Top
The story is too old to be commented.
deadpoole1787d ago (Edited 1787d 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.

iagainsti1201787d ago (Edited 1787d 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.

Pixel_Pusher1787d ago (Edited 1787d 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

Pixel_Pusher1787d 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.

Ranshak1786d ago TrollingShow
Sarcasm1786d 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_1411786d 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

darthv721786d ago

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.

+ Show (5) more repliesLast reply 1786d ago
JoGam1787d ago (Edited 1787d ago )

Until console FPS start having 1080p, Im cool with this too.

StanLee1787d ago

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.

gcolley1787d 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-Capitals1787d ago TrollingShow
Ayepecks1787d ago (Edited 1787d 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.

miDnIghtEr1787d ago

@Stan Lee...

i know what you mean about the shitting on.. but 704 is still HD. But I know what you mean.

fr0sty1787d 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.

hiredhelp1787d 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.

Rhythmattic1786d ago (Edited 1786d 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 ...

death2smoochie1786d 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.

+ Show (6) more repliesLast reply 1786d ago
Jobesy1787d ago TrollingShowReplies(8)
hqgamez1787d ago (Edited 1787d ago )

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?

NewVegasTroop1787d 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...

Sillyace921787d 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?

vickers5001787d ago

Eh, some games I'd rather have a better framerate than better textures/resolution. There's room for both types of games.

fr0sty1787d 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.

Bathyj1787d 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.

hiredhelp1787d 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.

badz1491787d ago

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!

Bladesfist1787d 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

Aggesan1786d ago

1200p is actually four times amount of pixels compared to 600p. Do your math, boy!

hqgamez1786d ago

@hiredhelp

Dude its a joke.

+ Show (8) more repliesLast reply 1786d ago
Trunkz Jr1787d 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?

creatchee1787d ago

You can't camp in BF3?

o_O

pixelsword1787d 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 Russell1787d ago

Also you're always moving towards an objective. To score big and rank up quickly you need to do more than get kills.

archemides5181787d ago

no problem with that as long as it's letterboxed. if it's stretched that is just total garbage.

AKS1787d ago

Sounds good considering I know that DICE will put that compromise to good use.

SkylineR1787d ago

Who cares really. If the game is going to be as fun as BF2 was, all's good.

d3nworth11787d ago

Not like its a big deal. Hell COD runs lower than that.

InNomeDiDio1786d ago TrollingShowReplies(1)
Philoctetes1786d ago

Same here. BC2 looks great on the PS3 and I'm sure BF3 will look great too.

fcpthebest1786d 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 :)

solidt121786d ago (Edited 1786d 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.

50Terabytespersec1786d 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

tplarkin71786d 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.

wolfofashes1786d 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...

+ Show (13) more repliesLast reply 1786d ago
Ares841787d ago

So

1280x704

That is fine if the performance is boosted up.

Funky Town_TX1787d ago

I just don't want framerate dips and screen tearing. BFBC2 on PS3 has loads of screen tearing.

theonlylolking1787d ago

There is a ton on the 360 as well. It is SOOOO annoying.

Philoctetes1786d 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.

Js2Kings1787d ago

Only 12 pixels gone on each vert. line, I can deal with that, they won't be missed that much.

AhmadVGArabia1787d ago TrollingShowReplies(3)
Convas1787d 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.