Report
Theonetheonly  +   1534d ago
Dude consoles got the benefit with every other game for the last 6 years, the only reason the pc version didnt look miles better is because they didnt go there and left out uneccessarry detail.

Now we finally get one of our favorites who took the time (From Our OWN DAMN developer and sub-genre nonetheless) and you all bitch about it?

I say its about time we didnt get the shaft.

i think its pretty meniacal that anyone thought any of that 60 fps 1080 6k textures would come out of this.

come on think realistically
socomnick  +   1533d ago
Yup 60 fps is way more desirable for shooters.

60 fps means lower controller input lag.

This is why people often feel like cod has the best shooter controls out there.

Its the super smooth fast controller input lag that is a direct result of 60 fps.
snipes101  +   1533d ago
The whole console community is starting to look like a bunch of petulant children. WE'RE GETTING THE GAME < why can't we just look at the good in that? I wouldn't blame Dice for saying fuck it and never giving us console gamers a game again the way we're acting about this.

I swear for all the good this generation brought to the gaming community it seems that all anyone can talk about anymore is the stupid tech. Why can't we talk about how the damn things play anymore?
lil Titan  +   1533d ago
@flankhim when the company has the same engine since 2007 i wouldnt be surprised that they could do it.

Everyone needs to give Dice a break i mean throw darts at them if they cant hit 60fps on Bad Company 3 but for Battlefield 3 they still getting used to the tech people i mean even Killzone 2 as amazing that game looked was 30fps its only until Killzone 3 that they hit 60fps
evrfighter1  +   1533d ago
so console gamers want 1080p and they want 60fps...

im trying to contain my laughter here. they got a taste of what pc gaming is and now they don't wanna go back.

can't blame em
starchild  +   1533d ago
lil titan, you don't know what you are talking about.

Killzone 3 does not operate at 60fps. It actually fluctuates between about 20fps and 30fps...mostly between 25fps and 30fps.

The only shooters that I can think of that run at 60fps on consoles are The COD games and the upcoming Rage.

The vast majority of console games run at 30fps or lower.

Battlefield 3 is one of the best looking games on consoles, has destruction unlike any other, and runs at the same frame rate the vast majority of console games run at. What's the problem again?
Shepherd 214  +   1533d ago
Is everyone here somehow forgetting that Battlefield 3 supports a full-on destructible environment system? Maybe that's why 60FPS is impossible for BF3 to achieve but Rage, COD, and GOW3 can do it? And lets not forget that the console version of BF3 is no slouch in the graphics department either.

dgroundwater  +   1533d ago
Rage won't have near the onscreen carnage of a typical BF3 scene in SP or MP either. The player cap alone prevents a 60FPS load on an old console.
#1.1.28 (Edited 1533d ago ) | Agree(1) | Disagree(0) | Report
Voxelman  +   1533d ago
God of war 3 actually fluctuates between 30-60fps they gave up on 60 before the game shipped...
Enate  +   1534d ago
New tech to soon will result in only a slight increase and it will be outdated instantly. Leaps must be made in all avenues in order to warrant a new console. It is not a PC with incremental upgrades. PS1 to PS2 to PS3 were all huge steps not just giving you the ability to play at a higher resolution. It takes much more then that an a slight increase all around.

When new consoles come out or at least Sony's it has always been a leap from the predecessor. There are so many things to consider when bringing out a new console I don't think a lot of people consider. If you look at what it takes to run every game on PC 1080p 60fps max settings its far to expensive. Sandy Bridge is a leap look at the $225 i5 2500k next last gens 980x $1000 processor. An you will understand what a leap is. Cost met power and performance this must happen in every aspect for a new console to come out. Graphics cards have still yet to meet a jump like that with cost and performance.
#1.2 (Edited 1534d ago ) | Agree(5) | Disagree(10) | Report | Reply
Enate  +   1533d ago
Yea ok 8 disagrees but not 1 reply they really need to make it mandatory to reply if you wish to disagree. I would love to see why all these people seem to disagree.
arjman  +   1533d ago
I can't tell you how wrong you are about pc gaming being expensive, a decent mid range card can max out most games of today at 1080p 60fps. Also, pretty much any tri or quad core processor can reach the magical 60fps (with the right gpu), you just listed the most expensive processor you can think of, a phenom 955 can max out most games today and thats dirt cheap.

