PDA

View Full Version : Whats all the fuss about BAttlefield 3 being 30FPS on Consoles?


RobbieX27
06-21-2011, 06:02 PM
So earlier this week it was announced by DICE that Battlefield 3 would have 30fps and 60fps on PC. But as they say themselves it was done under the view that "we always do 30 fps on consoles, not possible to fit in vehicles, fx, scale and all players otherwise. We think huge levels, lots of players, great fx, destruction, vehicles & varied gameplay is more important than 1080p." I completely agree with this and would much prefer 30FPS with 64 player battles on consoles than 60FPS with 24 players (not that theyve confirmed 64 but it looks liek they're trying to increase the number). So why are people saying theyre returning their Pre-Orders and stuff??? is it really that big of a deal??? Bad company games always ran at 30fps and they were fine. Post your opinions on the matter here.

antnie
06-21-2011, 06:09 PM
This should be in the battlefield section.

My opinion is that we need new home consoles that can support all the high end features that developers are putting into their games.

I don't want to have to buy the PC version just to play the single player and then buy the xbox version to play online with my friends. I want the xbox to be able to handle all of it.

mjc0961
06-21-2011, 06:14 PM
Graphic whores, man. Don't try to reason with or understand them. Just be happy there will be less stupid people in the multiplayer to deal with.

xKRAIZEEMANx
06-21-2011, 06:15 PM
People will invariably complain about anything. It seems that negativity gains more focus than positivity.

RobbieX27
06-21-2011, 06:17 PM
Graphic whores, man. Don't try to reason with or understand them. Just be happy there will be less stupid people in the multiplayer to deal with.



haha true. i dotn understand why people make such a fuss over graphics. i mean yeah it is nice to have amazing graphics but im still a huge battlefield 2 player and the graphics are hardly desirable in that. and to the second post im sorry im new and didnt realise there was a battlefield section.

LurkingAdjudant
06-21-2011, 06:53 PM
Can't understand those people that are just looking for exceptionnal graph and forget about everything else that makes a great game...

Tatanko
06-21-2011, 07:37 PM
Not to be an ass, but there's already TWO threads on this in the BF3 forum.

TheRedComet
06-21-2011, 08:44 PM
Reminds me of when I heard someone say they weren't going play Arkham Asylum because the cutscenes were pre-rendered instead of using the in game engine. Really dude?

Motorexskygtr32
06-22-2011, 11:10 AM
Who care if it is freaking 30 or 60 FPS?! Quit being a graphic whore, if you don't like it then go back to Arcade in the mall or PC that runs 60 FPS. If you want 60 FPS that run on xbox 360 then look at this game called Ridge Racer 6. This game made back in 2005!

RobbieX27
06-22-2011, 01:25 PM
um sorry but id you'd actually read what i said i mentioned that i couldnt understand why people were hating on it. i dont mind 30fps at all.

StillTIPPIN187
06-22-2011, 01:36 PM
My thoughts on it..

http://www.xbox360achievements.org/forum/showpost.php?p=4308744&postcount=12


Just buy it on PC like me if you hate low frame rate. Im prolly gonna buy it on my xbitch as well once it drops to 20 bucks in a few months.

ZundayXx
06-22-2011, 02:49 PM
It feels like you're riding a snail if you're not used to it. But if you're used to it ( Which console players are ) then I don't see any problem. Actually, the only console game that I can imagine that runs on 60 is CoD, and I don't see Mw3 pulling that off with the xbox.

Opiate42
06-22-2011, 03:00 PM
It feels like you're riding a snail if you're not used to it. But if you're used to it ( Which console players are ) then I don't see any problem. Actually, the only console game that I can imagine that runs on 60 is CoD, and I don't see Mw3 pulling that off with the xbox.

This^^

Because we don't want to slow down like a boss fight in Contra on the NES.

