bit-gamer.net

Battlefield 3 capped to 30FPS on PS3

Battlefield 3 capped to 30FPS on PS3

EA has admitted that the PS3 version of Battlefield 3 runs at only 720p.

Electronic Arts and DICE has confirmed that the PlayStation 3 version of Battlefield 3 will run at 720p and will be capped at 30 frames per second.

The confirmation followed on from a demo of the PS3 code on US talk show Late Night with Jimmy Fallon, when DICE's Johan Andersson fielded viewer questions over Twitter.

'We think huge levels, lots of players, great effects, destruction, vehicles & varied gameplay are more important than 1080p,' said Andersson.

'How is that a shame? Name a single FPS game that runs at 1080p on any of the consoles? [We] would have to do huge gameplay cuts.'

'Modern Warfare 2 runs at 1024x600 on PS3 with 2x MSAA. And I didn't do any digs at COD, just explained our trade-offs.'

It's been pointed out, of course, that the Call of Duty games all run at 60 FPS - including the upcoming Modern Warfare 3.

Let us know your thoughts in the forums.

65 Comments

Discuss in the forums Reply
Baz 20th June 2011, 12:28 Quote
TV runs at 24fps! Blu-ray movies at 23.98487457 fps!

On big TVs, 30fps is fine; heck, even on a PC monitor 30fps is playable.
wuyanxu 20th June 2011, 12:29 Quote
well that's more than expected.

2560x1440, 4xMSAA at ~60FPS will be how i play it :D
cjoyce1980 20th June 2011, 12:32 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baz
TV runs at 24fps! Blu-ray movies at 23.98487457 fps!

On big TVs, 30fps is fine; heck, even on a PC monitor 30fps is playable.

1080p Full HD @ 30fps or sub par HD 600p @ 60 fps???!!!???

1080p all the way :)
[PUNK] crompers 20th June 2011, 12:33 Quote
playable but im not sure i'd want to tackle multiplayer at those frame rates
Narishma 20th June 2011, 12:33 Quote
How is this news? Pretty much every FPS game runs at 30 fps or less on consoles. COD games are the exception and to be able to achieve that they have to sacrifice a lot of stuff.
Paradigm Shifter 20th June 2011, 12:36 Quote
As long as it doesn't drop below that, it'll be fine. As for multiplayer, I'm presuming there will be no interoperability between the platforms; ie: no PS3 vs 360 vs PC on the same server... so everyone will be in the same boat, so there won't be a problem.

I'll be buying it on the PC anyway; I can't cope with FPS games on a console.
r3loaded 20th June 2011, 12:36 Quote
Yet another reason to stick with the PC gaming master race! :D
Parge 20th June 2011, 12:38 Quote
What about the 360 - have they got 60fps @ 720p on that?
wuyanxu 20th June 2011, 12:41 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by r3loaded
Yet another reason to stick with the PC gaming master race! :D
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v293/wuyanxu/4_Forums/8f2f4cce.png
DragunovHUN 20th June 2011, 12:42 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Parge
What about the 360 - have they got 60fps @ 720p on that?

The 360? Battlefield? With 60 FPS? Haha no.

I don't even get why this is news either. This is like saying the PC gets mouse support.
steveo_mcg 20th June 2011, 12:43 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by DragunovHUN
The 360? Battlefield? With 60 FPS? Haha no.

I don't even get why this is news either. This is like saying the PC gets mouse support.

The way things are going PC with mouse support might just be news in a few years....
Deders 20th June 2011, 12:50 Quote
Hopefully this will give them the extra headroom they need to make sure it is a great game, without having to cut too many gameplay essential features so that it will work cross-platform.
mpr 20th June 2011, 12:50 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by DragunovHUN
I don't even get why this is news either. This is like saying the PC gets mouse support.

According to some devs that apparantly is a key selling point >.>
atlas 20th June 2011, 13:01 Quote
Not really sure why this is news either, TV's don't really need more then 30fps. So for consoles that's fine. Also it should be obvious that bigger better quality graphics games need more hardware. We know the consoles are now a little old so they are going to start struggling games shouldn't be designed to work on old hardware they should be designed for new hardware and drop whatever is needed to make them run on consoles.
Yslen 20th June 2011, 13:06 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baz
TV runs at 24fps! Blu-ray movies at 23.98487457 fps!

On big TVs, 30fps is fine; heck, even on a PC monitor 30fps is playable.

TV and films have motion blur "between" the frames. 24fps video with static frames looks nowhere near as smooth.