You don't need to spend thousands of dollars to see how much better pc games look...
#1.2.2 (Edited 1533d ago ) | Agree(5) | Disagree(3) | Report
Enate  +   1533d ago
arjman You fail to realize I said all games for a reason. Some is such a vague word. The reason I say all is because the next step people seem to expect nex gen to go is 1080p. Quite a few people today still need to upgrade to keep the latest games 60fps 1080p max settings. Unless you dropped a grip on your current graphics card.
#1.2.3 (Edited 1533d ago ) | Agree(1) | Disagree(0) | Report
RBLAZE1988  +   1534d ago
I still am dumbfounded that developers have to explain why it's 30 fps and not 60 fps...The graphics push the console there is no way that most games out now can do 60 fps on consoles. The only way that the COD games can do it every year is because everything in those games is prerendered...pre-rendered shadows, lighting, etc...There is nothing that is dynamic and interactive in terms of graphics and that's why cod can run at 60 fps. Most graphics engines today support dynamic graphics techniques like global lighting and illumination, SSAO and dynamic soft shadows...If people are going to bitch they should at least research what they're bitching about before opening their mouths.
#1.3 (Edited 1534d ago ) | Agree(15) | Disagree(1) | Report | Reply
RankFTW  +   1534d ago
Developers have to keep explaining this because most people are thick. It was pretty obvious from day 1 that this game would not run at 1080p or 60fps on consoles.
hiredhelp  +   1534d ago
First few ppl start moaning not same as PC
Then its a fuss about it being in 720p
And now frame rate holly *****
Xavy  +   1534d ago
True that, but we will have to wait a bit. Surely both sony an MS want to sqeeze every drop of $ from there consoles.
BF3 loooks nice thou =)
50Terabytespersec  +   1534d ago
DUHHHH DEE DEE DEE , did we really need an explanation for this/??
IF PS3 HAD 2GB of Expandable RAM this wouldn't be an issue!!!
PC Cards have more RAM and that is the MAJOR game changer!!!
How many frames and polygons and textures can you fit into measly 256MB or 512 ??? sound Physics all that!!
I will not buy a Next Gen console unless it has a Minimum of 2GB VRAM!! Dedicated FAST RAM
for a CPU that is starving
the Bandwidth and the small Ram combo is useless it hit it's RAM Max years ago and Bluray has so much data to offer (F' you cheap Sony!!). devolpers are constantly coping with ram limited BS!!
#1.6 (Edited 1534d ago ) | Agree(13) | Disagree(3) | Report | Reply
Organization XII  +   1533d ago
couldn't said it any better myself! +Bubs
showtimefolks  +   1534d ago
i am all for new hardware but RAGE is doing 60fps so its possible to do so on these consoles with amazing graphics that RAGE is showing it can be done.
sarlucic  +   1533d ago
Do rage have the destruction that bf 3 have? The same lightning? And so on. And on top of that, if you ever been involved in game development you would know that they start with deciding how many fps they want the game to run at, and then build the game around that. It is not something easily changed afterwards, and higher fps always comes at a cost. They write large documents of several hundred pages of every single item in the game, with all props, down to a little brick. The poly count, texture size, texture bits, and how many draw calls every item cost. And after that they sit in profilers and look at graphs to make changes that take days just to get 0.3 fps more.

and so on. Fact is, this game look amazing on really old hardware, and the destruction is a technical wonder.
showtimefolks  +   1533d ago
and where did i say Bf3 doesn't look good my point was to the other person that if someone wants to achieve they can make a game run 60fps

BF fanboys are just as bad as COD
AKS  +   1534d ago
WTF is going on with these articles informing us of what just about everyone has known for years. No, the consoles aren't going to have a game as demanding as BF3 running at 1080p. Cranking everything and trying to do 1080p and above could be challenging for many PCs.

What's next with these lame articles? "Console Versions Can Not Match Crossfired 6990s" "Console Versions Do Not Feature 32x TSAA" Yeah, I already knew that. Anyone with a bit of common sense could predict the stuff they keep rambling about.
Enate  +   1533d ago
Thank you AKS that's what I've been saying. This game 1080p max everything is going to take quite a rig to run at 60fps locked.
Dude420  +   1534d ago
For the record, God of War 3 is not, I repeat, NOT constantly 60fps. It's very noticeable when there's a lot going on. It's 60 fps when there's no action. However there are exceptions, some battles in small areas are 60 fps, but places with no action but a lot of detail can have frame rate drops as well
#1.9 (Edited 1533d ago ) | Agree(6) | Disagree(1) | Report | Reply
t0mmyb0y  +   1533d ago
Are lots of people actually complaining about BF3?? I keep seeing these articles, but why not about other games that aren't "1080p and 60 FPS". What is this world coming to?
subtenko  +   1533d ago
GOW3 was 60fps.... point made...

There are other ps3 games that are 60fps so when I read the title of this article I was like wtf...

I know I remember of the specs for ps3 exclusives being 60fps when I was reading up on certain games.

