1080°
Submitted by BkLiveWire 1040d ago | news

Battlefield 3 Native Resolutions on Consoles Confirmed

Rendering Architect at DICE Johan Andersson confirmed the resolution in a Tweet about an hour ago. (Battlefield 3, PS3, Xbox 360)

Alternative Sources
« 1 2 »
lugia 4000  +   1040d ago
Im fine with that.
deadpoole  +   1040d ago
its gonna be great as long as they'll put somekind of Anti Aliasing technique ... cuz BFBC2 didnt have any.

any confirmation from dev what anti aliasing technique they r implementing for ps3.
#1.1.1 (Edited 1040d ago ) | Agree(8) | Disagree(11) | Report
iagainsti120  +   1040d ago
@deadpool well if you go to DICE's website they have some slide show presentations one of them talks about implementing MLAA on the PS3.
#1.1.2 (Edited 1040d ago ) | Agree(20) | Disagree(1) | Report
Pixel_Pusher  +   1040d ago
@deadpoole

https://twitter.com/#!/repi...

@repi great read in that link cheers, does that mean that there is no AA in BF3 on the xbox?

@BraaiSteakhouse all platforms have 1 or multiple antialiasing solutions in #bf3
#1.1.3 (Edited 1040d ago ) | Agree(4) | Disagree(4) | Report
Pixel_Pusher  +   1040d ago
Won't affect me since I'll be getting this for the PC but we all know it's going to look great on consoles. And most definitely look a hell of a lot better than MW3, that's for damn sure.
Ranshak   1040d ago | Trolling | show
Sarcasm  +   1039d ago
That's the original resolution for Resistance 1 and Ratchet & Clank Future. It was still pretty much 720p except on the top and bottom was cut off slightly.

If it means better performance, then it's a good move.
Caleb_141  +   1039d ago
For anyone interested, here is a list of resolutions from many console games:

http://forum.beyond3d.com/s...

Now compare the COD series resolution on both platforms to what Battlefield 3 will run with...

Anyone that disagrees should just derp right outta' here
darthv72  +   1039d ago
not that big of a deal
i mean we have come a long ways since the days of the snes and genesis (320x240).

I really didnt see why the all mighty 720 and/or 1080 were such big numbers to achieve. I have seen games at 1080p that lack real detail and yet a game with a lower native res can have much more detail.

I guess that is the trade off. More detailed and smoother running at lower res I will take over super high res low performance any day. Games are meant to be played not watched.
JoGam  +   1040d ago
Until console FPS start having 1080p, Im cool with this too.
#1.2 (Edited 1040d ago ) | Agree(13) | Disagree(12) | Report | Reply
StanLee  +   1040d ago | Well said
LMAO at how many posters are "fine with it" but shitted on Call of Duty for being sub HD. SMH at the hypocritical nonsense on N4G.com. When this game is proven more hype than substance there'll be some broken hearts on here.
gcolley  +   1040d ago
more hype? these games were awesome before the hype. hype is only fairly new for this series. anyone who has played a BF game knows the MP experience will be a bit hit and miss for the first few weeks and then unbeatable. We know the care DICE take in improving each game from the previous and how much they value their fans.

there is no need for concern troll
Washington-Capitals   1040d ago | Trolling | show
Ayepecks  +   1040d ago
@ StanLee: I'm really not seeing the correlation you're making. If people are happy with this resolution, why WOULDN'T they shit on Call of Duty for being sub-HD? That would seem to agree with their sentiment on the matter and there's nothing hypocritical about it.

If you mean it being 704p and not 720p -- that's hardly noticeable at all. Hell, on a lot of TVs the overscan will take up some or all of that. There's a big difference between 704p and 560p.
#1.2.4 (Edited 1040d ago ) | Agree(14) | Disagree(7) | Report
miDnIghtEr  +   1040d ago
@Stan Lee...

i know what you mean about the shitting on.. but 704 is still HD. But I know what you mean.
fr0sty  +   1040d ago
COD wasn't just sub HD, it was sub HD by a long shot. this is 20 lines short of true HD, not some 600p crap.
hiredhelp  +   1040d ago
/washington-capitals
The PC community has the biggest to lose as this once proud franchise has a chance of being run to the ground because they had to allocate time to console versions of the game.

LOL sorry i cant stop laughing you killing me man with that silly comment.
You fool.
Rhythmattic  +   1040d ago
Stan Lee

I'm not fine with it , but its still a shite load more pixels, with destruction and vehicles , albeit @ 30fps.

Unfortunately, there will be trade offs for all console games..

For example, the tradeoff for me?

COD =Annoying screaming kids (360/PS3) whom shout through their headset, play music in the background, and nothing but praise themselves.

BF= Mature, team based gameplay... Maybe not always, but more generally so.

