Rendering Architect at DICE Johan Andersson confirmed the resolution in a Tweet about an hour ago.
Im fine with that.
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.
@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.
@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
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.
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.
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
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.
Until console FPS start having 1080p, Im cool with this too.
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.
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
@ 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.
@Stan Lee... i know what you mean about the shitting on.. but 704 is still HD. But I know what you mean.
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.
/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.
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 ...
@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.
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?
hahaha OMG that was really funny, sounds like something (if they were living beings) they would had a conversation about, lol bubble for you...
lol just goes to show.....
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?
Eh, some games I'd rather have a better framerate than better textures/resolution. There's room for both types of games.
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.
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.
@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.
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!
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
1200p is actually four times amount of pixels compared to 600p. Do your math, boy!
@hiredhelp Dude its a joke.
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?
You can't camp in BF3? o_O
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.
Also you're always moving towards an objective. To score big and rank up quickly you need to do more than get kills.
no problem with that as long as it's letterboxed. if it's stretched that is just total garbage.
Sounds good considering I know that DICE will put that compromise to good use.
Who cares really. If the game is going to be as fun as BF2 was, all's good.
Not like its a big deal. Hell COD runs lower than that.
Same here. BC2 looks great on the PS3 and I'm sure BF3 will look great too.
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 :)
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.
was there ever any doubt?
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
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.
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...
So 1280x704 That is fine if the performance is boosted up.
I just don't want framerate dips and screen tearing. BFBC2 on PS3 has loads of screen tearing.
There is a ton on the 360 as well. It is SOOOO annoying.
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.
Only 12 pixels gone on each vert. line, I can deal with that, they won't be missed that much.
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.
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???
Memory. This generation, every kb counts.
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.
Well, the tweet said that it saves them memory and increases performance. Probably the difference between a stutter here and there and smooth.
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.
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...
I just hope it does not mean jaggy central like BC2. Great game but can't believe the lack of aliasing on PS3.
lack of aliasing would mean there's no jaggys lol...I know what you meant though...
@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...
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.
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: Still, you are probably happy watching movies at 24 fps. Because ALL movies in theaters are made at 24 fps, even 3D movies.
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.
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.
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?
@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
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.
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.
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.