StillTIPPIN187
06-22-2011, 03:12 PM
It feels like you're riding a snail if you're not used to it. But if you're used to it ( Which console players are ) then I don't see any problem. Actually, the only console game that I can imagine that runs on 60 is CoD, and I don't see Mw3 pulling that off with the xbox.

All CoDs running on the IW3.0+ engine have ran at 60FPS on 360 .. and so has Forza Motorsport series on the 360.

Beefdagreat
06-23-2011, 03:29 AM
wow n00bs already raging about how this would run at 30FPS.

30FPS doesn't really make much of a difference does it? Cause the human eye can catch on differences at around 20

Pr3vention
06-23-2011, 04:54 AM
30FPS doesn't really make much of a difference does it? Cause the human eye can catch on differences at around 20

while 30 FPS is generally smooth enough to be playable, the biggest downfall is the fact that you have a greater risk of falling below a tolerable FPS rate at medium to high intensity situations (boss-fights, for example).

Realistically speaking, a majority of players won't notice too much of a difference. If you're a PC gamer who's used to speeds higher than 60FPS, playing at 30FPS does seem slower but it's for reasons far different than being a "graphic whore." FPS have nothing to do with graphics.

WogMatt26
06-23-2011, 06:07 AM
This is why i have now bought a gaming PC! The graphics are just insane, compared to the 360, the main fuss is that 30 FPS is when the brain sees a picture with no stuttering, which means it isn't that smooth, with 60FPS it will looks very smooth.

cHRiSCOe
06-23-2011, 06:14 AM
Omg it's not in 1080p either :O

Genesis x360a
06-23-2011, 06:14 AM
It bother doesn't me either, aslong as it runs smooth in large areas with alot going on. I dont want to see the game trying to catch with itself.

Giptuc
06-23-2011, 08:47 AM
Omg it's not in 1080p either :O


Very few games on the 360 and ps3 even run in 1080p. In fact no AAA game on the PS3 or 360 runs at 1080p, most of them are a native 720p and then upscaled into 1080p through your TV, console or pre-amp.


I have no concerns for this game running in 30FPS. Its 30fps but at 720p. Modern Warfare 2 is one of the very few games that actually runs at 60fps on the 360, and that graphics for that, while good, arn't the best, which is why they can do it.

People are bitching about it not being in 60fps, but 90% of the games they play arn't 60fps...

Look at Crysis 2. That game played in 720p on both the 360 and ps3 at 30fps, and it looked absolutely amazing... and i have no doubt that Battlefield 3 will look amazing as well.

StillTIPPIN187
06-24-2011, 04:32 PM
Omg it's not in 1080p either :O

Yeah? technically it isn't even 720p either.. Neither is MW3 or any of the past ones.

There are about 3 games total on xbox that run at TRUE 1080p.. and about five on Xbox that run at True 720p. Same goes for PS3, there are very few games that are made to run at TRUE 720p and 1080p.

They are all upscaled to 720p. BF3 AND MW3 will BOTH be upscaled to 720p.