Still, 30fps is playable, if not ideal for an FPS.
Paradigm Shifter 20th June 2011, 13:10 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yslen
TV and films have motion blur "between" the frames. 24fps video with static frames looks nowhere near as smooth.

Still, 30fps is playable, if not ideal for an FPS.
That's what over the top motion blur, bloom and HDR are for! ;)
dyzophoria 20th June 2011, 13:19 Quote
im honestly not surprised,lol, as with all fps, I play them on the pc though, so .. no problem :)
StoneyMahoney 20th June 2011, 13:29 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yslen
TV and films have motion blur "between" the frames. 24fps video with static frames looks nowhere near as smooth.

"Between" the frames? Fail...
Mentai 20th June 2011, 13:36 Quote
At least they're sticking to 720p. I hate how the "HD Generation" is 540p half the time. 720p should be an absolute minimum.
faceplant 20th June 2011, 13:44 Quote
who cares, its on a console
Phil Rhodes 20th June 2011, 13:58 Quote
Quote:
TV runs at 24fps!

TV runs at either 25 or very nearly 30 frames per second.

Almost all home-viewed movies run at very nearly 24fps in the US or other 60Hz territories, or 25 elsewhere.

More or less the only thing that runs at exactly 24 is theatrical exhibition.

P
Tangster 20th June 2011, 14:02 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by faceplant
who cares, its on a console

Quite frankly, this. I couldn't give a toss about how well it runs on the consoles, since I'm not going to play it on a console.
Nikols 20th June 2011, 14:09 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by wuyanxu
well that's more than expected.

2560x1440, 4xMSAA at ~60FPS will be how i play it :D

Dido
kenco_uk 20th June 2011, 14:34 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nikols
Dido

I will go down with this ship?
shigllgetcha 20th June 2011, 14:56 Quote
I like how people are saying who cares, yet you cared enough to read the article and then post in the comments
Apoptosis 20th June 2011, 15:39 Quote
Explain again why I should buy a console?
fingerbob69 20th June 2011, 15:45 Quote
This will be a game created on the PC first and only then ported to consoles ...that is something to celebrate.
Aracos 20th June 2011, 15:57 Quote
This isn't really news, I could've told you that :D
bowman 20th June 2011, 16:10 Quote
lol,consoles. Play it on a real machine if you want performance and graphics, dolts.
Bauul 20th June 2011, 16:30 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by StoneyMahoney
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yslen
TV and films have motion blur "between" the frames. 24fps video with static frames looks nowhere near as smooth.

"Between" the frames? Fail...

No that's not a bad way of explaining it actually. Frames on films typically contain much of the visual information contained within the last 1/24th of the second. Anyone who's ever paused an action sequence on a film knows how blurry it looks - it's becasue you're not looking at one moment in time, you're looking at 0.04166 of a second spread across a single frame.

A frame in a game is literally one moment in time, the time between the frames is effectively lost - you never see it, so you need a higher framerate to make up for the lost time.

Showing every moment in time is impossible - you'd need an infinite number of frames in a second - but you can show enough so that the human eye is incapable of telling them apart.

Unfortunately the cut-off point is about 250-300 frames per second to guarantee this, so in that respect 30 frames per second, whilst acceptable, isn't perfect.
boiled_elephant 20th June 2011, 16:40 Quote
Quote:

Oh, I'm definitely saving that for future use :)

Also, I hated MW2 on the PS3. The resolution and graphical quality were astoundingly bad, I thought there was something wrong with my eyes at first. 60 fps can blow me if it's only running at the equivalent settings of a Windows 98 computer.

Basically I'm just waiting for the next generation of consoles now, if at all. The PS3 and 360 never really blew my mind, probably because I built a PC shortly after they came out.

edit - Bauul, I can't rep you again apparently, so I'll just say: good explanation.
knuck 20th June 2011, 17:19 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bauul
No that's not a bad way of explaining it actually. Frames on films typically contain much of the visual information contained within the last 1/24th of the second. Anyone who's ever paused an action sequence on a film knows how blurry it looks - it's becasue you're not looking at one moment in time, you're looking at 0.04166 of a second spread across a single frame.

A frame in a game is literally one moment in time, the time between the frames is effectively lost - you never see it, so you need a higher framerate to make up for the lost time.

Showing every moment in time is impossible - you'd need an infinite number of frames in a second - but you can show enough so that the human eye is incapable of telling them apart.

Unfortunately the cut-off point is about 250-300 frames per second to guarantee this, so in that respect 30 frames per second, whilst acceptable, isn't perfect.