Fact is, COD is dunkin' doughnuts ...
#1.2.8 (Edited 1040d ago ) | Agree(10) | Disagree(11) | Report
death2smoochie  +   1039d ago
@StanLee

The difference is, COD should be running full 720p if not higher honestly with the dated graphics engine that is running that game. COD is not in any way shape or form rendering the same amount of detail, effects, destruction and vehicles as BF3.
COD running Subhd lacking ALL those features I mentioned above should be a crime.
Jobesy   1040d ago | Trolling | show | Replies(8)
hqgamez  +   1040d ago | Funny
BF3: Our game runs at 30fps and res at 1280x704

MW3:Boo,were at 60fps

BF3: Whats your resolution, I hope it increased since the old COD4 days, all that ugly when compare it to games nowadays

MW3: So like I was saying 60fps

BF3: Resolution?

BF3: YOUR RESOLUTION!?!!!?!

MW3: Who wants to see game play?
#1.4 (Edited 1040d ago ) | Agree(57) | Disagree(18) | Report | Reply
NewVegasTroop  +   1040d ago
hahaha OMG that was really funny, sounds like something (if they were living beings) they would had a conversation about, lol bubble for you...
RyuCloudStrife  +   1040d ago
lol just goes to show.....
Sillyace92  +   1040d ago
You do realize that if CoD ran at 30fps it could output a resolution double of what it currently is at right now. You're comparison makes no sense.

CoD 30fps at 1200 res vs BF3 30fps at 702 res, which is better again?
vickers500  +   1040d ago
Eh, some games I'd rather have a better framerate than better textures/resolution. There's room for both types of games.
fr0sty  +   1040d ago
cutting frame rate in half doesn't automatically = the ability to have double resolution. you have frame buffers which are all at various resolutions which must fit into memory, as well as textures that also must reflect the increase in resolution in order to keep from appearing overly blurred.
Bathyj  +   1040d ago
Sillyace92

I think you just gave me a brain embolism.

Did you really just say that?

I'm surprised you even have the ability to type given your condition.
hiredhelp  +   1040d ago
@hqgamez
Ive said it b4 ill say it again if a game is programed well. Were shooters are concerned anything from 30fps is fine youll not notice. Depending how the developer's have made the game to feel.

Cod is not bf and bf is not cod.
Cod isnt the true cod i once knew its now a run and gun so 60fps is waste to me for that kinda game specially as alot of thinhs in MP are static meaning unlike bf games youll find vieachles around the maps trucks ect. Doing nothing you cant get in them you cant drive them.

Battlefield you can do all of that yet they run consoles on 30fps from modern combat to bad company series. 60fps is not the be all and end all.
Now if you playing wipeout or granturismo or something were frame rate is needed thats differnt.
badz149  +   1040d ago
@sillyace92
seriously dude, stop talking about things you don't know about! you'll save face from the dreaded FACEPALM like what you just said right there!
Bladesfist  +   1040d ago
30 fps is fine for consoles and looks smooth on consoles because of the input, the controller. It allows for less random and fast movement and has a more or less constant movement. This is why 30fps looks smooth on consoles but looks choppy on PC
Aggesan  +   1040d ago
1200p is actually four times amount of pixels compared to 600p. Do your math, boy!
hqgamez  +   1040d ago
@hiredhelp

Dude its a joke.
Trunkz Jr  +   1040d ago
BF3 you can fly a jets on consoles, MW3 you can camp in a corner @ 60fps - both sub HD, which seems like the better buy?
creatchee  +   1040d ago
You can't camp in BF3?

o_O
pixelsword  +   1040d ago
you *can*, but since the wall you pin your back to can be blasted to the hilt, more people tend to not camp; of if they do, it's always on the sidelines in the bushes and at a distance.
Kurt Russell  +   1040d ago
Also you're always moving towards an objective. To score big and rank up quickly you need to do more than get kills.
archemides518  +   1040d ago
no problem with that as long as it's letterboxed. if it's stretched that is just total garbage.
AKS  +   1040d ago
Sounds good considering I know that DICE will put that compromise to good use.
SkylineR  +   1040d ago
Who cares really. If the game is going to be as fun as BF2 was, all's good.
d3nworth1  +   1040d ago
Not like its a big deal. Hell COD runs lower than that.
InNomeDiDio   1040d ago | Trolling | show | Replies(1)
Philoctetes  +   1040d ago
Same here. BC2 looks great on the PS3 and I'm sure BF3 will look great too.
fcpthebest  +   1039d ago
Even if you weren´t there was you nothing you could do...

