The PS3 and Xbox 360 versions of Battlefield 3 will support 720p resolution and run at 30 frames per second, "just as 99% of all games for those platforms".
That's according to Johan Andersson, a rendering architect at DICE working on the Frostbite engine and Battlefield 3.
"how is that a shame?" he said. "name a single FPS game that runs at 1080p on any of the consoles? would have to do huge gameplay cuts... 99.9% of PS3 and Xbox 360 games are 720p. and a lot of them, including MW2 is way lower than that.
"we always do 30 fps on consoles, not possible to fit in vehicles, fx, scale and all players otherwise," he added. "we think huge levels, lots of players, great fx, destruction, vehicles & varied gameplay is more important than 1080p."
Battlefield 3 made its console debut on the Jimmy Fallon show last week, but the PS3 demo wasn't to everyone's liking, with some gamers complaining that it didn't stand up to the PC gameplay shown off to date.
Having already defended the console version, Andersson added: "... some console gamers have really no idea what they are playing on or what a modern PC is capable of."
Infinity Ward has said that rival shooter Modern Warfare 3 "will be locked at 60 FPS".
Comments
57 comments so far...
Bibbo on 20 Jun '11 said:
Battlefield 3 will run at the same frame rate as Bad Company 2. What's the big deal?
People love to bitch about anything nowadays don't they, Gears does 30fps, So does Uncharted, and many many other titles.
If you want a 60fps experience, just make sure you've got a good PC otherwise you are not going to achieve it.
Red Deer01 on 20 Jun '11 said:
Dont understand how us console users can complain. If theres one thing we want most it aint the shiny graphics but rather that we get at least half the player count from the PC version of the game for multiplayer. The game looks pretty damn good regardless just needs some touching up here and there, i noticed that smoke clouds for cars were one of those things (which is only noticable because the particle effects in the PC version are stunning).
StonecoldMC on 20 Jun '11 said:
I dont understand how console owners can be p**sed off here
?
When DICE announced Battlefield 3, they said it was going to push PC hardware as far as they could, if anyone actually believed that the 360 and PS3 could show parity with a top end beast of a PC then they have never Gamed on a PC.
The Game (PS3 version) still looks brilliant, but I will admit, it would have been nice to have 60FPS.
FlimFlam on 20 Jun '11 said:
This.
I openly admit to being slightly disappointed by the PS3 footage, purely because the PC footage looked better than life itself, but the disappointment was only born out of my perhaps foolish hope that DICE had pulled off some sort of technical marvel. As it stands, it still looks great on console and I cannot wait for the game.
This, 60fps/30fps b0llocks though is just silly. Anyone who plays BFBC2 knows how frickin' awesome it is, and if I were given the choice between huge maps and fully destructible scenery, or a higher frame rate, it's the former everytime.
I actually feel sorry for DICE. They are getting a load of stick for basically making one of the best looking games I think I have ever seen... then not being able to replicate it on 6 year old hardware which costs a quarter of a top end PC.
Madness.
WHERESMYMONKEY on 20 Jun '11 said:
what i want to know is whether it's going to be locked at 30fps or not. I hope so. Smooth running and full bodied experience beats the fabled 1080p every time for me.
I don't have a gaming PC but i'm happy that DICE have decided to lead with the PC and try and push it as far as it can go. It'll only mean that the console versions will look and hopefully run as well as they possibly can.
the problem i find with lots of console gamers mainly these days is they want to have thier cake and eat it. they've spent so long being told how uber powerful they're consoles are supposed to be that they've forgotten that the PC will always be several steps ahead. hell i played games in 720p or whatever the equivalent resolution is in the 90s. My last Gaming PC was as powerful as a 360 spec wise and that was almost 10 years ago. I don't think that was even cutting edge when i got it either. The miracle of console gaming is that they manage to squeeze so much juice out of the tech inside them. Its never the tech itself.
joycey on 20 Jun '11 said:
Does only having 30fps really matter? I know that watching a movie is different to controlling an action on screen in a game but the movie i was watching the other night sure looked sweet & it was running at 25fps.
fps_d0minat0r on 20 Jun '11 said:
why are people under the illusion that were unhappy with the console version because it doesnt look as good as a high end PC?
no-one is disappointed about that because that would be stupid. the truth is we already know even 99.9% of PC gamers wont get those graphics.
the reason why people are complaining is because how they said the COD engine is so old and BF3 will be so much better and then they announce its running at half the frame rate and doesnt look significantly better. the truth is the demo shown at e3 for MW3 has much better graphics and fits more on screen and runs at a higher frame rate.
hes correct that 99.9% of games are 30fps and not 1080p but when why were they making their engine sound so special when it is only doing what others are doing?