So its possible and its done.
Aarix  +   1530d ago
-_- as said above god of war was not locked at 60fps during most battles with alot going on the framerate goes down. If Kratos was able to interact with all that stuff going on in the background, in a non-scripted event, then there is no way they could have kept it locked at 60fps.
Kon  +   1534d ago
People are having such high expectations for the console version. What did you guys expected? 60FPS ,1080p, 64players?
Ser  +   1534d ago
You act as if 64 players can't be done on consoles. :P
-Alpha  +   1534d ago
Not with total real time destruction and some other tradeoffs
vsr  +   1534d ago
@ Kon
As a PS3 gamer I expect 1080p 60fps (like GT5/wipeout)

64 players like resisence/mag

what did xbox guys expected ?
soundslike  +   1534d ago
I believe DICE said they didn't try to make a trade off for 64 players because it wasn't in "demand", not because it wasn't possible.

But I take that as a "we could, but you probably wouldn't like the result"
Scroticus  +   1533d ago

Dude, I'm sorry....But PS3 doesn't run many 1080p games either.

Mag? Runs at 720p Maximum.
Resistance? 720p as well.

What do them console guys expect? PC?
Dude420  +   1533d ago
@ vsr

I thought GT5 ran at 1280x1080 during races? That's not real 1080p, that would be 1920x1080.

Edit: Ah yes that's what I thought, quote from Digital Foundry.

"The game still renders at native 720p with 4x multi-sampling anti-aliasing (MSAA) when your XMB is set to 720p mode, while the resolution shifts to 1280x1080 with 2x quincunx (QAA) when the 1080p mode is engaged. So we're not seeing anything like native 1080p resolution here, but you are getting a 50 per cent increase in the number of pixels rendered."
#2.1.5 (Edited 1533d ago ) | Agree(2) | Disagree(0) | Report
RedDead  +   1534d ago
Sony said it would be the norm, even advertised it on the back of their box.
fireplace  +   1534d ago
They also advertised SA-CD and Linux.
Ser  +   1534d ago

My bad, lack of clarity on my part. I meant that 64 players is way more realistic than native 1080p and 60fps.

I'm speaking for all console shooters, not just BF3.
jdfoster00  +   1534d ago
Don't forget MAG wasn't a 64 player game... It was a 128 player game... (1 side) ....(If you count both sides it adds up to 256 people online) Yes MAG was capable of delivering 256 players with super visuals (No real time destruction though)
BeOneWithTheGun  +   1534d ago
@jdfoster. Super visuals? MAG? I respectfully beg to differ. It looked like Homefront.
DirtyLary  +   1534d ago
Sorry Jdfoster00 MAG textures were low also.
Aarix  +   1530d ago
@Jdfoster00 and it looked like a ps2 game
tmoss726  +   1534d ago
Yeah seriously, I think they're doing a good job for 5-6 year old hardware. People expect the game to look the same as PC.
subtenko  +   1533d ago
the Playstation 3 game MAG has 256 player. xbox fans said it would lag but there is no lag at all,lol. I love Sony 1st party servers <3

biggest fps out there. I will still get BF3 tho, just to add to the diversity. MAG, BF3, KZ3. eh...I wanna add UT3 but...no one plays the mods online for some strange reason..
lazertroy  +   1534d ago
360 version not PS3. I guarantee you both version will look Identical which means only one thing.
#3 (Edited 1534d ago ) | Agree(6) | Disagree(15) | Report | Reply
DirtyLary  +   1534d ago
No they wont. Bc2 PS3 and XBOX were completely different looking. Zoom in a tree and you'll see how they dumbed down the visuals on the xbox vs the ps3. Past it's prime hardware.
#3.1 (Edited 1534d ago ) | Agree(6) | Disagree(8) | Report | Reply
Gunshot  +   1534d ago
We need new consoles, current gen is getting a bit long in the tooth.
waltyftm  +   1534d ago
No we dont, No they aint.
Gunshot  +   1534d ago
This is why I prefer gaming PC, yes it can get expensive, but its worth it. I'm not at the mercy of Sony or Microsoft, just at the mercy of game devs :)
BeOneWithTheGun  +   1534d ago
I think that they are. Once console gaming hits the "gaming PC" benchmarks, then we have hit the apex. 1080p, MP with more than 12-24 people and 60fps minimum. That is needed ASAP.
-Alpha  +   1534d ago
We dont. PC hardware has always been a step ahead. Consoles are fine churning out quality titles, but they'll always be behind the PC
soundslike  +   1534d ago
Which is why when people get tired of this gen they should all build a new PC and drive the prices even further down for everyone else
SuicideShaun  +   1534d ago
Like I always, a console is like the normal version of a car, but if you are an enthusiast, you buy the gt. If you all really want the best results stop trying so hard to defend your console, and get a pc.
KRATOS-PS3  +   1534d ago
Uncharted 3 will melt your PC.
iamgoatman  +   1534d ago
Oh please, my PC could run Uncharted 3 in hibernation mode.
Caleb_141  +   1534d ago
My PC would melt Uncharted 3... yeah I went there
BeOneWithTheGun  +   1534d ago
Your Dell Latitude, sure.
caboose32  +   1533d ago
Wow, ps3 fanboys really think too highly of Uncharted 3 graphics. I mean really guys? It's a beautiful game, but there is no reason to be SOOOO damn ignorant.