That´s a good technique tough, lowering the resolution at an imperceptive level while putting more eye candy to mix :)
solidt12  +   1039d ago
That's actually pretty impressive. There is a ton of destruction and detail and they still can support that high of native resolution on the console. Call of Duty games are only like 600 something resolution native with alot less going on. I guess the trade off though is COD is 60 frames and BF3 is 30 frames.
#1.13 (Edited 1039d ago ) | Agree(0) | Disagree(1) | Report | Reply
fatalred alarm  +   1039d ago
was there ever any doubt?
50Terabytespersec  +   1039d ago
if there is no discernible difference and this is a sweet spot for the game to run with all the fancy effects it is supposed to have, then I am fine with that!!.
However if it is full of blurry crap that COD franchise and it sub par Xbox crappy fidelity resolutions. I will buy, play, beat and resale on Amazon.Much like the case with Resistance 3 ..
No I repeat No developer should have sub hd on PS3. Learn how to use PS3 Split RAM or go back to single core 3D gpu games like Half Life.
BS!! 500 dollars on PS3 to get subHD!! my ass
tplarkin7  +   1039d ago
I'm tired of compromises on resolutions and frame rates. I want true 720p at 60FPS at a bare minimum. No more excuses about pushing the hardware beyond its limits.

Rage by id is the future in terms of standing by 60fps.
wolfofashes  +   1039d ago
True.I'll take a lower res 60 frames per second over 30 frames anytime.Although I gotta say that the textures in Rage doesn't have detail maps on them so when you look close they a way below HD...
Ares84  +   1040d ago
So

1280x704

That is fine if the performance is boosted up.
Funky Town_TX  +   1040d ago
I don't care
I just don't want framerate dips and screen tearing. BFBC2 on PS3 has loads of screen tearing.
theonlylolking  +   1040d ago
There is a ton on the 360 as well. It is SOOOO annoying.
Philoctetes  +   1040d ago
I've logged a little over 200 hours in BC2 on the PS3, and I don't think I've ever noticed any screen tearing.
Js2Kings  +   1040d ago
Only 12 pixels gone on each vert. line, I can deal with that, they won't be missed that much.
AhmadVGArabia   1040d ago | Trolling | show | Replies(3)
Convas  +   1040d ago
I ain't gonna complain. The nature of our consoles means that somethings gotta give, be it resolution or post processing effects.

In this case, I'm good with giving up a couple of lines of vert. resolution for some of that lighting the latest previews have been talking about.
raytraceme  +   1040d ago
If they could do 704p why not 720p??? It's only a 2% difference :S Though I am surprised it is not the usual subhd res. :D With the amount of destruction and amazing lighting plus anti aliasing this time around DAMN DICE!!!

you guys do understand that i was praising dice right???
#6 (Edited 1040d ago ) | Agree(2) | Disagree(10) | Report | Reply
El_Colombiano  +   1040d ago
Memory. This generation, every kb counts.
AKS  +   1040d ago
I didn't agree or disagree or mess with your bubbles. I will just comment that mentioning a term like "subHD" is going to get a reaction around here. I saw it and felt instantly irritated until I read your full comment. I've seen more than I ever wanted to see regarding massive debates over pixellated grass and quite marginal differences. No way would people be able to tell the difference between 704p or 720p without pixel counting, yet I know there will be plenty of "subHD" BS coming. So I guess I'd recommend being careful about using inflammatory terms like subHD combined with sarcasm if you're concerned about being misinterpreted.
TheIneffableBob  +   1040d ago
Well, the tweet said that it saves them memory and increases performance. Probably the difference between a stutter here and there and smooth.
dirthurts  +   1039d ago
With the low amount of memory the consoles have this gen, those tiny lines of data make the difference between pushing the memory cap, and having some buffer room.
It's a bigger difference than you would think.
venom06  +   1040d ago
as long as it looks better than the MW2.3 map pack /DLC which comes out this November (which it more than likely will), i'm totally fine with this...
CloseSecond  +   1040d ago
I just hope it does not mean jaggy central like BC2. Great game but can't believe the lack of aliasing on PS3.
MARKUS_MAX1MUS   1040d ago | Trolling | show | Replies(5)
InNomeDiDio   1040d ago | Trolling | show
Darkfocus  +   1039d ago
lack of anti aliasing
lack of aliasing would mean there's no jaggys lol...I know what you meant though...
LNDCalling  +   1039d ago
@Ranshak

Actually you will find that SSM has this to say about the camera in GOW3

"We could easily allow the user full control of the camera during gameplay. The reason we do not is because we feel it breaks the cinematic experience that we have carefully crafted, not because there is some geometry missing if you turn around..."

