Battlefield 3: 30 FPS on PS3 and Xbox 360

4.3
For those wondering the difference, FPS determines how smooth the animation runs. It’s most noticeable when you look at a high-end computer playing League of Legends, the animation is smooth as silk. A handful of games however run at 30FPS but the reasons are usually technical.

It was announced recently that the home console versions of Battlefield 3 would not support 1080p resolution or 60FPS. The reasons being that at its maximum potential, the PS3 and 360 cannot handle Battlefield 3 at its peak graphics despite being the most powerful home consoles released. Johan Andersson was asked about this, and he said “No, we always do 30fps on consoles, not possible to fit in the vehicles, fx, scale and all players otherwise.”
Comparing the two in terms of screenshots, I feel the difference in graphics is extremely subtle and the strength would be more in the smoothness of the game rather than the graphical quality which is a bigger deal for me than how it looks with today’s rendering technology.
DICE shared their reasoning behind the game running at 30FPS, saying “It’s not a technical challenge to get it to run at 60 but you have to scale back in some areas and we’re not willing to do that. We want to keep the core concept of what Battlefield is about and that means we’d rather stay with 30FPS because we are convinced that it is a good shooter experience there on 30FPS.”
In short, they can run it at 60FPS but they wont in order to retain the full gameplay. Gameplay over polygons anyday for me, I’d rather not play something where they gimped the gameplay to make it look pretty. To put it simply, running a game at 30fps greatly reduces the processing power needed to play the game on a console, as the number of things that need to be rendered come at a much slower pace, but at the cost of smoothness.

Posted:

Source: http://igxpro.net/2011/09/05/battlefield-3-runs-at-30fps-on-consoles-dice-explains-why/159402

Comments

"Battlefield 3: 30 FPS on PS3 and Xbox 360" :: Login/Create an Account :: 61 comments

If you would like to post a comment please signin to your account or register for an account.

generalgrant12Posted:

GuyNamedBob
Blakeaphobia
GuyNamedBob Thats a fail even COD4 had twice the fps than that. So much for frostbite 2.0
BF3 is going to have massive environments, awesome graphics, super realistic character movements, and crazy realistic destruction. Cod4 had none of these. that's why it's going to be 30fps. which i'd have to say isn't that bad if you think about the fact that none of those would be possible at 60fps.

And it's not the dev's fault. the consoles just cant handle it. SO GET OVER IT. this game's going to be great either way.

if you don't like that it'll be 30fps then go get a 3,000$ cpu. otherwise, stop whining.

Also BC2 had 30fps and it was perfectly fine. And most movies and tv shows are recorded at 24fps so get over it. cod4 sucked anyway
fanboy you need to calm down.

all i was saying was that it was pretty disapointing that what will be the (second) best game of the year is going to be half as smooth as a game that came out 4 YEARS AGO. anyone who even played video games at the time knows that COD4 was the best game then, no competition. and just a reality check, DICE has also confirmed that the "amazing graphics" you describe will be much worse on consoles than in the PC footage shown.

if i wanted to, i could get a $30 camera that shoots 30fps. im very sorry that battlefield 3 needs to give up 30fps to have "super realistic
character movements" (toy dinosaurs lol).



You obviously dont understand his point. Hes not a fanboy. He is a guy with facts. You just cant comprehend what hes saying

GuyNamedBobPosted:

Blakeaphobia
GuyNamedBob Thats a fail even COD4 had twice the fps than that. So much for frostbite 2.0
BF3 is going to have massive environments, awesome graphics, super realistic character movements, and crazy realistic destruction. Cod4 had none of these. that's why it's going to be 30fps. which i'd have to say isn't that bad if you think about the fact that none of those would be possible at 60fps.

And it's not the dev's fault. the consoles just cant handle it. SO GET OVER IT. this game's going to be great either way.

if you don't like that it'll be 30fps then go get a 3,000$ cpu. otherwise, stop whining.