Your stupidity never ceases to amaze me.
Bolts  +   1533d ago
LOL Uncharted 3 on my laptop easy. Really arguing horse power with the PC is just stupid and this gen of consoles are clearly showing their age.
death2smoochie  +   1533d ago
You must be taking something


Uncharted 3?

No destruction in real time.
No lighting dynamic in real time.
Low HDR.
Limited vehicle use.
Pre calculated and baked effects like 99% of console games.
Ya I am sure Uncharted will melt my PC that is equipped running Quad crossfire with two 5970's in tow.....
ktr  +   1534d ago
John Carmack wants a word with you.
SKUD  +   1534d ago
He'll tell you. PC > console. Glad we had this talk.
Mr Patriot  +   1534d ago
epic name
Bolts  +   1533d ago
Since when did Carmack ever favored consoles over PC? If the entire console market implode and vanish tomorrow he'll pop a cork and celebrate.
Raven_Nomad  +   1534d ago
I find it funny that people are so quick to overlook the horrid 30 FPS that BF3 is going to offer, yet if MW3 had a locked 30 FPS it would be viewed as utter trash.

I'm not saying MW3 is perfect or that COD is perfect, but you people know damn well if the roles were reversed you'd be all over it.
Ser  +   1534d ago

Bad Company 2 was 30fps and I still prefer it over ANY CoD game to date.
SweatyFlorida  +   1534d ago
Its a Nomad comment,don't take it seriously Drak :p BC2 FTW until BF3 shows up ^^
#6.1.1 (Edited 1534d ago ) | Agree(8) | Disagree(4) | Report
Raven_Nomad  +   1534d ago
For a fast paced FPS it needs to be 60 FPS. When I used to go from playing COD4 on the Xbox 360 to playing it on the PS3 and with the difference in frame rate drop it would give me headaches.

On top of that shooters feel slow and unresponsive at only 30 FPS. With amazing games like Rage and every COD game running at 60 FPS, it seems like a BS cop out to me. I am not concerned with it being up to par with PC games, but 60 FPS is something that is very much doable these days.
Angels3785  +   1534d ago

U kno how stupid that sounded? The difference in frame rate with COD 4 between 360 and PS3 was AT MOST a 10FPS difference so 360 ran at 60 fps and PS3 ran at 50fps on average so that means at some points the PS3 and 360 versions would reach the same level of fps (like when the fps drops in the 360 version). Plus what is even more stupid is that fact that 30 fps and up the difference is invisible to the human eye! Also how many console games these days run at 60 fps? Barely any compared to the amount that don't. It is VERY hard to get consoles to shell out 60 fps unless they tone down the resolution of textures (just like they did with RAGE all current generation COD games and BF3). So yes RAGE and COD may be running at 60 fps on consoles, but they wont look nearly as good as their PC counterparts. Developers need to make sacrifices in order to achieve 60fps on current hardware. Don't try and say your special or something THE ENTIRE HUMAN RACE cannot see a difference between 30 and 60 fps! It is not detectable by the human eye!
#6.1.3 (Edited 1534d ago ) | Agree(5) | Disagree(12) | Report
Ducky  +   1534d ago
" THE ENTIRE HUMAN RACE cannot see a difference between 30 and 60 fps! It is not detectable by the human eye!"

I really hate seeing this comment. It is a completely false statement. A healthy human eye can detect changes even above 60fps.

Also, higher frame-rate's major advantage isn't in visual fluidity, but rather, it is in the response and control of the game since the response time is decreased.
Whether people realize it or not, but the 60fps that CoD has is one of the reasons many are hooked to it. It offers a 'feeling' that other games can't match since they don't match the frame-rate.
#6.1.4 (Edited 1534d ago ) | Agree(8) | Disagree(7) | Report
xabmol  +   1533d ago
Fighter pilots can see up to 120fps.

That's only because of training, but after a few years of high spec gaming I'm sure even Joe the plumber would see the difference.
bumnut  +   1534d ago
30 fps is fine if its smooth.

Previous BF games (on console) have been 30 fps too so nothing has changed, whats the problem with that?