tehapoc
06-24-2011, 05:00 PM
Frame rates in video games refer to the speed at which the image is refreshed (typically in frames per second, or FPS). Many underlying processes, such as collision detection and network processing, run at different or inconsistent frequencies or in different physical components of a computer. FPS affect the experience in two ways: low FPS does not give the illusion of motion effectively and affects the user's capacity to interact with the game, while FPS that vary substantially from one second to the next depending on computational load produce uneven, “choppy” animation. Many games lock their frame rate at lower but more sustainable levels to give consistently smooth motion.
The first 3D first-person shooter game for a personal computer, 3D Monster Maze (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3D_Monster_Maze), had a frame rate of approximately 6 FPS, and was still a success. In modern action-oriented games where players must visually track animated objects and react quickly, frame rates of between 30 to 60 FPS are considered acceptable by most, though this can vary significantly from game to game. Modern action games, including popular console shooters such as Halo 3 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halo_3), are locked at 30 FPS maximum, while others, such as Unreal Tournament 3 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unreal_Tournament_3), can run well in excess of 100 FPS on sufficient hardware. The frame rate within games varies considerably depending upon what is currently happening at a given moment, or with the hardware configuration (especially in PC games.) When the computation of a frame consumes more time than is alloted between frames, the frame rate decreases.
A culture of competition has arisen among game enthusiasts with regard to frame rates, with players striving to obtain the highest FPS possible, due to their utility in demonstrating a system's power and efficiency. Indeed, many benchmarks (such as 3DMark (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3DMark)) released by the marketing departments of hardware manufacturers and published in hardware reviews focus on the FPS measurement. Even though the typical LCD monitors of today are locked at 60 FPS, making extremely high frame rates impossible to see in realtime, playthroughs of game “timedemos” at hundreds or thousands of FPS for benchmarking purposes are still common.
Beyond measurement and bragging rights, such exercises do have practical bearing in some cases. A certain amount of discarded “headroom” frames are beneficial for the elimination of uneven (“choppy” or “jumpy”) output, and to prevent FPS from plummeting during the intense sequences when players need smooth feedback most.
Aside from frame rate, a separate but related factor unique to interactive applications such as gaming is latency (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latency_(engineering)). Excessive preprocessing can result in a noticeable delay between player commands and computer feedback, even when a full frame rate is maintained, often referred to as input lag (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Display_lag).
Without realistic motion blurring (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_blur), video games and computer animations do not look as fluid as film, even with a higher frame rate. When a fast moving object is present on two consecutive frames, a gap between the images on the two frames contributes to a noticeable separation of the object and its afterimage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afterimage) in the eye. Motion blurring mitigates this effect, since it tends to reduce the image gap when the two frames are strung together The effect of motion blurring is essentially superimposing multiple images of the fast-moving object on a single frame. Motion blurring makes the motion more fluid to the human eye, even as the image of the object becomes blurry on each individual frame.
A high frame rate still does not guarantee fluid movements, especially on hardware with more than one GPU (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphics_processing_unit). This effect is known as micro stuttering (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micro_stuttering).


Basically, Battlefield is striving for a high frame rate and latency for their game. Stiving to make the game as fluid and functional as possible.

Natalie
06-24-2011, 07:28 PM
30FPS is the same as most xbox games there is very few that support 60FPS. One of the games that support 60FPS is Call of Duty series but Halo and most other games are 30.

DigitalGear
06-25-2011, 12:55 AM
Regardless of the FPS's, I'm sure Battlefield 3 will be amazing.

Dragon Master
06-25-2011, 03:54 AM
Gameplay > Graphic

I would like it if BF3 was 1080p on the Xbox 360 but I have no problem with it only being in 720p. Also, 30fps is normal for most game now days.

By the way, only the PC will support 64-players.

Jayshock89
06-25-2011, 07:34 AM
It would matter more if you're planning on playing it with 3D.

l Absolution l
06-25-2011, 01:08 PM
Depending on just how much action is going on in one place, only 30 FPS could be a problem.

astinsman
06-25-2011, 01:48 PM
It's aggravating to hear that. Nothing can be simple the way that it used to be when you could play N64 hours upon hours with your friends on a small a** TV and not care about the graphics. Now, all people care about is how many FPS the game runs.

MajorSedavian
06-25-2011, 01:52 PM
Its weird how consoles are designed for gaming yet computers seem to win when it comes to FPS AND Graphics personally i only care about gameplay and if it is that much of a bother then I still wont take much notice since it will be about the same as BFBC2.

StillTIPPIN187
06-25-2011, 06:22 PM
Its weird how consoles are designed for gaming yet computers seem to win when it comes to FPS AND Graphics personally i only care about gameplay and if it is that much of a bother then I still wont take much notice since it will be about the same as BFBC2.

Thats because PCs can be updated with better hardware at anytime.. Xbox is still running on the same crap hardware from 05.. and PS3 still has hardware from 06.