Currychips on 20 Jun '11 said:
If it plays as well, or even better than BC2 then I'm a happy bunny.
All this frame counting and resolution is utterly pointless, a bit nerdy and possibly a little transexual.
If you want the best looking version, you'll have to buy the most expensive equipment. It's how it's always been and always will be. I was in 2 minds about buying a PC rig just for this game, but after seeing the footage of the PS3, I'm more than happy with that.
You wouldn't buy a Peugeot 206 and complain to Peugeot that it didn't handle or go as fast as a Ferrari F40 would you?
Or maybe you would. I don't know, the world is full of idiots these days.
Mandatory Grape on 20 Jun '11 said:
The only reason people are p**sed is beacuse all we have really seen is PC gameplay running at the best it possible could be, Not many people have that kind of top spec pc but it should still be a good change from call of duty.
FlacidDonkeyGuy on 20 Jun '11 said:
Sorry but you’re wrong, the console versions only use particle effects. The PC on the other hand also makes use of, tessellated low poly mesh something that would cripple the consoles. That’s why it appears to have volume rather being painted on.
As for the console player count look at it this way, the game looks a lot nicer than say Homefront, Frontlines FOW & MAG. This is nothing to do with bandwidth, and the fact that in order draw all what is going on screen. Higher player counts would mean a bigger hit on the visuals or lower than 30fps (unplayable).
Expect the campaign to look nicer than the multiplayer side of thing as they a good idea what’s going on screen at any given time. The fact is multiplayer is unpredictable so it’s not going to look or run as good as singleplayer out of necessity. Some resources will be held back at all time until there needed.
FlacidDonkeyGuy on 20 Jun '11 said:
"we already know even 99.9% of PC gamers wont get those graphics"
Would "we" care to elaborate on that opinion? Have you even read about the PC specifications?
"the truth is the demo shown at e3 for MW3 has much better graphics and fits more on screen and runs at a higher frame rate."
T(t)he truth you talk out of your arse, "doesnt look significantly better" & then followed by "MW3 has much better graphics".
kirankara on 20 Jun '11 said:
Lmao
It's so true. My favourite line ever is from the film snatch where bullet tooth Tony says " never underestimate the predictability of stupidity"
My first reaction to this story was the headline should have read " six year old consoles can't run game at quality as brand new top end pc shocker!!!!"
It's just idiotic that people expected anything beyond 30fPs.
No game this gen that runs anywhere near the visual level of bf3 on console runs at over 30fps. Cod only achieves what it does by reducing resolution, sp being extremely linear, keeping maps small and reducing number of players .
In answer to someone's question about why are they bragging about an engine that only does what others do, it doesn't .it offers more things in terms of level of detail, effects on screen, the scale of environments that are used etc
Sure u could have a game running at 1080p and 60fps . It would look like Rolf Harris drew it, but u could have it. Idiots!!!
If they want 60fps and pc level of detail, buy a pc ffs!!!
InsertMoreCredit on 20 Jun '11 said:
It's a sad thing that so many gamers are only concerned about graphics. Graphics on yet ANOTHER FPS no less.
Jensonjet on 20 Jun '11 said:
There's a big difference between why movies work at 25 frames a second and why that looks jerky in a game.
The camera work in a movie either moves much slower than a gamer does in a first person shooter, or if the camera does move fast then the image is motion blurred. Motion blur isn't an issue for a film (as the director specifically chooses when a viewer needs to see detail and when it's not necessary), but if a game only ran at 25 frames a second and had motion blur you'd lose sight of everything if you looked around too quickly and that would make gaming very difficult. Instead most games run at 30 frames, and get jerky if you look around quickly. Movies and TV are not comparable to games regarding frame rate.
Games that run at 60 frames a second, Gran Turismo, Forza and the Call of Duty series clearly have lower quality graphics than they would if the developers gave up and went back to 1990s quality frame rates! However, anyone who enjoys the faster frame rate appreciates that it's easier to see details, or get a sense of speed when the frame rate is capable of keeping up with the input of your movements in game.
