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

Related Articles

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.

shadow1Posted:

Milk_Money
shadow1
The_M21_EBR
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.


Im sorry to break this to you, but there is no such thing as a M21 EBR....*cough*FAILMW2LOGIC*cough*

Noboby said anything about an M21 EBR and the M21 EBR is a weapon on modern warfare 2 so check your facts before you post something stupid.



I was making fun of his name because he is obviously a lover of MW2. There is no such thing as a M21 ebr, just because its in a game, doesnt make it a real gun. Check your logic.

spy4561Posted:

Well, this isn't a "Bad Company 2" Sequel. It's a "Battlefield 2" sequel. And I'm sure that 30 fps will be fine, considering, BFBC2 ran at 30 fps and it looks and runs quite amazingly. Honestly, if you think about it all the CoD games are just the same damn thing with new stuff added each time a new game is released, never any technical or major improvements, but if your a person who wants a pure 60+ fps, then I recommend getting a Gaming PC...

And sure both games ( BF3 & MW3 ) will have their ups and downs, but overall, most people I know will get battlefield 3 over MW3 because of the mass scale of BF3, but MW3 will appeal to the younger, more " I like to shoot things" kind of people, then BF3 will appeal to the " I like my games looking nice, and lots of shit blowing up and building falling over due to the power of my gun " kind of people LOL

VampiricPosted:

BraddieBoi
FleshyyMODZz This will NEVER be better than MW3

CoD all the way!!

F.U BF fanboys


Stop posting on every BF3/MW3 related topic about you loving MW3 then. Your clearly the fan boy. It's a game - If you like a certain game that much go play it don't go on the internet cursing it's competitors


The words of wisdom, good job.

BraddieBoiPosted:

FleshyyMODZz This will NEVER be better than MW3

CoD all the way!!

F.U BF fanboys


Stop posting on every BF3/MW3 related topic about you loving MW3 then. Your clearly the fan boy. It's a game - If you like a certain game that much go play it don't go on the internet cursing it's competitors

Milk_MoneyPosted:

shadow1
The_M21_EBR
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.


Im sorry to break this to you, but there is no such thing as a M21 EBR....*cough*FAILMW2LOGIC*cough*

Noboby said anything about an M21 EBR and the M21 EBR is a weapon on modern warfare 2 so check your facts before you post something stupid.

-Fleshyy-Posted:

This will NEVER be better than MW3

CoD all the way!!

F.U BF fanboys

iCustomPosted:

what is the point of being in war of which game is better than the other... NOBODY will stop a CoD fan to buy MW3 or NOBODY will stop a BF fan to buy BF3... just buy the game you want.
In my personal opinion I didnt like BF2 because i dont like to ride any vehicle. I hate big maps at least CoD have small maps in which is good and specially I hate f***ing campers... they are in all the games like MW2, CoD4, WaW, Black Ops, BF2, etc. and they will be in MW3 and BF3. I like a lot of action and to rush thats why I like CoD, it doesnt matter if the game is realistic or not but I will try BF3 and see if i will like it or not

I gave my opinion in PEACE Im not looking forward to have a discussion with somebody

-Frostbite-Posted:

Modern Warfare 3 Will Not Have HUGE SCALE MAPS They Never Do. The Bigger Map They Will Do Is An "Derail" size map, Modern Warfare 2 Is An Arcady Shooter. Battlefield is a SHOOTER.


-Frostbite-

shadow1Posted:

The_M21_EBR
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.


Im sorry to break this to you, but there is no such thing as a M21 EBR....*cough*FAILMW2LOGIC*cough*

Cleveland-BrownPosted:

I wish people would stop arguing. There can't be a good game and a bad game. It depends on your play style. If you like running round like a fairy quickscoping like a nub then get MW3. If you want more realistic gameplay buy BF3.


Latest Downloads

Latest Tutorials