Finally someone who confirms what I have been saying for years. 30fps is not enough, period.
douglatins 20th June 2011, 17:41 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by knuck
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bauul
No that's not a bad way of explaining it actually. Frames on films typically contain much of the visual information contained within the last 1/24th of the second. Anyone who's ever paused an action sequence on a film knows how blurry it looks - it's becasue you're not looking at one moment in time, you're looking at 0.04166 of a second spread across a single frame.

A frame in a game is literally one moment in time, the time between the frames is effectively lost - you never see it, so you need a higher framerate to make up for the lost time.

Showing every moment in time is impossible - you'd need an infinite number of frames in a second - but you can show enough so that the human eye is incapable of telling them apart.

Unfortunately the cut-off point is about 250-300 frames per second to guarantee this, so in that respect 30 frames per second, whilst acceptable, isn't perfect.

Finally someone who confirms what I have been saying for years. 30fps is not enough, period.

Agreed, 24fps is why we get motion sickness in fast moving movies, these days movies should be at least 40fps.
And it doesnt take 250fps for fluent motion, 60-80 is enought.
Peter Jackson is filming the hobbit in 40fps i believe.
30fps sucks in just about any game, save rpgs, etc
Bauul 20th June 2011, 17:47 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by douglatins
[
Agreed, 24fps is why we get motion sickness in fast moving movies, these days movies should be at least 40fps.
And it doesnt take 250fps for fluent motion, 60-80 is enought.
Peter Jackson is filming the hobbit in 40fps i believe.
30fps sucks in just about any game, save rpgs, etc

For fluid motion, yes 60-80 is enough.

For the difference between one frame and the next to be so quick it's impossible to tell it isn't true fluid motion? Much, much higher.

Example: if you look a totally black screen in a darkened room, and the entire screen flashes bright white for 1/80th of a second, I guarantee you'll be able to notice it.

The 250-300fps I mentioned is to be able to do that so quickly you don't notice. That's how fast you need to be to guarantee it's impossible to tell it isn't truely fluid motion, as opposed to a series of static images.

Edit: excellent little article on frame rates:
http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frames_can_humans_see.htm
bogie170 20th June 2011, 17:48 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by wuyanxu
well that's more than expected.

2560x1440, 4xMSAA at ~60FPS will be how i play it :D

Me too! Dell U2711!!!

Try watching 60fps pron! lol!
Dwarfer 20th June 2011, 17:54 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baz
TV runs at 24fps! Blu-ray movies at 23.98487457 fps!

On big TVs, 30fps is fine; heck, even on a PC monitor 30fps is playable.

30fps is by no way playable for me. You can tell a massive difference in smoothness between say 30 & 60fps.
Bakes 20th June 2011, 18:57 Quote
Can I just point out that CoD5 runs at 30fps on consoles? It's because they used the CoD4 engine with higher levels of detail, so it couldn't run as fast.
metarinka 20th June 2011, 19:20 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bauul
Quote:
Originally Posted by douglatins
[
Agreed, 24fps is why we get motion sickness in fast moving movies, these days movies should be at least 40fps.
And it doesnt take 250fps for fluent motion, 60-80 is enought.
Peter Jackson is filming the hobbit in 40fps i believe.
30fps sucks in just about any game, save rpgs, etc

For fluid motion, yes 60-80 is enough.

For the difference between one frame and the next to be so quick it's impossible to tell it isn't true fluid motion? Much, much higher.

Example: if you look a totally black screen in a darkened room, and the entire screen flashes bright white for 1/80th of a second, I guarantee you'll be able to notice it.

The 250-300fps I mentioned is to be able to do that so quickly you don't notice. That's how fast you need to be to guarantee it's impossible to tell it isn't truely fluid motion, as opposed to a series of static images.

Edit: excellent little article on frame rates:
http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frames_can_humans_see.htm

that's a false truth, you don't need 200-300 fps (not to mention the bandwidth issues for current resolutions). First of all, there's very little natural things that appear in such discrete steps. Look at car tires, after a certain speed your eye can no longer discern the discrete spokes. 300fps wouldn't make spokes look any better. The motion blur is pretty accurate. using a high speed camera and high speed tv, would do the same thing as motion blur, your brain would blur the discrete steps together. I agree 24 fps is low, but 100+ is wasteful.

high speed videography is mostly useful when you want to slow down the action.
Nikols 20th June 2011, 19:22 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by kenco_uk
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nikols
Dido

I will go down with this ship?

lol I cant spell... ditto, there I did it
Donteatmypanda 20th June 2011, 19:33 Quote
Nowt wrong with 30fps in my opinion. I'd rather play locked at 30fps than unlocked with dips in framerate. Still DICE need the fps lower than 60fps to fit realtime global illumination and destruction in there. The Battlefield 3 frostbite 2 engine looks all the more ambitious when compared to the invisible walls of Call of Duty: World at War.

