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.

marcusmonsoonPosted:

Deaths_Downfall
Wiz-Phamouz
Blakeaphobia 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.

You Maggot. 3,000 dollar CPU? There is no such thing, and you don't need a "expensive" CPU, you can play BF 3 with a 1,000 dollar computer. LOOOL you stupid little trump. Now this game looks mint, but i know the online won't be as thrilling and fast paced as MW3, so i'll only buy this for campaign and multiplay once in a while online.

I'd hate to tell you, but there is so such thing as a 3 grand computer. Look here: http://www.dell.com/us/p/alienware-area51-alx/pd?refid=alienware-area-51-alx&s=dhs&cs=19&~ck=mn
And that's the base price. It can go up to around 10 grand if you get all the extremely high end stuff on it. So honestly, your wrong. Just saying.


CPU = Central Processing Unit. You're wrong here.

And for the record, Alienware overprice their computers.

DecyferGamingPosted:

BF3 all the way. BFBC2 is currently so much fun and you never get bored of it. MW3 is so predictable which makes it boring!! Especially which BF3's new engine unlike MW3. (btw, this is just my opinion)

Realism BF3 > Same Old Cod


Can't we just leave the fighting aside and just say they both are going to be great Games? let the companies deal with which one is better and When the games are out and you can prove me wrong. Until then, Stfu.

Deaths_DownfallPosted:

Wiz-Phamouz
Blakeaphobia 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.

You Maggot. 3,000 dollar CPU? There is no such thing, and you don't need a "expensive" CPU, you can play BF 3 with a 1,000 dollar computer. LOOOL you stupid little trump. Now this game looks mint, but i know the online won't be as thrilling and fast paced as MW3, so i'll only buy this for campaign and multiplay once in a while online.

I'd hate to tell you, but there is so such thing as a 3 grand computer. Look here: http://www.dell.com/us/p/alienware-area51-alx/pd?refid=alienware-area-51-alx&s=dhs&cs=19&~ck=mn
And that's the base price. It can go up to around 10 grand if you get all the extremely high end stuff on it. So honestly, your wrong. Just saying.

ITzZCraigxXPosted:

marcusmonsoon
triksta2k11 I'm going to go with all the CoD fanboys here and say that MW3 will be far better than BF3.

BF3 will have 30 fps which will look like **** like Bad Company 2 did.

MW3 will have 60 fps which will have great graphics and be smooth like MW2.

MW3 will be fast paced and a jaw dropping adrenaline rush.

BF3 will be slow, boring and frustrating like an old lady crossing the road!


Once again. How will BF3 look like sh*t? How do you know BF3 will be slow? Have you played it? Thought not.


MW3 looks EXACTLY the same as MW2. Nothing new whatsoever. Oh, aside from guns and the campaign. Heck, people go as far as calling it "MW2's DLC". Which is correct.

OK mw3 will use the exact same engine as mw2 and same textures same sounds and animation just with a differnt story and some differnt elements in multiplayer.

Peace

will49Posted:

Who **** cares every1 prolly figures it wld b 30fps any
if u don't like it have fun playing your shitty cod

-Penguin-Posted:

It will still be a great game. I personally think it will be better than MW3.

marcusmonsoonPosted:

triksta2k11 I'm going to go with all the CoD fanboys here and say that MW3 will be far better than BF3.

BF3 will have 30 fps which will look like **** like Bad Company 2 did.

MW3 will have 60 fps which will have great graphics and be smooth like MW2.

MW3 will be fast paced and a jaw dropping adrenaline rush.

BF3 will be slow, boring and frustrating like an old lady crossing the road!


Once again. How will BF3 look like sh*t? How do you know BF3 will be slow? Have you played it? Thought not.


MW3 looks EXACTLY the same as MW2. Nothing new whatsoever. Oh, aside from guns and the campaign. Heck, people go as far as calling it "MW2's DLC". Which is correct.

epraiderPosted:

that doesnt make a difference to me. crysis 2 had 30 fps and it looke f**ken fantastic.

ArrowPosted:

On my pc these game run at much higher frames. GTX 580 soon to be sli ftw! yaay pc!

TTG_Anaass1Posted:

That's why i play on PC.