If BC 2 was 60 fps and BF 3 is 30, your point would be valid.
Darkfocus  +   1534d ago
because COD looks to crappy to not be at 60fps, hell it doesn't even run at 720p.... battlefield looks at least twice as good and has destructible environments on top of that...
TheCampfireSong  +   1534d ago
Could it be just the limitation on the Xbox360?
THWIP71  +   1534d ago
Of course....
...which is why the Killzone , Uncharted, and Resistance franchises are ALL 720p and 30 FPS.

GTFO troll.
TheCampfireSong  +   1534d ago
I was never comparing any games Troll.

Can't ask a question around here without being called something.
BeOneWithTheGun  +   1534d ago
What 360 games offer the level of graphics that Uncharted and Killzone have? I would think that Uncharted looks a lot prettier than Left4Dead.
Graphics  +   1534d ago
Isn't Crisis 2 on consoles best on 360? And isn't that supposedly the best looking console game? I don't know how you fanboys still talk down on xbox graphical capabilities. I quit that a while ago, we get proven wrong with 90% of the multiplats already. Quit making your excuses.
Bolts  +   1533d ago
I dunno, if the 360 is so limited then how come most multiplat games look and runs better?
slavish3  +   1534d ago
why do ps3 fanboys fail to see the all consoles are dated inlcluding ps3 don;t like it get a high-end pc.
FlyShootRaceSims  +   1533d ago
What? My PS3 is an uber supercomputah! Lol, I kid, I kid!
kingdoms  +   1534d ago
Yes it's the 360 that makes multiplatform games suffer resulting in 98 percent of games superior on the 360 and inferior on ps3 unless the devs of course purposely make the ps3 version better to win over ps3 fanboys. I wish Dice never tried to use ps3 fanboys and the ps3 version to win hearts and minds and to try and one up activation because this marketing tactic always backfires on the game and ps3 fanboys making them even more rabid.

Dice/EA are trying to condition the ps fans to except BF3 as the COD on ps like COD is on xbox. They think the ps base allegiance to COD isn't as strong and can be won over but they're wrong. COD on ps is the most popular franchise aswell with equally loyal followers granted people prefer the 360 for online gaming so there is a larger core base on xbox.
#7.3 (Edited 1534d ago ) | Agree(13) | Disagree(6) | Report | Reply
Raider69  +   1534d ago
I normally dont take position but in this case it seems actually true that DICE and EA are in the hype for the PS3 version of BF3 because they think its the platform were they can gather more players and even take some from COD 3,but i have a feeling ( and note im not a MP gamer!)they will end up losing by going this way.Not to mention that making the PS3 version enter on a PR hyperball like already is and not showing any care for the 360 BF fan base is going to get them a harsh reception from xbox 360 users!Its not admissible at this stage that not one trailers has been shown for the 360 version and no support words weither.
#7.3.1 (Edited 1534d ago ) | Agree(3) | Disagree(0) | Report
thespaz  +   1532d ago

What about 90% of multiplatform games being only shown on the 360 for trailers and gameplay previews?

Can the PS3 have some multiplatform love now?
SuperSaiyan4  +   1534d ago
Need new consoles
512mb is just not cutting it anymore considering you have to split it between cpu and gpu its not enough. Also I saw console version of BF3 the other day and it looked rather well poor...I guess it's not suprising indeed PC version will always look better especially if you have £400+ to throw at a graphics card only to be replaced by a better one a month or so later...
mcsm  +   1534d ago
Majority of gamers dont give a shit about fps, the only ones who keep droning on about it think it wil make their penis bigger, 30fps is fine.
#9 (Edited 1534d ago ) | Agree(20) | Disagree(7) | Report | Reply
DirtyLary  +   1534d ago
Ya right XBOX is all about COD/HALO/Gears rinse repeat milking.
AdrianHD  +   1533d ago
I like how Gears is included in there when Uncharted has had more games out in less of a time frame than Gears. Resistance is at the same pace. Both inFamous and LBP have produced sequels in the same amount of time as Gears goes between games. And, well... let's not get into Ratchet and Clank.
Zynga  +   1533d ago
And the PS3 is all about killzone, rachet & clank, resistances and uncharted rinse and repeat. So what's your point?
#9.1.2 (Edited 1533d ago ) | Agree(7) | Disagree(2) | Report
ZombieNinjaPanda  +   1533d ago

Don't talk shit about Ratchet and Clank, it's a good series.