"The camera is not fixed. It is highly scripted to provide a highly cinematic play experience, yes, but in no meaning of the word is the camera fixed,"

"Within the setup cinematic parameters there is a lot of room for the camera to adjust to the action that happens on the screen (where the player is, where the enemies are, etc). Because of the amount of adjustments the camera system can make automatically, there are very few assumptions that can be made about what to render or not render...
eridc3301  +   1040d ago
Hmm, lets see mw3 is also sud hd but gets twice the frame rate of bf3. 60fps v 30 fps, thats a big difference in controller response and overeall smoothness. This is going to be interesting.
MARKUS_MAX1MUS  +   1040d ago
There a neglible difference in frame rate between 30fps & 60fps, its greatly exaggerated.

Considering BF3s smallest maps will dwarf CODs largest map, considering it will have more players, vehicles, destruction, more weapons, more attachments, better graphics & physics id have all those things over a difference which is greatly exaggerated by the media and idiots.
quicksilver2011   1040d ago | Spam
Pekka  +   1040d ago
@quicksilver2011: Still, you are probably happy watching movies at 24 fps. Because ALL movies in theaters are made at 24 fps, even 3D movies.
Darkfocus  +   1039d ago
movies have a motion blur that games don't have that helps your eyes piece things together and results in a smoother picture than whats actually being displayed. unfortunately with games once you introduce input the illusion of a smooth framerate is ruined.
raytraceme  +   1040d ago
bf3 vs mw3: 704p vs 600p = ~30% resolution difference, mlaa on ps3 vs 2x msaa, lighting is far greater in battlefield 3, vehicle vs no vehicles, destruction vs no destruction, 30fps vs 60fps. The only thing mw3 has going for it is the frame rate, otherwise it technically sucks lol.
TheClown  +   1040d ago
Both are generic military shooters so I don't see why people cry about buying one but not the other and desperately try to convince themselves that one is better than the other. It's like what tastes better, cat shit or dog shit?
iamnsuperman  +   1039d ago
@theclown Well said +bubs .its nice to see someone else who has more than half a brain cell. This "fight" about which one is better is redundent. One offers destructivity and the other offers fast pace action but in the end the weakness for there chosen type makes them generic becuase they both have major weaknesses and offer little things that are new
#9.2.2 (Edited 1039d ago ) | Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report
kneon  +   1040d ago
60fps is over rated, at 60fps a frame takes 16.67ms while at 30fps a frame is 33.33ms long. So by going to 60fps it's 16.67ms shorter. As typical human reaction time is around 150-200ms that 16.67ms isn't really going to make much difference.

BTW I'm not planning on buying either game.
TheIneffableBob  +   1040d ago
Logic error here.

16 ms + 150 ms = 166 ms
33 ms + 150 ms = 183 ms

Having a 17 ms difference allows your eyes to see that frame 17 ms sooner and react 17 ms sooner than 30 frames per second.
kneon  +   1040d ago
I fail to see the error, it's still just 17 ms, which is swamped by the reaction time which is almost 9 times greater.
dirthurts  +   1039d ago
Anyone is says 60fps is over rated hasn't played many games at 60fps.
30fps just looks messy in my eyes.
damnyouretall  +   1039d ago
dude how many years have you been a console gamer to complain bout 30fps? if youre a pc gamer then yeah i see your point. cod sacrificed innovation for their framerate. i personaly dont respect their decision. i dont give a damn bout shooter framerates cause 30 is solid, and all my favorite shooters have been 30. though i would bitch about sports and racing not having 60, thats kinda important to me.
#9.3.4 (Edited 1039d ago ) | Agree(0) | Disagree(1) | Report
Philoctetes  +   1040d ago
I haven't seen MW3 or BF3 yet, so I can't comment on those. I have seen both Black Ops and BC2 though.

At least to my eyes, there's no question that Black Ops is "smoother" at 60 fps compared to BC2. On the other hand, everything else about Black Ops looks like ass. The textures are poor, the character models are poor, and overall the game just looks like something that came out five years ago.

BC2 has a lower frame rate, but aside from that it looks much better. And never mind that its maps are all at least 4-5 times as large as the largest CoD map, have vehicles, feature destructible environments, etc. If I have to choose -- and hopefully I won't have to when the next generation arrives -- I'll take the lower fps in exchange for everything else the Battlefield franchise provides.

But that's just me. If you like the gameplay of CoD and don't mind the graphics, then enjoy the 60 fps. It's nice.
Ulf  +   1040d ago
I'm honestly surprised the 360 isn't 630p or so. There are plenty of games that run at less, and look great (e.g. CoD4, CoD6), and fitting everything in the eDRAM makes the framerate much much better...