I admit I hate 30 frames a second. Sure, I appreciate the graphics are often better, but for me it's at too high a price. Having enjoyed games that do run at 60 frames going back to 30fps games I find distracting, harder to play, and actually quite unpleasant. An example of this was when Modern Warfare came out, I was still playing a Rainbow Six game. After spending time with Modern Warfare having gone back to Rainbow Six I found it unplayable. Rainbow Six was instantly traded in! I'd come from a game that allowed me to look around quickly yet still make out small details, and more importantly see enemies at distance then in Rainbow Six I was completely distracted by the jerky screen as I looked around.
I understand perhaps some people have lower sensitivity on their controllers, and that hides the issue. But for those who use a high sensitivity pad setting, and prefer to be able to look about quickly, understand that 60 frames a second should be the minimum.
In a sport game, for example when the only fast movement may be the speed of a ball, or a few players, it's not an issue. But in a shooter you are moving the whole screen. It's no coincidence that the best, and most competitive PC gamers will have a very fast frame rate. Regardless of a gamers skill the smoother and faster the frame rate, the better they can play. Perhaps this explains why so many prefer to camp rather than run around.
And to those who suggest "go buy a PC if you want high frame rates"... why? For as long as there are developers out there with the technical skills to bring decent looking games out on consoles that can run at 60 frames a second, proving today's consoles can do it, why should people go out and spent three or four times the amount on hardware?
Personally I think the issue is two-fold. It seems obvious there are plenty of developers who simply cannot create decent looking games that run at 60 frames a second. And secondly, too many developers know that a console game's biggest selling point is pretty graphics. This obsession (and I'm not suggesting that slow frame rates and pretty graphics don't sell games, we all know it does) is probably the answer to why game play and game design has become stale. Why bother trying to make an complex, original or interesting game when all gamers demand are pretty graphics on a clone of what's come before. Saying that, Call of Duty games are guilty of being lazy clones, but at least they run on a decent game engine.
I believe John Carmack has said his new game will run at 60 frames a second on consoles. So if id, Turn 10, Polyphony and Infinity Ward belief in 60 frames a second and have the technical understanding to pull it off, it says something about the rest of the industry!
There is a very simple solution.
One that's been around in gaming since the early days. A solution that's enjoyed by all PC gamers, and one that COULD be offered to console gamers if only developers could change their attitude and understand that gamers aren't all the same. And that's to allow games to run in two different resolutions and frame rates. Everyone's happy. If you prefer pretty graphics and slow frame rate, you're catered for. As I prefer fast framerates and am less bothered by pretty graphics, I'm catered for.
Bibbo on 20 Jun '11 said:
I still play Bad Company 2 regularly, and it still looks fantastic. After seeing the PS3 footage, I was still very very impressed, it blows BC2 out of the water.
I know we won't get a PC version, but my goodness. It still looks amazing. This will be another Battlefield game i'll sink 900 hours into. (I'm at 930 hours and counting on 360 BC2!)
OptimusFrag on 20 Jun '11 said:
More ammo for my inner discussion about if I should build a custom gaming PC for my self.
I'm a console gamer mainly by a massive margin but I play eve-online and Starcraft II on my reasonably powered laptop. But with tomorrow's Incarna expansion on Eve and a growing desire to play my PC games on as big a screen as possible with 5.1 sound, I'm tempted to get my toolkit out and build one.
While I can't complain about the quality of the PS3 version and I'm sure the 360 will look as good, we are now way beyond the point where the PC can be considered the more technical format.
With the upcoming new PC gear it's going to less than year before even a basic PC will blow the consoles out of the water.
Both Sony and Microsoft should've announced and shown tech demos of their upcoming consoles. The innards of the 360 are now based on nearly 10 year old tech and the PS3 not far behind. Sort it out guys.
roguezink on 20 Jun '11 said:
I wonder how many PC players will be able to ramp up the graphics to play the game to the level we've seen?
As far as BC3 on console, Bad Co.2 was great, so if it's on par with that then there's no complaining from me. MW looks sh1t against BC - especially in multiplayer.
kirankara on 20 Jun '11 said:
"I believe John Carmack has said his new game will run at 60 frames a second on consoles. So if id, Turn 10, Polyphony and Infinity Ward belief in 60 frames a second and have the technical understanding to pull it off, it says something about the rest of the industry!"