KillerPwned  +   1534d ago
These articles are making it seem like people cant understand that the console versions will be inferior compared to PC. It is a simple fact the hardware in consoles cannot amount to the hardware in PC`s right now. But still these consoles have a lot of power behind them hence why i see this console gen last longer then normal. It would be very cost efficient to the consumer and companies.
maniac76  +   1534d ago
durrr,like they need to explain why 60fps isnt possible on consoles. this article is for 10 year olds
Clayman  +   1534d ago
I honestly don't see any difference between 60 and 30 fps anyway, so..
T3MPL3TON  +   1534d ago
Because we (meaning the entire human race) can't see the difference. To our eyes there is no difference.
BioRevenant  +   1534d ago

"I will explain to you how the Human Eye can perceive much past the mis conception of 30 FPS and well past 60 FPS, even surpassing 200 FPS."


#12.1.1 (Edited 1534d ago ) | Agree(6) | Disagree(3) | Report
iamgoatman  +   1534d ago
I can't believe in 2011 people still believe such nonsense.
jetlian  +   1534d ago
it has
nothing to do with what the eye can or can not see. Both are fine, problems arise when a change occures. the eye will adjust to either!

People use to hate widescreen after you watch a movie 5 mins in your eyes adjust to it.
Mikeyy  +   1534d ago

Theoretically yes. But there is a major difference between 30fps, and fixed 30fps.

If the game is 60fps, and the frame rate dips down to 40ish, we would barely notice it.

If the same 30fps game dipped down to 24fps, your going to start to notice the slowdown.

and I support the statement that yes, maybe it is time for new consoles. I've started getting more and more games for PC because the console version is just lackluster.

Im going to be torn if the console version of Skyrim turns out really bad, thats a game I like to play from the couch, but if the visuals turn out really lackluster, I may be forced to buy the PC version exclusivly. (instead of Buying PS3 version, and *caugh* downloading PC version)
T3MPL3TON  +   1534d ago
I'm not put of by this at all, if wanted breakneck absurd speed in my FPS I'd play Cawl of Doody.

I don't play CoD.
BioRevenant  +   1533d ago
I wasn't defending Call of Rehash, I was calling you an idiot.
madjedi  +   1533d ago
@bio Thats nice because between your comments and your page, you sound like a egotistical jackass.

The 17 yrs old explains the need to insult people who might have the wrong data, there is being smart and then there being smart and a prick about it, who wants to debate with a prick really.
#13.1.1 (Edited 1533d ago ) | Agree(1) | Disagree(1) | Report
BioRevenant  +   1532d ago
So what if I'm a smart prick? Doesn't change the fact that this guy was JUST proven wrong and his opinion hasn't changed due to (I'm guessing) his hate of CoD, and that, my friend, makes him an idiot.
consolez_FTW  +   1534d ago
As a console/pc gamer I could care less if it's 30fps on ps3. I'll get this on ps3 because of friends. It's not like I'll go nerd rage since it's only 30fps.Who's even thinking of Graphics/fps during a intense online game? not me, I'm too focused on the actually game.
PS360PCROCKS  +   1534d ago
This is sad dice has to answer such obvious questions. Lol
Huntmaster17  +   1534d ago
Just save up some money and build a legit gaming pc. Its not difficult or expensive. You guys dropped 300-500.. heck some of you dropped 600 on the PS3. Not to mention those $60-65 dollar games.. Check out my link below if you're interested in building a pc.

PS360PCROCKS  +   1534d ago
Cool link. I fall in the enthusiast category! That makes me feel good :)
Huntmaster17  +   1534d ago
:O I just wish more peeps knew pc gaming isn't that expensive if you build it yourself. I remember having ZERO experience at building pcs, but after reading and watching vids on youtube I saved myself a lot of $$$$$.
#16.1.1 (Edited 1534d ago ) | Agree(4) | Disagree(1) | Report
PS360PCROCKS  +   1534d ago
totally man. I have been wanting to do it since I was like 16. Took me almost 10 years lol but I got my tax return and decided to go for it and spared no expense. I bought a nice ass case, good quality components and built it all myself. I youtubed the CPU just to be safe because I haven't built a PC, only added memory and changed drives. I set up a workbench in my basement, layed out all my stuff and was done in 3-4 hours by following instructions. It's an impressive looking and running machine and gives me pride knowing I did it all by myself.

So true though on saving money! If I bought my PC from like cyber power or somebody I just looked for almost the exact same setup minus they don't have my case (who doesn't sell antec cases?) it was $1633 I payed like $1000
whitezagetsu71  +   1534d ago
why would anyone buy a PC just to play BF3 but on second thought on PC all new game like BF3 cost 5$ on a torrent site
Huntmaster17  +   1534d ago
I didn't say anything about building a pc just to play BF3 did I... Well as for torrents.. no thanks.
Mikeyy  +   1534d ago
cost $5? it's free, lmao

but you only get singleplayer. which is fine, us pirates have no problem buying games that are WORTH IT.
#16.2.2 (Edited 1534d ago ) | Agree(5) | Disagree(0) | Report
dirtrider  +   1534d ago
appreciate that link, got it saved. between now and "next gen" i can be able to build my own pc, been looking for a while.
PhantomT1412  +   1534d ago
With the 6850 Toxic I plan to buy, I would be in the very good category.