Hmm maybe they are using the 360 GPU version of MLAA, though? Then resolutions up to 720p would fit just fine..
#10 (Edited 1040d ago ) | Agree(1) | Disagree(10) | Report | Reply
kevnb  +   1040d ago
MLAA looks bad though, ill take 2xaa at lower res any day.
HeavenlySnipes  +   1040d ago
I disagree
MLAA looks great if used well

Related image(s)
AKS  +   1039d ago
I'm sure I'm missing something here. MLAA is considerably more potent than 2xAA. I use MLAA in my high end PC games. I would certainly prefer MLAA if it's available.

Also, the use of MLAA is in God of War III is probably the most impressive I've seen in a console game so far.

Are you talking specifically about the 360 GPU MLAA? I'll check it out and see how it looks I guess. I haven't seen much of that yet.
#10.1.2 (Edited 1039d ago ) | Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report
kevnb  +   1040d ago
I think too much is made of resolution, framerate and responsiveness is key. overall detail is important as well, anything around 1024*768 is fine as proven by 42 inch plasma tvs that beat the pants off 1080p lcds.
ATi_Elite  +   1040d ago
@ kevnb.........i hope you are joking!
Seriously did you even re-read what you wrote?
Seriously how did you even convince yourself that what you just said made any sense?

"I think too much is made of resolution, framerate and responsiveness is key"

so according to you 800 x 600 at 200 frames per second will look better than 2560 x 1600 at 60 frames per second.

Your so FRIGGIN wrong so let me correct you! The more Pixels you have the more detail you have, the more detail you have the better the picture. lower resolution automatically means less detail no matter how fast it runs. Plus anything over 60 frames per second the human eye CAN NOT DETECT anyway!

Resolution is the key! which is so obvious because technology keeps increasing them.

"anything around 1024*768 is fine as proven by 42 inch plasma tvs that beat the pants off 1080p lcds."

1. 1024*768 is NOT HD so that pretty much kills your crazy comment.
2. Plasma sucks. they ghost and have slow response times meanwhile any LCD monitor comes with a 2ms GTG response time while Plasma TV's are generally 5ms to 8ms or higher.
3. you said 1080p LCD monitor.....only thing better than 1080p is 1200p and 1600p which are only found in LCD monitors. TV's can not compete with monitors. Want proof go ask any Professional Photography what reproduces the best colors TV or Monitor.
4. So please explain to me how 1024*768 which is NOT HD is better than 1080p which is TRUE HD?

also in a post higher up you said "MLAA looks bad though, ill take 2xaa at lower res any day"

Now i'm no fan of MLAA but I'll take MLAA at a higher resolution. Again The higher the resolution the more detail and also less jaggies.
#11.1 (Edited 1040d ago ) | Agree(15) | Disagree(12) | Report | Reply
Mrmagnumman357  +   1040d ago
Your right. Anyways gotta disagree on one thing, plasmas are great tv's as long as you let them burn in. Also they can display a much better image. I have a 3d led and lcd, my brother has a 3d plasma, and his has a far better image quality
#11.1.1 (Edited 1040d ago ) | Agree(4) | Disagree(2) | Report
gcolley  +   1040d ago
"Plasma sucks" Plasmas have a much faster refresh rate and the reason it is never listed. refresh rate is only a problem on LCD, which is why it became a spec.

you just told everyone you are clueless about TV tech. photos and moving images are completely different beasts. you will not find any LCD TV that can match plasma in video resolution... 1080P LCDs are lucky if they get half that in actual video resolution. Plasmas however can get close or achieve 1080P depending on the manuf. and model.

stop making shit up to support your arrogance
Bladesfist  +   1040d ago
@Gcolley So your saying your plasma is better than a 1600p monitor at video resolution? Lol?
net123456  +   1040d ago
Although I do agree with your resolution stuff. The things you said about Plasma TVs are wrong. I am not talking about resolution here. Since Plasmas have to be big 1080p is the TV max unlike Lcds which can have more than that (We could have Plasmas with LCD Resolutions though).

But in general Plasma is the (far) superior technology in almost every single point.

It just needs 10 times the Power and the Manufacturers werent able to produce smaller sizes then 50 inch for years. At the moment they managed to bring down sizes to 32 inch.

If you buy a new TV and dont mind having a higher electrical bill go for plasma as they are so much better. LCDs catched up though with LED Ilumination.

I had all types of TVs are already and I was never as satisfied as with a Plasma TV. They have a 200 times faster responsivness then the fastest LCD on the Planet (0.01 ms) the contrast is infinite. They have the perfect black because they actually switch off the pixel which should be black. So no grey/black night scenes. Also they have a perfect illumination because every pixel shines by itself. Only technology thats superior is OLED. Sure LCD has now Led illumination but only the expensive models have dynamic Leds. LCDs dont shine they need to have some light and the lighttubes have to shine all the time which messes the picture up. 3D Plasmas are superior to 3D LCD no ghosting at all through the insanely fast reaction time. Plasmas are only not as popular because they were expensive as hell but today they are as cheap as LCDs of the same size. I recommend Panasonic Viera which are great.