Ok , racing games, like call of duty in sp are very very linear.the environment is fixed and you can only move so far in any direction, and therefore ; the hardware only has to calculate a certain amount of information at any one time .
This is why they can run at higher frame rates ( also gt5 dropped frame rates horrendously and wasnt close to 60fps most the time ). This is why open world games like gta, infamous etc can't match more linear games in frame rate of graphical details.
Rage runs at 60fps , but using a technique called megatextures , which means the textures for the environments are compressed and streamed off disk. They are completely non interactive as they are not built with polygons and often are low res if they are in distance, as they know u will never get close enough to see them in detail. There's also some very low res textures sprinkled throughout rage from screenshots I've seen, and the game itself is more linear and less graphically impressive than bf3, and thus you can have 60fps.
There is no magic fix to suddenly get 60fps on consoles . The hardware is limited and u choose between detail and resolution or frame rate, as the image will simply not fit in the framebuffer of the consoles at higher res and with high amounts of effects, let alone at 60fps, they often struggle at 30fps
Ali_ on 20 Jun '11 said:
If 1080p and 60fps mean having graphics as sterile and lacking in effects as GT5, I'll take 720p and 30fps any day. People claiming it makes much difference are being anal.
FlacidDonkeyGuy on 20 Jun '11 said:
Quite a few (many in fact) the PC footage has been captured using a single GTX 580, the game will support SLI. You can pick up a GTX 580 for around £350, or get a pair of GTX 460’s for around the same price.
You can get a pre-built system for around £1000 that will play BF3 at that level, & not to mention run the entire PC library at top spec too. PC Gamers spend less on software the saving covers the cost hardware. Unless you only buy COD & FIFA that is, but then again if you’re coming to this site you likely don’t.
In all likelihood you should own a £400ish laptop/PC that you use the internet, & a console(s) to boot couple that with the extra 10/15 pounds per game. You have not saved anything by going for a console.
Anarion on 20 Jun '11 said:
Seriously, do people really think that those old toy boxes can run games at 1080p @ 60 FPS with PC fidelity?
Jensonjet on 20 Jun '11 said:
kirankara,
Yes, I accept that. I know that it's about trade-offs. Which is why I ask, why can't we have the option of high frame rate, lower graphics, or high quality graphics and lower frame rate? It can't be hard to implement. And I'm sure there are plenty of gamers like myself that are put off and do not buy games because of the framerate. I could list plenty of examples where I refuse to buy a game, or even consider one because of frame rate. In terms of racing games, I certainly wouldn't consider a game that runs at 30 frames a second, but if all of those that did had the option of 60, I would be spending more money on games than I do. Same with shooters.
Ali,
Sorry, dude, no. I'm not being anal with regards this frame rate issue. It's a genuine issue. You may not understand but a game is instantly more enjoyable for me with a higher framerate. It's not me being fussy, or demanding, or having a love of moaning, the framerate directly affects my enjoyment of a game.
While you would probably be disappointed and enjoy a game less if it had ten year old graphics I feel the same way with ten year old framerates. We both know if a game came out today with poor graphics it's guaranteed to sell fewer copies, especially if it's a shooter in a market dominated by some very nice looking games.
And in terms of competitiveness, I promise you the best gamers who have the option of higher frame rates can play better. I guess you don't agree, and don't see any advantage, but you'll have to take my word that I find jerky images unpleasant, and I can play shooter games better, and am more accurate with a higher frame rate. You're lucky that frame rate isn't an issue for you, but you have to understand we don't all have your opinion and preference.
Sure, Gran Turismo isn't the game for you. For me any racing game beyond Forza or GT isn't for me. Both have been described as sterile, and it's a fair observation. But me, and I guess all those that do play these two games, the sterile nature is more than made up for in other areas. I'm a big fan of racing games attempting to be simulation like. And in these two games the developers understand not all gamers like arcade racers. Saying that, sadly, most gamers of both do prefer arcade and can't handle sim-like settings and so the majority use traction control, ABS, assisted-whatever. Incidentally, there's nothing sterile about racing in the rain in GT. And in both games, race the fastest cars with any driver aids and I think you'll be less concerned about the bells and whistles off track and have your eyes and hands busy controlling what's on! Anyway, that's another argument.