Even with my 4GB DDR3 and only a Quad Core Q8200, monitoring with Everest while playing my games made me realise that only my 9800GTX+ wasn't following (furthermore, it tends to overheat lately which causes huge framerate drops).
xtremegamerage  +   1534d ago
I'll clear a few things up.

GOW3 is 60fps and a very nice looking game. But scale wise other then fighting on a giant, it is nowhere near the scale of BF3.

30fps is fine for a shooter if it stays 30fps no-screentear. BFBC2 did this well for the most part.

RAGE is not a sandbox game. Carmack said so himself.

And on console it looks decent. That is enough.

As much as i love the PS3, obviously the PC is in another league, higher quality textures, better shadows, higher quality shaders, better lighting.

As for BF3 for 512mb ram and an old card, it looks fantastic.
stu888  +   1534d ago
sorry but GoW 3 is about as bigger scale as it gets. You fight a titan FFS! Kratos is about the size of a pee compared to it.

Some of this B3 ass-licking is going to far. Yes its going to be good, but I bet it won't be genre defining. Its B2 with better graphics and destruction.
montyburns000  +   1534d ago
I guess you still don't get it. God of war is able to pull off those visuals because of its linearity and the fact that it has fixed camera angles. face it the developers used many tricks to make the game look incredible. at the end of the day its still a last gen GoW game with pretty graphics.

the camera zooms out a long way are you think it has scale? LOL!! your still restricted to the same path no matter where you go.

beautiful game but its shallow as fuck
stu888  +   1534d ago
i dont disagree with u mate. i probs wouldn't say its shallow, like shooting a bunch on enemies that look the same as every other game is shallow. Its an Epic storyline over 3 games.

But to say GoW doesn't have scale means you haven't played it, or you need your eyes checked.
Zynga  +   1533d ago
I've played it and platinum it. And still battlefield 3 looks more amazing and does more things that god of war 3 wishes it does. Let me know when god of war does destruction and free camera control at all times with those so called 60 fps at the same time. So stop acting butthurt because a multiplatform game is actually better than one of your exclusives.
StealthWraith  +   1534d ago
wasnt expecting 60 and most FPS fans would know the past two bad company games were 30 frames and 720p. other games on consoles have 30 frames per sec and run pretty well online and off like KZ Gears uncharted and crysis. im more concerned if it will use any anti aliasing like KZ crysis and uncharted

the new doom game is doing something special by having there MP be at 60 and SP at 30 since MP has smaller maps and less details and enemy AI of the SP this is possible which is nice for future games

also for COD fans thinking COD is superior b/c it runs at 60 on consoles it has a trade off its sub HD on both consoles smaller maps and no vehicles. COD offers a more arcady feel with its multi player as well thats why it has become so popular and the need for 60 frames in MP is needed for that feel
fullmetal297  +   1534d ago
Playing 60 frames and switching to 30 frames does change the pace of the game. The main reason why COD is popular is because it's fast-paced action thanks to the 60 frames, while battlefield has a different approach to gameplay which is more team and strategy oriented.
ginsunuva  +   1534d ago
I'm fine with 45 fps on a pc.
whitezagetsu71  +   1534d ago
Looks like im buying MW3
stu888  +   1534d ago
I will too mate, but I'll get BF3 as well.
DanSolo  +   1534d ago
But isn't BF:BC2 running at 30 fps?
That doesn't seem to matter, I know when I am playing it I am not sitting there thinking about what fps it is running at.... I am just playing and enjoying it.

Before I got bored of COD I didn't sit there thinking about shit like that either, I was too busy enjoying it. And I now enjoy BF:BC2 alot more than COD, and BF3 is looking like it is going to be alot better than BF:BC2..... so I really don't see what the problem is.... maybe people need to stop worrying so much about silly shit and focus on whether or not they derive enjoyment from the game... that is all that matters.... if Pacman was still a more enjoyable game to play than anything else out there, then I'd be playing it and enjoying it.... I wouldn't be whinging about fps or visuals!

My one and ONLY worry about BF3 is will the bigger maps but same player count make the fights a bit too spread out?
It is fine on BF:BC2 and those maps are pretty big, but will the extra size make a difference?
I am sure that DICE have thought about that though, and it shouldn't be an issue.
LeoDDestroyer  +   1534d ago
If you ask me it would seem that devs are not optimizing the pc to the best of it capabilities. Just think about here we have two five year old consoles that devs are still finding ways to improve on the performance. Every couple of months there is new pc tech but it hasn't translated into vastly superior games.