Edit: excellent little article on frame rates:
http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frames_can_humans_see.htm

nice article!
Yslen 20th June 2011, 19:34 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bauul
Quote:
Originally Posted by StoneyMahoney
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yslen
TV and films have motion blur "between" the frames. 24fps video with static frames looks nowhere near as smooth.

"Between" the frames? Fail...

No that's not a bad way of explaining it actually. Frames on films typically contain much of the visual information contained within the last 1/24th of the second. Anyone who's ever paused an action sequence on a film knows how blurry it looks - it's becasue you're not looking at one moment in time, you're looking at 0.04166 of a second spread across a single frame.

A frame in a game is literally one moment in time, the time between the frames is effectively lost - you never see it, so you need a higher framerate to make up for the lost time.

Showing every moment in time is impossible - you'd need an infinite number of frames in a second - but you can show enough so that the human eye is incapable of telling them apart.

Unfortunately the cut-off point is about 250-300 frames per second to guarantee this, so in that respect 30 frames per second, whilst acceptable, isn't perfect.

Good, I'm glad someone understood me :)

My explanation was going to be this:

If you are shooting video at 24 frames per second using a "shutter speed" of 1/24 seconds you are in effect capturing all of the information about what goes on during the time you are shooting. If you have a camera that can do 240 frames per second at a shutter speed of 1/240 you're just subdividing that information into separate frames. Layer ten of them together and you have exactly the same image as one of the 24fps frames - a fast moving object will be blurry.

Any shutter speed faster than 1/24 reduces the motion blur in each frame, cutting out information and eventually introducing a noticeable "staccato" effect. Go look on Youtube for videos taken by people with newfangled video-capable DSLRs without knowing what they're doing - 24fps and a shutter speed of 1/1000 begins to look remarkably like a laggy video game.

A frame from a video game essentially has an infinitely fast shutter speed. It's information from a single instant in time, given out as many times per second as your graphics card can manage. You need a heck of a lot of frames per second just to equal the amount of information your brain receives from properly shot 24fps video.

Still, it varies from person to person. I am perfectly happy with 60fps, and to be honest I'm happy with 30 as well in most games, though it is a noticeable step down.
dangerman1337 20th June 2011, 19:42 Quote
After looking at the PS3 footage (well best for youtube you could get) and this being on 720P and 30FPS (assuming locked) is good. IIRC most AAA titles on the HD twins are 720P and 30FPS. Though I have seen some people in comments saying as summed up "lol weak DICE lol goin to MW3 suck it haterz".
shanky887614 20th June 2011, 19:59 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baz
TV runs at 24fps! Blu-ray movies at 23.98487457 fps!

On big TVs, 30fps is fine; heck, even on a PC monitor 30fps is playable.

i hate to disagree with you but i cant play most games at 30fps

they even make some people feel sick cause they are usually so jerky at that framerate
Bauul 20th June 2011, 20:46 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by metarinka
that's a false truth, you don't need 200-300 fps (not to mention the bandwidth issues for current resolutions). First of all, there's very little natural things that appear in such discrete steps. Look at car tires, after a certain speed your eye can no longer discern the discrete spokes. 300fps wouldn't make spokes look any better. The motion blur is pretty accurate. using a high speed camera and high speed tv, would do the same thing as motion blur, your brain would blur the discrete steps together. I agree 24 fps is low, but 100+ is wasteful.

high speed videography is mostly useful when you want to slow down the action.

I meant in games where there is no motion blur. 24fps is fine for TV, as all the information within each 24th of a second is captured on the film. You don't miss anything, it's just merged into a single frame.

Games, without motion blur, is a whole other story. You render a wheel spinning at 60rps at 60fps in a game, and it will look static, as each rotation exists between the frames.
pingu666 20th June 2011, 20:47 Quote
so 1/4th of what a modern gaming pc can output (120hz monitor)

a faptastic rig would be 120hz tripplescreen, 57xx x1080 and in 3d too :)
Elton 20th June 2011, 22:29 Quote
I'll only take a 3D screen if it's not in a TN panel. That aside, this isn't that surprising, most games on consoles are usually 30fps.
jimmyjj 20th June 2011, 23:07 Quote
Yes, I am sorry but the whole Bit-tech / Custom PC "25 fps min is fine" assertion is BS.

Rather than join in the technical discussions I will just say this...