Also BC2 had 30fps and it was perfectly fine. And most movies and tv shows are recorded at 24fps so get over it. cod4 sucked anyway
fanboy you need to calm down.

all i was saying was that it was pretty disapointing that what will be the (second) best game of the year is going to be half as smooth as a game that came out 4 YEARS AGO. anyone who even played video games at the time knows that COD4 was the best game then, no competition. and just a reality check, DICE has also confirmed that the "amazing graphics" you describe will be much worse on consoles than in the PC footage shown.

if i wanted to, i could get a $30 camera that shoots 30fps. im very sorry that battlefield 3 needs to give up 30fps to have "super realistic character movements" (toy dinosaurs lol).

The_M21_EBRPosted:

Blakeaphobia
GuyNamedBob Thats a fail even COD4 had twice the fps than that. So much for frostbite 2.0
BF3 is going to have massive environments, awesome graphics, super realistic character movements, and crazy realistic destruction. Cod4 had none of these. that's why it's going to be 30fps. which i'd have to say isn't that bad if you think about the fact that none of those would be possible at 60fps.

And it's not the dev's fault. the consoles just cant handle it. SO GET OVER IT. this game's going to be great either way.

if you don't like that it'll be 30fps then go get a 3,000$ cpu. otherwise, stop whining.

Also BC2 had 30fps and it was perfectly fine. And most movies and tv shows are recorded at 24fps so get over it. cod4 sucked anyway


MW3 is going to have a huge scale as well. And operating at 60 fps. Also, as seen from the ps3 trailer, the graphics on bf3 aren't phenomenal on consoles. There not all that much better than MW3 is. So I think most people will agree that they would rather have a much smoother game, than have slightly better graphics and half the smoothness. And also, Im pretty sure it's a well known fact that COD 4 didn't, in fact, suck.

BlakeaphobiaPosted:

GuyNamedBob Thats a fail even COD4 had twice the fps than that. So much for frostbite 2.0
BF3 is going to have massive environments, awesome graphics, super realistic character movements, and crazy realistic destruction. Cod4 had none of these. that's why it's going to be 30fps. which i'd have to say isn't that bad if you think about the fact that none of those would be possible at 60fps.

And it's not the dev's fault. the consoles just cant handle it. SO GET OVER IT. this game's going to be great either way.

if you don't like that it'll be 30fps then go get a 3,000$ cpu. otherwise, stop whining.

Also BC2 had 30fps and it was perfectly fine. And most movies and tv shows are recorded at 24fps so get over it. cod4 sucked anyway

BlakeaphobiaPosted:

BF3 is going to have massive environments, awesome graphics, super realistic character movements, and crazy realistic destruction. Cod4 had none of these. that's why it's going to be 30fps. which i'd have to say isn't that bad if you think about the fact that none of those would be possible at 60fps.

And it's not the dev's fault. the consoles just cant handle it. SO GET OVER IT. this game's going to be great either way.

if you don't like that it'll be 30fps then go get a 3,000$ cpu. otherwise, stop whining.

-SpiritPosted:

i told all of the battle field fan boys that this game was going to be on 30 fps and they couldn't drop there egos and started randomly start bashing cod games

Mratomicbomb66Posted:

Im_From_HF
GuyNamedBob Thats a fail even COD4 had twice the fps than that. So much for frostbite 2.0


COD4 has TERRIBLE graphics compared to more new games..

To more new?
To newer?

SubscribersPosted:

GuyNamedBob Thats a fail even COD4 had twice the fps than that. So much for frostbite 2.0


COD4 has TERRIBLE graphics compared to more new games..

AussieguyPosted:

Well Battlefield Bad Company 2 had 30fps and I never noticed once any slowdowns or anything. And that's with all the mortar strikes and tanks shooting and buildings exploding.

So as long as the graphics are better then Bad company 2 it doesn't bother me one bit :).

GuyNamedBobPosted:

Thats a fail even COD4 had twice the fps than that. So much for frostbite 2.0