Battlefield 3 to run at 30 FPS, 720p on consoles
Battlefield 3 will run at 720p and 30 FPS on consoles, a DICE rendering architect has confirmed. He says the company feels that pushing features like a high player-count and vehicles takes priority.
Its stunning visuals are no small part of why people have been talking about Battlefield 3. Of course, the console versions won't look quite as nice, and we're learning exactly what differences to expect. DICE rendering architect Johan Andersson told Develop that the game will run at 720p on consoles, at 30 frames-per-second.
"99.9% of PS3 and Xbox 360 games are 720p, and a lot of them, including Modern Warfare 2 run way lower than that," he said. Though MW2 runs at 60 FPS, Andersson claims that its resolution is "1024x600 on PS3 with 2x MSAA."
As for the concessions for console versions, he says DICE feels the trade-off is worth it for the game's scope. "We thing huge levels, lots of players, great effects, destruction, vehicles, and varied gameplay is more important than 1080p," he said. "We always do 30 frames per second on consoles, otherwise it wouldn't be possible to fit in vehicles, effects, scale and all players."
During Video Game Week on the NBC show Late Night, host Jimmy Fallon had DICE executive producer Patrick Bach on to show the game running on the PS3. Though fans noted a drop-off in visual fidelity between it and the previous PC trailers, it's by no means an ugly game.
-
Shacknews
replySteve Watts posted a new article, Battlefield 3 to run at 30 FPS, 720p on consoles.
Battlefield 3 will run at 720p and 30 FPS on consoles, a DICE rendering architect has confirmed. He says the company feels that pushing features like a high player-count and vehicles takes priority.-
-
-
Halo is more engaging because people actually care about the outcome of the game. It isnt just every man for himself trying to unlock whatever. If BF3 puts more of a focus on the team actually winning the game then I'll climb aboard for sure. Screw COD.
-
-
-
Game over, man. I know everything I need to know about both series!
-
Someone compared MW and BF? OUTRAGE!
-
-
I know you be trollin meoff
-
-
Wait, so that means that the cheaper hardware that's based off 5+ year old tech means that I can't get the same results from PC's within the past 2 years? ROFL.
BTW, MW2 was anything but smooth, the lag and contact rolling killstreaks pretty much made it seem like someone rolling down a staircase.
-
-
I'll take non static environments and enjoyable gameplay over 60 FPS.
-
-
most people cant tell a difference and do not know what the hell is an FPS
-
Most people can spot stuttering if it drops bellow 30fps that's why everything (film, tv, games) try to stay above 30 (tv is 25-72 [They interlace so it does some trickery to the eyes], film is ~29, games are 30-60
-
-
-
Is that 720p or "720p"?
-
I'm betting it'll be "720p" but no one will know until the game comes out.
-
-
-
From what I've read Doom 4 is capped at 30 FPS because they can't get the visual fidelity they want at 60fps. Apparently, from his statements, the difference in visual fidelity between Rage and Doom IV will make Doom almost look like it's running on a different engine.
-
Hm yea ok, that makes sense I guess. He could have done the same for Rage though - and it seemed the rest of the team wanted him to at one point, only they could all see (and was happy about) the huge difference with 60 FPS when it reached that goal 1 year ago (I think that was mentioned as being 1 year ago anyway).
-
-
oh and the link http://www.shacknews.com/article/53713/carmack-doom-4-sports-better
The obvious answer is the consoles yes - but why not just stick to what works with Rage?
Its is not like Rage is a bad looking game.-
Well by the time Doom 4 comes out they will need something more than what Rage offers to rope in an audience, be that increased visual fidelity, dynamic environments, or whatever. But targeting the same platforms means that sacrifices have to be made. And for Rage I think the big driver for 60fps was that it made the vehicular racing/combat much more fun, which presumably Doom 4 won't have.
-
-
Carmack mentioned in an interview or something that 30 demons on the screen at once was too much to do at 60FPS. So maybe we'll have an awesome classic DOOM style game with tons of enemies!
-
In a more recent pcgamer interview, he states that one of the biggest reasons for going 30 is the amount of enemies on screen at once. Based on the previous 3x visual fidelity I thought he might have meant texture res, shaders, or geometric complexity. This seems to indicate he's interested in using the extra time on gameplay- more/smarter bad guys, more interactivity.
-
I thought awhile back it'll be 60 for the PC version?
-
-
-
And in 1080P!
-
-
-
[deleted]
-
-
[deleted]
-
i believe the original xbox supported 800x600 with the right cable in games like splinter cell but it couldve been 720p... i dunno.
-
-
-
-
Framerate > Resolution. I'd much rather play a smooth game than a pretty slideshow. MW 1, BF 0.
-
That score doesn't look the same on my PC :)
-
Not having framerate issues for BC2 on my PC at true 1080p. True 1080p. Meaning the games rendered at 1080p, unlike 99.9% of console titles. So, how can you actually make a meaningful comment on resolution not mattering if you don't have anything accurate to base that opinion on? You realize MW2 isn't even rendered in HD(720p)?
But, I confess it's not fair to compare PC's to consoles. In any case, if you are using a console it should be a given that resolution doesn't actually matter to you let alone always having a stable frame rate with low internal latency. It's just funny to see arguments about the merits of a franchise due to the limitations of the platform they're running on.
In any case, why are you even comparing fps between a title that has massive dynamic destructible detailed environments with 32 players to a game with small static low detail environments with 16 players?
How can you even argue a comparison in gameplay between the two considering that in CoD when you blow something up it doesn't actually blow up?-
Console fanboys being butthurt maybe?
-
-
-
I dont play a military FPS for graphics i play it for gameplay, Battlefield 3 has that in spades.
-
-
It doesn't matter. Its just something for PC gamers to drone on about. Yes, we get it. The PC has superior graphics. No, I don't care any more. I'm not 16.
-
The thrill of blowing things up is only enhanced by blowing things up while they're very pretty blowing up. It's about an experience, it's a shame you no longer enjoy it enough to care about it. Even so, there's still the part where increased resolution and AA allows better long-distance detail which makes it easier to spot enemies from those distances. How are you going to tell the corner of someone's head barely poking out of a window from jaggies at so far away that they seem one and the same?
-
-
-
i dont care about consoles and neither should you!
there's powerful technology out there. powerful technology that can make your game look AWESOME and still run at up to 100 fps... OR EVEN HIGHER O_O
its called a gaming pc and its fuckin amazing.
i had to get that off my chest. -
first of all, console games that run at more than 720p are a rarity so that's a non-issue. as long as it runs up to par with Bad Co. 2 on the 360, i couldn't care less about counting frames and pixels. that crap is for PC gamers who feel they have something to prove. just give me a game that's fun to play!
-