They are even more Durable then the old LCDs (without LED) And also burning in is a problem thats been solved years ago.

People who have no clue of Technology. Often think my Plasma runs in higher resolution because the Picture looks so much better then what they are used too.

People often think that high resolution is the only way to improve your picture but thats a misconception. High Resolution is PART of what makes something look good. Especially in games. Its necessary to have high resolution to show off more details. But games are not close to actually max out the resolutions we have. It makes a finer picture but thats true and it is a improvment depending on the size of your Screen and how far you are away.

But the marketing hype made around resolution takes on ridiculous forms. People already start to think Resolution is the only way to make something look good.

Uncharted 3 @ 1080p native will still look worse then Uncharted 4 on PS4 on a 720p Screen.

Also Battlefield 3 will still look better then MW3 even if it runs with the same resolution. Resolution improves a picture but its not an ultimative measurement of graphics quality. The prettier your graphics are the more they improve through higher resolution.

" Again The higher the resolution the more detail and also less jaggies."

True but not necessarily true. If the details arent there to begin with a higher resolution cant make them magically appear.
kevnb  +   1039d ago
How close are you to your tv? Because at about 6 feet away on a 40 inch tv you can barely notice any difference in resolution beyond 1024*768. Now if we are talking computer monitors, different story since you are closer. Also if we are talking lcd, you pretty much want to be as close to native res as possible as scaling hurts pq and can create perceived jaggies. People just have no clue. http://s3.carltonbale.com/r...
#11.1.5 (Edited 1039d ago ) | Agree(0) | Disagree(1) | Report
mixelon  +   1039d ago
The idea that the human eye can't detect more than 60fps is a weird one.. Sometimes you can, sometimes you can't depending on the type of motion and the size of display.

Its not difficult to prove either with some PC setups (monitor dependant) or high end TVs with higher refresh rates and motion interpolation.

http://frames-per-second.ap... - it pretty interesting on high hz monitor (say a 120hz 3D capable one)
BlackKnight  +   1039d ago
@ATi_Elite

Plasma does not suck. Plasma response times are rated in NANOseconds (ns). Their response time is similar to CRT, which means there is no blur unlike LCD. I don't see how anyone could mistake this if they did research...

Also, they don't ghost, at least not if they are any older than 5 years and not a shit brand/model.

Usually you know the facts man. I am going to pretend you are having a bad day.
#11.1.7 (Edited 1039d ago ) | Agree(0) | Disagree(2) | Report
ATi_Elite  +   1040d ago
1280x704 WTF!
1. This console gen has produced so many off the wall resolutions that it's just laughable that these machines still can not even maintain decent frame rates at 720p. 704, 680, 560 and the list goes on!!

2. Why are so many people saying they "are fine with it"? You ain't got a FN choice but to be fine with it! But i do recall many a gamer flaming other gamers when their console fails to deliver a game under 720p but all of a sudden gamers are "fine with it"....how hypocritical!

3. BF3 will be a great game no matter the resolution or how many disc it comes on.
Convas  +   1040d ago
Your rant applies only to the hypocritical elitist console bigots who look down on games solely because of their graphics.

The rest of us Gamers are pretty damn happy with what we're hearing about Battlefield 3 on consoles. No hypocrisy from us.
Septic  +   1040d ago
So true ATI but this is N4G lol. Although saying that, even I didn't expect so many 'I'm fine with it' comments. It just goes to show a complete lack of integrity on the part of many on here considering many of these folk would have criticised a certain other fps for being sub HD.

Nonetheless, the game is shaping up to be great but the PC package is definitely the true package if you want to enjoy the true BF3 experience.

I'm getting this on 360 and PC and I will probably play on the former more because of my friends.
PhantomT1412  +   1040d ago
They are fine because 1280x720 to 1280x704 is nothing compared to 1280x720 to 1024x600 (Call of Duty) or 960x540 (Alan Wake).

I'm sure when Bungie cut some of the lenght to 1152x720, a lot of people were "fine" too. Those are still far from "sub-HD".