Ali_ on 20 Jun '11 said:
Is that not because the choice of quality software has shrunk so much in recent years?
kirankara on 20 Jun '11 said:
sadly, theirs some idiots out there, so yes lol
@jensonjet
"Sorry, dude, no. I'm not being anal with regards this frame rate issue. It's a genuine issue. You may not understand but a game is instantly more enjoyable for me with a higher framerate. It's not me being fussy, or demanding, or having a love of moaning, the framerate directly affects my enjoyment of a game. "
what is it that affects u so badly about lower frame rates? i can understand when dropping to 20 etc, as the response times for pads gets ridiculous, but at 30fps, its pretty responsive, and my understanding has always been that on pads, frame rate isnt as much of a necessity as it doesnt respond as quickly as a mouse and keyboard do, so their isnt that huge discontinuity between the two.
I can understand with racing games why 60fps is usually a requirement, as it really affects the look of game and feel to a degree too, but in a slower paced fps like bc2 , it doesnt seem to matter so much, as its not about twitchy responses like cod is.
Paul_Boland2 on 20 Jun '11 said:
PC's rule!! Bahaha...
kirankara on 20 Jun '11 said:
when did skynet happen?
le_don on 20 Jun '11 said:
NO. Every multi plat game is on PC, looks better and is cheaper, and we get some gorgeous exclusives like the witcher for example. Again Ali_: Investigate before you launch an argument.
kirankara on 20 Jun '11 said:
[]
Pc games have virtually no resale value at all, thats a factor that has to be taken into account, if u trade games, and it certainly doesnt get the number of exclusives that consoles get, and on top of that there are issues with idiots hacking games and ruining them(apparently crysis 2 online on pc is a mess now)
witcher isnt exclusive btw, its due out on 360 later in year
Slacher007 on 20 Jun '11 said:
fixed
KieranTC on 20 Jun '11 said:
I'm not bothered about 1080p resolution, as a lot of games can only manage 720p anyway, but the 30fps is seriously disappointing. The last couple of Call Of Duty games have ran at 60fps and that's on an engine that is clearly inferior to the new BF3 engine, so why are they not pushing to challenge the COD domination on all fronts?
chamony on 20 Jun '11 said:
us older ones on here will remember back in the (good?) old days when you'd go down to your local computer shop with your pocket money to buy a new speccy or c64 game and all the screen shots on the boxes were from the amiga.
moral of the story - dont be a 2@, make sure you know what your buying! its all marketing bullcrap, they're not going to sell a game by showing us the DS version constantly are they? thats also why most adverts only show cgi not gameplay it looks loads better.
le_don on 20 Jun '11 said:
Yeah the witcher 2 is, not the original. Listen, what is your problem with PC's? If anyone says anything good about one, you have to retaliate. Hackers hack games on all platforms, and if you buy a game you know you arent going to keep you simply attach it to fresh email address/steam account and then sell it on. Stop being such a console fanboy, when you're old enough and can afford a decent PC your opinion would change.
aawells07 on 20 Jun '11 said:
kirankara on 20 Jun '11 said:
I don't have a problem with pc's u smug , irritating , patronising phallus.
I simply pointed out some issues that exist with pc gaming , and some of the reasons the majority of world doesn't play on pc.
Youre the one bashing people for owning a console .
I'm happy for now with my console , and contemplated a gaming pc recently, but just decided I don't need or want one , so take ur patronising immature comments and shove them up ur smug arse.
murph_77 on 20 Jun '11 said:
What makes me chuckle to myslef is most people would not be able to tell the difference between 30 fps and 60fps. Also how can anyone be so deluded to think that the PS3 and 360 versions are going to be able to replicate PC. I only play PS3 and knew we would not get the same level of detail and things would have to be cut. I think a bit of realism needs to be inserted into peoples minds when it comes to the pure power of a top end gaming PC and a 5 year old console. Still getting it and I still intend on enjoying it as much as MW3. What I will be playing the most come Xmas is another story and only time can tell.
kirankara on 20 Jun '11 said:
Without being rude, but did you read any of the posts here before commenting?, as this has been discussed at length .