I find it very noticeable in most games if I am running at 25FPS - and it basically sucks arse.
PerfectDark 20th June 2011, 23:10 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by dangerman1337
After looking at the PS3 footage (well best for youtube you could get) and this being on 720P and 30FPS (assuming locked) is good. IIRC most AAA titles on the HD twins are 720P and 30FPS. Though I have seen some people in comments saying as summed up "lol weak DICE lol goin to MW3 suck it haterz".

Battlefield 3 is will look much better than MW3 on PC.... But the console versions of the 2 games may be the opposite.... maybe....
Ph4ZeD 20th June 2011, 23:15 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmyjj
Yes, I am sorry but the whole Bit-tech / Custom PC "25 fps min is fine" assertion is BS.

Rather than join in the technical discussions I will just say this...

I find it very noticeable in most games if I am running at 25FPS - and it basically sucks arse.

Why do you care? Shitty consoles get shitty game performance. Boohoo. If you want the cutting edge, if you want BF3 64 player at true high definition with AA, then get a decent PC. If you want to play games on a mass produced piece of crap for the cheapest possible price, then buy a console.
PerfectDark 20th June 2011, 23:26 Quote
To make it work in 720p with 2X-AA they will have to decrease graphics quality at a point that i doupt it will look beautiful like PC... even 4 meters away from Screen you will see the difference with PC....

Something else i see strange is that they said it's not 1080p because of graphics quality.... like hell they would make it 1080p not even GOD could on a console.... Why should i believe it will even be 720p???
Picarro 20th June 2011, 23:50 Quote
Jesus Christ people. It's a question of whether you find 30 fps acceptable or not. It's a personal preference. Don't get all worked up over it.
E_Spaghetti 21st June 2011, 03:36 Quote
What is PS3?
wiak 21st June 2011, 06:41 Quote
PC version will allways be best
why? you can run it at ANY resolution and framerate (unless they have capped it)
and run it on the highest settings with highest AA
Deders 21st June 2011, 10:03 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmyjj
Yes, I am sorry but the whole Bit-tech / Custom PC "25 fps min is fine" assertion is BS.

Rather than join in the technical discussions I will just say this...

I find it very noticeable in most games if I am running at 25FPS - and it basically sucks arse.

It depends on the game and the engine it runs on, some games can be seamlessly smooth if they maintain above 25fps, others do seem smoother at 60.
SexyHyde 21st June 2011, 10:10 Quote
i've found sat on my sofa around 8ft away from a large screen tv 30fps is fine. on my pc sat in front of my monitor i need about 40fps, prefer 60fps and cant really tell much difference any higher.
Crunch77 21st June 2011, 10:31 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Parge
What about the 360 - have they got 60fps @ 720p on that?

More than likely.
liratheal 21st June 2011, 10:44 Quote
...Who the **** cares?

Buy it on PC and have a proper BF3 experience.
kenco_uk 21st June 2011, 11:17 Quote
Does anyone know if a PC demo is on the books?
Dwarfer 21st June 2011, 13:20 Quote
An open BETA is due out in September.
PerfectDark 21st June 2011, 13:22 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Picarro
Jesus Christ people. It's a question of whether you find 30 fps acceptable or not. It's a personal preference. Don't get all worked up over it.

Too many good looking ps3 games go below 30FPS all the time (and it makes me feel dizzy) and i cant accept it... but it is not something new... happens all these years...
law99 22nd June 2011, 08:58 Quote
I know it's been said already in the thread, but:

This isn't news really. You could even report that the 360 will only be 30fps.
Paulg1971 22nd June 2011, 12:28 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by faceplant
who cares, its on a console

like
OCJunkie 22nd June 2011, 18:56 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by faceplant
who cares, its on a console

^

Hey Bit-Tech can we get some PC news now please?
Bauul 24th June 2011, 16:41 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by OCJunkie
^

Hey Bit-Tech can we get some PC news now please?

As I understand it, this isn't Bit-Tech news, this is Bit-Gamer news, and Bit-Gamer is not a PC centric site.
Mollere 17th August 2011, 05:18 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paradigm Shifter
As long as it doesn't drop below that, it'll be fine. As for multiplayer, I'm presuming there will be no interoperability between the platforms; ie: no PS3 vs 360 vs PC on the same server... so everyone will be in the same boat, so there won't be a problem.

I'll be buying it on the PC anyway; I can't cope with FPS games on a console.

Jesus Christ people. It's a question of whether you find 30 fps acceptable or not. It's a personal preference. Don't get all worked up over it.
Log in

You are not logged in, please login with your forum account below. If you don't already have an account please register to start contributing.



Discuss in the forums