But you gotta admit 1024x600 is truly sub-HD, it's a last-gen resolution! Only people with 17" monitor or a shitty GPU would play on that rez. Even 50$ GPU today would allow you to play most of the games at higher rez than 720p.
#12.3 (Edited 1040d ago ) | Agree(2) | Disagree(2) | Report | Reply
ATi_Elite  +   1039d ago
anything under 1280*720 is not HD!! So 1152*720 is NOT HD. 1280*720 at 16:9 ratio is the low end HD level. 4:3 is SD

720p * 16 = 11520
11520 / 9 = 1280 (1280*720p at 16:9)

1080p * 16 = 17280
17280 / 9 = 1920 (1920*1080p at 16:9)

and yeh your right any $50 GPU can get you gaming at 1280*720p HD and higher on the PC.
trenso1  +   1040d ago
Meh while I would like it to not be sub-HD considering all that it has I can't complain but I just wanna play screw graphics give me the game
thespaz   1040d ago | Trolling | show
Impaler  +   1040d ago
I'm eagerly awaiting the day when developers and consoles are doing TRUE 720-1080p
Hufandpuf  +   1040d ago
Let's wait until the game comes out shall we, but in other words BF3 will be better on PC. Even if console versions aren't all that jazzed up, the PC is the lead platform. I'm not surprised and I'm getting it on Xbox. I love Battlefield and I the last thing I need is them to lie to me.
earbus  +   1040d ago
Just do a frostbite 2.0 2142 call it 2143 ill be happy just love that game.
#17 (Edited 1040d ago ) | Agree(1) | Disagree(0) | Report | Reply
HAF912   1040d ago | Trolling | show | Replies(1)
maxmill  +   1040d ago
who cares
Sieg  +   1040d ago
Well on consoles that are around for five years. That's understandable. I rather take lowered resolution than crappy jagged edge and I'm a pc guy.
QuantumWake  +   1040d ago
Sacrifices has to be made somewhere people. Not ALL games will be able to support full 1280x720 resolution. It's only a 16pixel difference anyway. It will be pretty much unnoticeable.

Better for them to cut resolution and support things like deferred rendering and HDR then make a measly 720p upgrade and sacrifice those effects.
#21 (Edited 1040d ago ) | Agree(1) | Disagree(0) | Report | Reply
M1chl  +   1040d ago
16pixel? I guess its 16x1280 pixels missing..
SKUD  +   1040d ago
I cant help but wonder if DICE realizes they could of avoided all this extra hard work / console flak by just keeping the sequel to BF2 on PC. So many things just seem toned down. Would of been one hell of a ride.
andibandit  +   1040d ago
well it would sell a hell of alot of PC's but i think the loss in sales kinda make it a mute point.
darksied  +   1040d ago
Not bad. I was afraid they'd have to cut it down even more to get the frame rate steady at 30 fps. Good thing it's not too much.
zero_cool  +   1040d ago
I was fine with 30fps & 24 player multi player but now their cutting the resolution to sub hd what d-bags!
dontbhatin  +   1040d ago
you won't even see the difference. quit bashing the devs
Agent_hitman  +   1040d ago
it all means that we need a new console this next generation, stop juicing the current console, they can't do anything more of it... honestly
zero_cool  +   1040d ago
Dice is pulling the same crap as crytek did making the same claims that their engine scales to each platforms capabilities to the best of their abilities & is hitting the ceiling of both consoles then come to find out both console versions are identical.That's a bunch of bull crap because the PS3 has a more flexible hardware architecture,more floating points of performance & better format then xbox 360 has.The PS3 can push & store more detail,more polygons,higher res textures,more objects,more particles ect...on screen in game at once over xbox 360 easily.I really hate when developers over promise,over hype,under deliver & make lame excuses afterwards for their decisions.
QuantumWake  +   1040d ago
Dude, like I said in my previous comment, sacrifices have to be made somewhere. The amount of bandwidth and ram these consoles have is not huge. You're not always going to get a full 720p buffer.

Not all developers have the same goal in terms of what they're going to do with the consoles power.

Game A may concentrate more on textures

Game B may concentrate on fluidity and smoothness by offering 60FPS and zero screen-tear

Game C may concentrate more on the amount of dynamic light therefore pushing more towards deferred rendering.

Game D may concentrate more on lighting and higher precision of HDR.

Before throwing a tantrum as to why DICE made a small sacrifice to the resolution, how about waiting and see why such sacrifice had to be made.
qwertyz  +   1040d ago
no it cannot

the 360 actually has more usable ram and polygon performance and the 360 gpu is more flexible and more powerful and advanced than the ps3s in both raw power and memory bandwidth(it actually has directx10 functionality) its the cell that's more flexible and more powerful than the 360 cpu in graphics and physics related calculations but the 360 can do better AI because it has better branch prediction get you facts right would you ?

texture quality doesn't depend on storage medium it depends on VRAM which both consoles lack you know nothing about programming both consoles have 512mb ram total which was pathetic even by 2004 gaming pc standards.

look at crysis 2, forza 4, gears 3, RAGE and skyrim all on 360 and you'll realize that the gap between both consoles isn't as big as you'd like to believe MS is just to greedy to create talented first party studios to push their hardware it doesn't mean the hardware cannot perform.