Cod games run at a virtual 60fps anyway, ie fluctuating between about 45-60 depending on what's going on at time, as human eye strugggles to notice difference. It also runs at lower res and is much smaller in scale , with much smaller player counts and maps, as well as the detail on screen being less . This is literally the only way they can keep the game at 60fps this generation of consoles, as higher res etc will drastically affect frame rate. Bf games are designed around large scale maps and warfare , thus on console to keep it larger scale they have to drop frame rate, or drop number of players , the size of maps, the amount of detai etc
le_don on 20 Jun '11 said:
quote]
I don't have a problem with pc's u smug , irritating , patronising phallus.
I simply pointed out some issues that exist with pc gaming , and some of the reasons the majority of world doesn't play on pc.
Youre the one bashing people for owning a console .
I'm happy for now with my console , and contemplated a gaming pc recently, but just decided I don't need or want one , so take ur patronising immature comments and shove them up ur smug arse.
Wow, I'm the one making immature comments? Haha, I've never said a bad thing about consoles, I own a 360 myself, I merely reply to your(s and others) very one sided comments.
Jensonjet on 20 Jun '11 said:
kirankara,
The frame rate issue for me is two fold.
First of all it's personal preference. I would rather a faster frame rate over slightly better graphics. As much as I'm happy to watch a movie on a smaller screen and have surround sound than a big TV blurting out stereo. Most people I know don't care for surround sound but it's important to me. A movie, and a game are far more enjoyable and immersive. With sound I think the biggest obstacle is the extra cost. People would rather spend their money on a large screen. I accept that. But sound is too important for it to totally take a back seat over picture size.
Saying that, there are specific reasons to me preferring 60 frames a second. I always play shooters on a pretty high, if not the highest view speed settings. Being an ex-computer gamer I find the joypad already too slow so I have to improve it any way I can. The reason I don't game on a computer now... because gaming isn't worth any more to me. It's a cheap hobby with a cheap, throw-away product. Most games are utterly disappointing or clones and copies of the past. While graphics improve, I'm not bothered about having the best graphics, hence I don't feel the need to go the computer route.
And as I've explained before I play better with a smoother framerate (in fact I'd go as far to say everyone can play better with a higher framerate). I can see things easier. And ultimately I can respond quicker. For me one of the key skills required for shooters is observation. Reactions and accuracy are pretty useless if you don't see the opposition quick enough. Looking around slowly and only looking across a small area, or worse still a large area slowly is a disadvantage. I prefer to be able to play as good as my skills allow. I'm already having to play within the confines of a joypad, but to be forced to have to look about slower because the game can't keep up is too much for me.
On top of that I think games look better at a higher frame rate, and are easier on the eye. I'm much more likely to get eye strain, or headaches with games at 30 frames a second than I am with 60. To my knowledge I've never had eyestrain or a headache from any game with the higher framerate. Sure, it's an easy issue to solve, but why wouldn't anyone prefer to avoid problems than be prepared to handle them?
I wish it didn't matter. But then wouldn't life be great if we didn't have any preference or care at all? I would just buy any old game and be happy. And sadly for me, regardless of the game, the quality, the features and style, a game running at a low frame rate is just that; any old game. 60 frames a second elevates any game. But then I'm not concerned about graphics particularly. The Forza's, Gran Turismo's and Call of Duty's look more than good enough to me.
Incidentally, the frame rate isn't a problem in most genres outside of racing and shooters. A sports game, for example, or a strategy game, of course, isn't as badly affected, although any game is improved with a higher frame rate. If it weren't an issue strategy games could run at 10 frames a second and a sports game could still be playable at 20!
Ali_ on 20 Jun '11 said:
He doesn't seem to understand that some people are actually quite happy with a console experience. He's quite funny, though, in a PC elitist "ZOMGFFSLMAO you can't want to play online on console surely?" way.
Regarding framerate, I started gaming in an era when 1 frame every 2-3 seconds was impressive for monochrome filled polygons, and most wireframe games could barely scrape 10fps and that was usually in a small window, far less than the huge 256x192 pixel resolution of the gaming screen. This 30fps and 720p is like some kind of sorcery to me....
kirankara on 20 Jun '11 said:
"Stop being such a console fanboy, when you're old enough and can afford a decent PC your opinion would change."
So that's not bashing console owners?
