Top
180°

Battlefield 3 Isn’t Competing With Modern Warfare 3, But it Still Wants to Win

The console frame rate of Battlefield 3 is far less important than what Frostbite 2 brings to the table in terms of destruction,vehicles and visual quality, says DICE’s Kevin O’Leary, because “it’s not about a number. It’s about the full experience.”

The story is too old to be commented.
venom062333d ago

yes, 60fps is the ONLY selling point of Call of Doo-Doo.... Battlefield Bad Company 1 and 2 are running BEAUTIFULLY @ 30FPS and sold MILLIONS and won all kinds of awards...absoulutely NO need to change that formula...

Winter47th2333d ago (Edited 2333d ago )

Obviously you didn't try Bad Company 2 at 60FPS on the PC, it's fucking beautiful and is worlds apart from consoles. Limitations and all that I'm fine with, but don't say there's no difference between 60 and 30FPS cause there sure as shit is.

And I still play COD4 to this day and every once in a while when I do I'm amazed at how consistent it runs and how much different it is than other 30FPS FPSs.

60 FPS is a technical excellence and developers should be proud of that achievement.

DigitalAnalog2333d ago (Edited 2333d ago )

"60 FPS is a technical excellence and developers should be proud of that achievement."

While I can agree with your sentiments, however it does point out in a "half-truth" like manner.

Note that the majority of high-profile sequels with 30FPS are able to push more graphics/AI/Physics then their predecessors.

COD, on the other hand, retains their engine faithfully without changes.

Just think for a second if Uncharted 3 kept the graphics of Uncharted 2 but push it to 60FPS withholding ANY assets for graphical/physics/AI improvement. Which exactly can one indicate a higher "technical excellence"?

-End statement

venom062333d ago

No one said there's not a difference between 60FPS and 30FPS....everyone knows that... i said that 60FPS isn't required to have a stellar game with stellar gameplay on the 6yr old hardware that the console provides (BC1 and BC2 are excellent examples of this)... to experience the all of warfare and destruction and mayhem of Bad Company 1 and 2 on the consoles @ 30FPS is awesome as MILLIONS of consumers have shown...

nickjkl2333d ago

damn thought he said 3 fps is important

egidem2333d ago (Edited 2333d ago )

And of course, Call of Duty Fanboys will say NO! They would rather have 60FPS with no destruction, sub HD graphics and small maps intead of what BF offers.

Might also want to change the word fps to framerate in the title.

jimmins2333d ago

This is poppycock. 60fps is insanely important for responsiveness and immersion.

How is it that developers who manage it (Carmack, id, Infinity Ward, Turn 10) say it's both a point of pride and vital to the gameplay experience, but developers who give in and cut to 30 rabidly defend it like it's okay.

It's the same slide in enjoyability you'd get from lowering the resolution, but then, DICE has probably done that too.

venom062333d ago

obviously you've NEVER played any Battlefield games at all.... this award winning series has won MANY awards and will continue to win many going forwward with its AWESOME 30FPS and destruction, veehicular wafare, and realistic gameplay.... BAD COMPANY 2 WAS A BEAST...

theonlylolking2333d ago

In 10 years you are going to think back and say to yourself"I actually though 30fps was awesome?! What was I thinking?".

KingZFlipper2332d ago

@theonlylolking. I would in 10 years say "Wow. I watched movies 10 years ago in 24FPS and it looked amazing."

Ducky2332d ago (Edited 2332d ago )

^ Frame-rate in games is different from frame-rate in movies.

Movies utilize a fair amount of motion blurring to smooth frames (games are starting this too), and most importantly, movies don't require user input.
Higher frame-rate allows for a game to be more responsive, which has a pretty big influence on how the game plays.

Hicken2333d ago

When you can point out one of ANY of those developers' games that offers the level of destruction, amount of players, vehicles, and HD graphics as BF3, your argument will have some weight.

Carmack isn't a developer, whether he works on a team or not; he hasn't done anything by himself.

id's newest entry, Rage, looks pretty good, but we've mostly seen static, sterile environments, similar to Crysis 2.

Infinity Ward's games, honestly, have nothing on BC2, so MW3 isn't likely to look better than BF3 (also note there's been virtually no gameplay, but only cutscenes, and that even these don't look as good).

And as beautiful as Forza 4 may look, there's not nearly as much going on as in a BF title; additionally, the cars aren't fully destructible, nor at the locales.

Oh, and lest I forget, the whole point was that there's more to enjoying a game than a high framerate. O'Leary's claim is right on the money, as the BF series has always delivered a more authentic war feel than CoD, while still maintaining amazing graphical levels.

radphil2333d ago

"This is poppycock. 60fps is insanely important for responsiveness and immersion. "

Really? Cause there's literally thousands of other games that aren't 60fps, and people are able to play through them responsively and be immersed in the game.

holdmedownma20082333d ago

Wow, if it wasn't for sites like DF and LoT would guys even being paying attention to the FPS? Why is it so difficult to just buy the game and enjoy it?

Fishy Fingers2333d ago (Edited 2333d ago )

You'd have to be a new to games to not notice the difference between 30 and 60 FPS. I can tell from a few seconds of watching, let alone actually playing the game. It's literally, instantly apparent.

Even if you didn't know the technological terminology, the feel is obvious.

Still, 30FPS is standard for console shooters, so I dont see it being much of an issue as long as it's capped. But frame rate (or "feel") is probably one thing that's helped COD become so popular in a 30FPS (console) world.

The Meerkat2333d ago

All out war with 16 players?!!!!!
The should re-name the genre First Person Runner.

I'd rather have the frame rate.

Anti-Fanboyer2333d ago

where did you get 16 players?

MysticStrummer2333d ago

I think it's 24 players on consoles, but you're right... all out war it's not. Then again, 64 players isn't all out war either, just a bigger skirmish. As for FPS, I don't care as long as it's at least 30.

gcolley2333d ago

land, sea and air vehicles plus destruction are more important and the reason i solely play bad company series over every cod game since cod4

xtremegamerage2333d ago

I don't want tripple buffering on PS3. But i'm guessing they will. adds more ms to controls.

As for 30/60FPS argument. Faster speed is good for shooters and racing and it's very smooth.

Playing [email protected] 100fps back in the day was nice.

But the problem with kz2 and some other shooters was not the 30fps, but too many dips, 24fps, 26, 30fps. You notice it. But if you got 60fps and it drops to 45, you won't notice it as much.

Show all comments (25)