neither console is as powerful as a 2005 hdual gpu high end pc so what does that tell you ? they've been outdated since 2005 LOL a 2006 high end pc is between 5-7 times more powerful than either of them all the claims sony made about the ps3 doing 4d graphics and 120fps in all games was all amarketing B.S

even a core 2 duo is more powerful than the cell if you are a computer engineer you'll know why but your just an uniformed fanboy :/

consoles simply cannot handle battlefield 3. resistance 3 runs with 960x704 with Quincunix anti aliasing why don't you go complain about that ?

consoles run BF3 at pc LOWEST settings 1280x704 30fps with NO texture filtering and MLAA for ps3(FXAA for 360)

the pc verison of battlefied 3 makes all console games look like ps2 games and so does the following pc games: witcher 2, crysis 1(even without mods), crysis warhead, metro 2033,,GTA IV with mods, shogun 2:total war, crysis 2(even without mods or directx 11 patch or high res texture pack) and RAGE and skyrim.

metro 2033 is less than 10gb yet makes all your console games look like ps2 games what does that tell you ? blu ray doesn't affect graphics its RAM, memory bandwidth and raw power and both consoles are close overall you've never developed for them before so don't expect you to know.

lol even bulletstorm thats 6gb looks better than anything on consoles.

you ps3 fanboys try to be elitist when your hardware isn't even more powerful than 360 in every department and it makes me laugh only pc gamers have the right to be elitist as our pc are an entire generation ahead of your consoles from a horsepower standpoint
EdwardS087  +   1039d ago
@zero_cool Sorry to burst your bubble, but even when you take the 360 out of the mix, the PS3 holds this game back as well. With either console, you hit a ceiling. I personally wish games would be developed for PC and PORTED to console, not vice versa. lol Yeah, but this delusion of the PS3 having so much longevity and how some people include it in the PC camp (I lol ever time) and believe its the 360 holding games back is just laughable. Its time for new consoles folks, pure and simple.
Fubar180  +   1038d ago
What a load of Bullocks.
You say its a lame excuse for DICE to say those things and rant off how the PS3 has more of this and that, however there is no exclusive PS3 game out that looks like BF3 on the PS3 that has almost full destruction. Real time effects etc.
So what you are saying is crap.
If Dice is lazy or not trying, then KZ3, UC3 developers are also lazy and not trying as those games are not rendering what BF3 is doing at anytime. I see no vehicles like whats in BF3 on UC3 or KZ3? I see no real time destruction or lighting in those games either.
So it must mean that those 1st party developers for Sony are lazy because its not in their games.
When a Sony exclusive game can have all that and run in 720p, then come talk. Until then, shut up
Big_Dom   1040d ago | Trolling | show
SuperBeast811  +   1040d ago
Who cares which one is better i just want to see what happenes with Soap and Price
_Aarix_  +   1039d ago
As much as i hate the online I want to play the campaign.
Dlacy13g  +   1040d ago
But remember, EA says we don't need new consoles. LOL.... I don't really mind the resolution issue as many games sub 720p look great but it certainly does point to the consoles need for more RAM if nothing else.
horndog  +   1040d ago
Ahhh yes. My gtx 560 ti's (sli) should finally get put to good use. So much for this being lead platform on the ps3. Teh blurazy one disc fit all sub hd blurr for teh winz. don't try and wipe your bluray discs now boys it won't make the graphics any prettier. LOL.

pC for this one boys and MW3 on 360. Win win win.
#29 (Edited 1040d ago ) | Agree(4) | Disagree(3) | Report | Reply
Oldman100  +   1040d ago
Not an issue at all. It will still retain the image quality of native 720p because they will be using black bars 8 pixels wide above and below the image.
« 1 2 »

Add comment

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

Anyone Can Join Pro MLG Gaming at San Diego Comic Con

11m ago - MLG have teamed up with Microsoft to offer a spectacular open to all knock-out tournament at San... | Xbox One

Films of Future Past: The Game Movies that Were, Are, and Will Be

12m ago - Remember the days when movies based on video games were rare, and most actors and filmmakers stay... | Culture
10°

The Wolf Among Us Episode 5: Cry Wolf (X360) Review | Entertainment Fuse

32m ago - Cry Wolf, the finale to Telltale games’ impressive The Wolf Among Us has a lot to live up to. Fin... | Xbox 360
30°

20 Problems Only A Sims Player Would Understand

1h ago - WC writes: "In anticipation of The Sims 4, which is set to release late this year, we’ve put toge... | PC
Ad

Start Making Games for the PS4

Now - Want to design the next generation of video games? Start learning game design today. Click for more info on how to get started. | Promoted post
40°

20 Greatest PC Games Of All Time

1h ago - WC writes: "In this list, we’ve put together the greatest games ever released on PC, from early 9... | PC
Related content from friends