I simply stated some issues associated with pc gaming and some reasons I personally am not interested in oc gaming , without any judgement of pc gaming or personal insults , and that was ur response, assuming it as some form of attack on pc gaming. For some it's ideal, for me, I can't be bothered right now. I've never get on with keyboards , so would still be using a pad and at disadvantage for start in fps online. I'd have no access to ps3 exclusives I enjoy either, which is another factor .
Consoles have their advantages , and it's clear pc's have theirs , but it doesn't mean it's ideal got everyone's needs.
If u enjoy pc gaming , frankly , great for u, I dont care either way. I like my gaming on my ps3 and am more than happy with it for now .
kirankara on 20 Jun '11 said:
@ jensonjet
Fair enough mate. Weirdly enough I find I have issues with 60fps for some reason, I find it hard on my eyes watching ppl play cod for example, and myself struggle to keep up with screen moving so rapidly. I have perfect vision , but also struggle with 3d films and wondered why I have these issues, but both 3d and 60fps shooters hurt my eyes and give me headaches.
Oh well , each to their own
scorpa23 on 20 Jun '11 said:
I'm sorry but if 30 FPS is such a massive problem for anyone, then you sir are a t**t.
I can't believe the idiocy of gamers these days, get over yourselves.
Jensonjet on 20 Jun '11 said:
kirankara,
Yeah that is odd that the 60 frames a second is uncomfortable for you. Saying that it's harder to watch than to control the game. I've heard people say this when they're watching others, but have never had an issue when playing.
I wonder what it would be like for you in those outrageous (or in my eyes wonderful) giddy heights of some PC game frame rates. In theory, the faster the more comfortable for your eyes.
This reminds me of an issue a few years back, when I was the first person I knew to buy a 100hz TV, a while before flat screens were an option. I could see the flicker in everyone elses TV. And hated it. Maybe it's possible I'm just more conscious of this than others. I guess it makes sense. I'm more sensitive to bright light too.
The issues you have with 3d isn't uncommon. The biggest problem here is that no one understands or has data to show what long-term problems, or even short term issues could arise from people spending long periods watching 3d. I believe there are warnings that very young children shouldn't be allowed near it! That's about as scarey a warning as you can get, and possibly an insight into the fact there are known dangers.
Still, it could be worse for you. There are people who get motion sickness watching or playing fast moving games. Gotta feel sorry for them.
ricflair on 20 Jun '11 said:
You can get an HD5830 for £80 that should run this quite nicely I'd imagine. Or a 5850 for £115. I nearly paid twice that for one a year ago!
gmcb007 on 20 Jun '11 said:
Is this still a hot topic for the 'perfect world' kids? This game looks utterly brillant on consoles and it was no suprise and I mean absolutely none whatsoever that the PC version would look better. Now, where did I put my rusty pipe? Gotta knock sense into these whiners somehow.
El Mag on 20 Jun '11 said:
On PC = Good game
On PS3 = Good game
On 360 = Good game
And
Chocolate M&M's better than peanut M&M's.
Sorted.
Kutocer on 20 Jun '11 said:
Hell yeah Chocolate M&M's are better then Peanuts!
kirankara on 20 Jun '11 said:
@jensonjet
Yeah, I know that theoretically 60 fps or higher should be better, and it is only in first person shooters I have the issue with, and can only presume it's the rapid movements itself , almost like motion sickness I guess. It isn't horrendous , just uncomfortable after a while and I end up straining looking at screen .
FlacidDonkeyGuy on 20 Jun '11 said:
No we pay between 10/15 less per game did you bother to read my post's troll?
Noobsaibot on 20 Jun '11 said:
The only time you would actually notice the difference between 30 & 60 fps is (a) You are playing on a PC monitor and up close or (b) you are playing an extremely fast paced game such as a racing game. Considering BF3 will be a slower, more tactical shooter, NOBODY will notice IMO. Besides....
.... what he said.
Multiplayerking on 20 Jun '11 said:
Am I the only one who notices no difference between the PC and console gameplay? So all of this info means s**t all to me.
hi0marc on 20 Jun '11 said:
Gotta love DICE.
One year "Yeah heres a shiny console only game we love you guys"
Next year "Console players are morons who don't understand technology and can go suck it. WE LOVE YOU PC!!!"
the688 on 21 Jun '11 said:
Seems a lot of people are comparing MW to BF.
An F1 car is faster pr. lap than a Le Mans prototype - but it wouldn't last 24 hours!
