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.

32

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.

Editor-In-Chief
Filed Under
From The Chatty
  • reply
    June 20, 2011 12:15 PM

    Steve 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.

    • reply
      June 20, 2011 12:39 PM

      I would take smooth gameplay (cough MW2) over some fancy fireworks and all the polygons they put together trying to make these tanks look real. At least speaking on consoles = MW3 > BF3.

      • reply
        June 20, 2011 12:59 PM

        Its more than just polygons.

        Its the overall gameplay compared to CoD's tiny box of up to 16 players. Actually I'll take that "16 players" part back because even Halo Reach's Big Team Battles feel more engaging than CoD's Ground War.

        • reply
          June 21, 2011 4:12 AM

          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.

      • reply
        June 20, 2011 1:15 PM

        ... and that's how long it takes to make the comparison between MW and BF. One post about FPS.

      • reply
        June 20, 2011 1:51 PM

        I know you be trollin meoff

      • reply
        June 20, 2011 3:24 PM

        fancy fireworks and all the polygones?

        sigh... of course it has nothing to do with different styles of gameplay, nothing at all. Open world dynamically changing environment vs static non changing environments.

      • reply
        June 20, 2011 4:08 PM

        The price you pay for consoles having dated hardware, it has to stick with 2006 engines.
        Fine by me.

        • reply
          June 20, 2011 9:39 PM

          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.

      • reply
        June 20, 2011 6:30 PM

        I'll take non static environments and enjoyable gameplay over 60 FPS.

    • reply
      June 20, 2011 12:53 PM

      most people cant tell a difference and do not know what the hell is an FPS

      • reply
        June 20, 2011 1:04 PM

        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

    • reply
      June 20, 2011 1:00 PM

      I was about to write: there's another thread for this, nuke it from orbit.
      Then I thought, how about linking to the original post and pointing the News thread to it?

    • reply
      June 20, 2011 1:30 PM

      Am I crazy or did i remember seeing something where they said SP was 30 fps and MP was 60 fps?

      • reply
        June 20, 2011 1:33 PM

        That has been mentioned for Doom 4 but not BF3 as far as I know.

    • reply
      June 20, 2011 2:11 PM

      Is that 720p or "720p"?

      • reply
        June 20, 2011 2:32 PM

        I'm betting it'll be "720p" but no one will know until the game comes out.

    • reply
      June 20, 2011 4:05 PM

      Will it be rendered in 720p, or rendered at a lower-res, then upscaled?

    • reply
      June 20, 2011 4:15 PM

      Related, so the reason for Doom 4 to be capped at 30 FPS (SP only - MP will be 60 FPS) is?
      I'm wondering since Carmack seemed to really want (and apparently succeeded) to get 60 FPS for Rage cross platform.

      • reply
        June 20, 2011 4:17 PM

        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.

        • reply
          June 20, 2011 4:21 PM

          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).

      • reply
        June 20, 2011 4:17 PM

        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.

        • reply
          June 20, 2011 7:00 PM

          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.

      • reply
        June 20, 2011 4:19 PM

        From that interview, it sounds like he's decided reducing controller lag via good code is more important then 60fps. Or more specifically that they're not as tightly linked as he previously believed.

      • reply
        June 20, 2011 4:31 PM

        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!

      • reply
        June 20, 2011 4:31 PM

        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.

      • reply
        June 20, 2011 6:20 PM

        I thought awhile back it'll be 60 for the PC version?

        • reply
          June 20, 2011 6:32 PM

          pretty sure any caps are going to be console only

    • reply
      June 20, 2011 4:40 PM

      This is disappointing, but it'll run at more than 30 fps on my PC, I guarantee that!

    • reply
      June 20, 2011 5:38 PM

      PC superior race!

    • reply
      June 20, 2011 6:05 PM

      This is just a signal that the time is drawing near for a new console generation. Developers are really starting to struggle to make it look decent on PC while still running at a moderate pace on consoles. I say bring it on; new console generations are always an exciting time.

      • reply
        June 20, 2011 6:18 PM

        They'll end up running 30 fps at 1080p instead.

        • reply
          June 20, 2011 6:23 PM

          More like 640x400 at 60fps. It seems like resolution is always the first to go. If I recall correctly, even the original Xbox supported 720P if you had the right cable, but no one used it.

          • reply
            June 21, 2011 11:31 AM

            i believe the original xbox supported 800x600 with the right cable in games like splinter cell but it couldve been 720p... i dunno.

      • reply
        June 21, 2011 11:47 AM

        New console generations are "shit your pants" time for game devs. You have no idea how bad it's gonna be with the economy sucking right before a new launch...

    • reply
      June 20, 2011 6:21 PM

      did bfbc2 run at 30fps on 360?

    • reply
      June 20, 2011 6:47 PM

      Framerate > Resolution. I'd much rather play a smooth game than a pretty slideshow. MW 1, BF 0.

      • reply
        June 20, 2011 7:57 PM

        That score doesn't look the same on my PC :)

      • reply
        June 20, 2011 8:21 PM

        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?

    • reply
      June 21, 2011 7:50 AM

      I dont play a military FPS for graphics i play it for gameplay, Battlefield 3 has that in spades.

    • reply
      June 21, 2011 8:03 AM

      I can't believe that in 2011 this is still news. Who cares if it's running in 720p on consoles? Isn't that the standard for consoles anyway? Hell, my 360 doesn't even have an HDMI port.

      • reply
        June 21, 2011 9:35 AM

        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.

        • reply
          June 21, 2011 10:31 AM

          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?

    • reply
      June 21, 2011 11:34 AM

      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.

    • reply
      June 21, 2011 12:04 PM

      I'm so sorry console noobs, sucks to be you. I'll take some pictures though of me playing at 5760x1080. That way you can enjoy the game through me. yaaay.

    • reply
      June 21, 2011 12:51 PM

      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!

      • reply
        June 21, 2011 5:16 PM

        ...Or gamers who simply want the best experience possible?

Hello, Meet Lola