If the devs would just focus on general range of specs they could optimize the games making for an even greater experience then what is currently shown.
madcowz64  +   1534d ago
As long as it doesn't go under 30fps I'm happy.
kingduqc  +   1534d ago
30 fps is quite choppy when you compare to 60 fps, consoles need more hourse power, they can't do 1080p and 60 fps with decent settings...
Dynasty2021  +   1534d ago
This is basically console gamers whining about how crap their consoles are compared to PCs.

PCs will always rule. Get over it for ***k sake.

And DICE KNOW what they are doing. Bad Company and Bad Company 2 had 16 player maps. Always 16. ANd it was always more than enough. And the graphics were still awesome and it all ran perfectly fine.
auen1  +   1534d ago

there are plenty of games that run at 60fps on current consoles, so it's really just limitations from dice, not the ps3 or 360. also, i agree with the people who say they'd rather have a game run at 60fps rather than have "amazing" visuals, which for some reason, dice believes are mutually exclusive.

i was actually looking forward to this game, but now i'm not so sure.
outwar6010  +   1534d ago
there are sacrifices made fo each game! you cant really one to the next! what other game has the level of destruction that this game has?
PhantomT1412  +   1534d ago
Call of Duty's running at 60 FPS but its native resolution is sub-HD (1024*600). It was even worse for Black Ops on PS3 (960x544).

Other games running at 60 FPS or/and with a native 1080 rez are either downloadable games or sports/racing game which do not demand huge ressources.

God of War 3 tends to run at 40 FPS, not 60:

How would you expect to have Battlefield 3 run at native 1080 and at 60 frames per second on console with its scale, its real-time calculated destruction and its visual quality?
outwar6010  +   1534d ago
for once in these games i just want a customisable online character! i dont care about frames or 1090p as long as it doesnt crash has hackers or a short storyline
Farsendor1  +   1534d ago
anyone that actually thought bf3 360 and ps3 would look as good as the ps3 version need to look up hd gameplay footage of pc games.
yamzilla  +   1534d ago
console players that are so concerned with tech specs need to graduate up to pc where you have control over your game....

choose you own resolution, framerates can be locked in with v-sync, choose how much anti aliasing you want, filtering, bloom and hdr levels (this is huge for me as i often drop the bloom down when games are OVERSATURATED in it i hate that)

You control shadow quality, you control draw distance

most importantly, with dedicated servers at least, you control who plays with you

bf3 will 1280x704 at 30 frames on both console and look freaking awesome for 6 year old hardware

modernwarfare 3 will be 1024x600 and 60 fps but is built on a 10 YEAR OLD ENGINE!!!! LITERALLY, 10 YEARS OLD!!!

MW3 should run at 120 frames per second

You know whta spped the first portal runs on my wifes old computer, (my old one she inherited) 300 frames per second, i shit you not, 300 fps max settings 16x anti aliasing at 1920x1080p, it would most likely go faster buy the engine seems to cap it at 300

every console player will get an awesome game out of bf3 and the same old thing from mw3

but if you are really worried about tech specs, man up and grab a gaming rig!
thespaz  +   1532d ago
300fps is nice and all but your display will only show you 60fps. You most likely have a 60hz display and that means that it can only refresh 60 times a second. Anything above 60fps is a waste. Plus, you must see a ton of tearing at 300fps.
« 1 2 3 »

Add comment

You need to be registered to add comments. Register here or login
New stories

Until Dawn Review | GameSpew

26m ago - Emily at GameSpew writes: "After much anticipation, Until Dawn finally graced the living rooms of... | PS4

Gears of War: Ultimate Edition Review | GameCloud

27m ago - William Kirk at GameCloud writes: "Gears of War: Ultimate Edition is yet another testament to... | Xbox One

The Xbox One Games You Need to Play in August

Now - A new month has rolled up which means new releases are on the horizon. Microsoft has a fairly good line-up on the way for August, so let’s take a l... | Promoted post

3D Gunstar Heroes 3DS Review: Sega's Pride and Joy, Now Nintendo's Shining Star | USGamer

1h ago - USG: People made a big deal about how crazy it was to see Sonic the Hedgehog on Nintendo systems... | 3DS

What are the Best PlayStation Vita Games?

1h ago - USGamer: Just bought a PlayStation Vita and want to know which games you should buy? You've come... | PS Vita

Until Dawn review: 'clever and creepy' - The Telegraph

1h ago - Until Dawn is a video game about horror movies. Their structure, their cliché, the seemingly stup... | PS4