BF has *huge* maps, compared to MW. Look at BFBC2 compared to MW2. In MW2 multiplayer (atleast on PC, I'm not playing FPS on consoles) you're rarely in combat with anything that's more than 50 metres away. Maybe 100. In BFBC2, engagements take place over MUCH bigger distances - not to mention the fact that they're taking place in tanks, jeeps and helicopters too!
Comparing MW-series games to BF-series games is not "fair". They're completely different in nature - aside from the fact that you're carrying a rifle most of the time in both of them. A sprinter and a long distance runner are both fantastic athletes - but saying that one is "better than the other" makes no sense.
Some people prefer run-and-gun stuff like MW. Others - like me - prefer a slower pace, where the winner is determined not by who mouses the fastest, but by who works together the most effectively, and who has the superior situation awareness on a much bigger scale. It's a question of taste. Oh, yeah, and MW-players and console players all suck
Enterprise2448 on 21 Jun '11 said:
Am I seeing things? People saying there is no difference between 30 and 60 fps? People claiming "99.9% of PCs wont run this on max?
Let me address these claims of nonsense:
1. There is a difference between 30 and 60 fps in games. Movies run at 25 fps and feel smooth, that is because they use motion blur. Games dont use that kind of motion blur (except for some few like Crysis 1) and EVERY SINGLE person out there is capable of clearly distinguishing betweeen 60 and 30 fps. If you say you don't care, you most likely never played the same game both in 30 and 60 fps. It makes a much smoother experience, ESPECIALLY in shooters like BF3. 30 fps is playable, ofcourse, but 60 fps feels much more natural, smooth, responsive. I mean, even 40 fps is much better than 30 for me. 60 fps is optimal for an average human, but when it comes for frame rates of over 70 fps, it starts to matter less. Nevertheless, humans are capable of distinguishing individual frames at over 150 fps, just as an info.
2. Many PCs will be able to run this on max and with high fps. A midrange graphics card these days has over ten times the computational performance as the GPUs in 360 and PS3. Also, those graphics cards only cost about a hundred bucks, so claiming 99.9% of PCs wont be able to max out this game is just as stupid as the 30 vs 60 fps issue. My PC, in its used state, is worth less than 300 euros, but it can max pretty much everything except Crysis and Metro 2033 with antialiasing enabled. The price argument in favour of consoles is also becoming obsolete.
3. And finally, Battlefield 3 running in 30 fps and 720p on consoles is not big news. Very few games on consoles are capable of either 1080p or 60fps, let alone both. On PCs, however, you have no problems maxing out those multiplatform games with 60 fps. Atleast I didn't with my 5870 and Q6600 oc'd to 3,2GHz (value of GPU: 140€, CPU: 60€, just for info)
Joe90_Remy700 on 23 Jun '11 said:
i used to play MW2 in the bedroom on a crappy 20" lcd (no HD) screen, then when i upgraded to a 26" HD ready i found s serious difference but i always had a fuzzy, slightly dizzy head after only a short while of playing. definately its no good for they eyes. now i've been playing BFBC2 amongst other games and didn't touch any CoD's since xmas but when i look at someone playing MW2 i get that kind of motion sickness stuffy head feeling.
its far too much i'm perfectly happy with 30fps and 720p and TBH when i'm 3m away from a 47" telly (yes, the wife let me move it to the sitting room!) i wouldn't notice. i barely notice the graphics and textures or even the animation, let alone would know or care what anti aliasing was, when i'm concentrating on and enjoying the gameplay
@ Enterprise2448: are you seriously saying that most mid-rang PC's could run BF3 on max settings in a 64 player match, smoothly without any issues whatsoever at the same spec the PC clips have been shown? i know PC's can out-do consoles graphically (gameplay is still the same
) but pull the other one. i have an average laptop at it struggles to load internet explorer! bloody modern technology... bring back the amstrad green screen!
ZeroTime on 24 Jun '11 said:
It's a different story when the game that's "locked at 60 FPS" looks like the one we saw 2 years ago.
I'd take DICE's Frostbite 2 at 30 FPS than Infinity Ward's supposedly enhanced IW 4.0 (we don't even know what they upgraded) at 60 FPS.
unmannedrobot on 25 Jun '11 said:
hm.. so of course since the ps3 or the 360 can't run on 1080p or 60 fps its ok, thought not for the wii, am i right?