PC will always be the superior machine to play on.

and yup BF3 will probably drop lower than 30FPS just like BC2 did.

d3tach3d
06-26-2011, 11:10 AM
Consoles simply can't handle the 64 player. I understand the need to run at 30FPS and if its locked with no dips, It would be perfectly fine. Its hard for BF3 to match 60fps of COD games because this game uses superior graphics such as deferred rendering, global illumination, higher poly models, textures, etc.) But as for computers go, the FPS is relative to your Computer, you could get anything from 1FPS to 300fps. I personally have my copy of BF3 pre-ordered for the PC :woop:. Thankfully I have a rig that can run it well and I would prefer the 64 player multiplayer. Especially on Huge maps where it counts. Bad Company 2 was a good example. On console the maps seemed a little empty and lacking in action with 24 player. I bought it on pc where it has 32 players and it made a huge difference in terms of gameplay.

d3tach3d
06-26-2011, 11:13 AM
It would matter more if you're planning on playing it with 3D.

Thats why you buy a TV that makes any video source plugged into 3D. I prefer these alot more because your not confined to the console doing all the work. I like to play ROMs and watch older movies in 3D and the TV just does it all.

Paulson
06-26-2011, 04:51 PM
Whenever I see a thread like this, I cant help but think of Chicken Little.....30 fps?!! Game over man, the sky is falling!

But I can see how this might be a concern, if it runs at a 30 fps default frame rate it should be fine! But if it slows down during encounters with a lot of enemies, it will hurt the gameplay experience.

Giptuc
06-27-2011, 04:08 AM
Thats why you buy a TV that makes any video source plugged into 3D. I prefer these alot more because your not confined to the console doing all the work. I like to play ROMs and watch older movies in 3D and the TV just does it all.


This. The 3D tv's capable of turning 2D into 3D are heaps better. I have a LG TV in the lounge room that isnt capable of doing this, and a Samsung in my room that converts 2D to 3D and you can really tell the difference. The picture is clearer and sharper and the 2D to 3D conversion is really good.

And when gaming, its great. Ive done Crysis 2 in both the stereoscopic 3D included in the game, and then with the 2D to 3D conversion included in the tv, and although you can tell the 3D depth isnt as good as it is with the crytek engine, you can still clearly see the 3D depth is there.

Its the same with TV's and games. Although the game will run at 30fps, the TV's and preamps and everything that goes along with it will make the picture perfect anyway. unless your a 95% pc gamer that plays all their games in 60+fps, you WILL NOT tell the difference between battlefield 3 and any other game on the console in terms of the framerate.

13ip0lar
06-27-2011, 11:19 AM
30FPS is the same as most xbox games there is very few that support 60FPS. One of the games that support 60FPS is Call of Duty series but Halo and most other games are 30. Not only that, but I'm not saying that any of you guys don't know this, but I'm sure a few in this thread don't realize that the human eye is only capable of 32 FPS. Movies are shot at 24fps? I can't recall, however, it's really not a big deal in any event.

Regardless of the FPS's, I'm sure Battlefield 3 will be amazing.

This^, duh... when has Battlefield been anything less than amazing.

It's aggravating to hear that. Nothing can be simple the way that it used to be when you could play N64 hours upon hours with your friends on a small a** TV and not care about the graphics. Now, all people care about is how many FPS the game runs.
When I first got my Xbox 360, I was playing on a 10 inch tv or something, since I didn't have the proper hookups to connect my PC monitor. Anyways, It was one of the TV's you take with you when you go on trips with a VCR built in. I was playing MW2 with that and I could barely see a head in the distance. I recall one time, seeing a pixel move into the corner of a window. Took the shot...headshot! I couldn't even see the dude. Point is, graphics do matter now adays, and so does the resolution, or rather size of your TV. However, unless the FPS is terribly low, most people won't notice. The only people that have the right to bitch about FPS, are PC users, or those who know what they are talking about. Which 90% of the people bitching about it, don't have a clue.

Keep in mind though. Low fps rate on Xbox and PC are completely different. I played CoD4 on PC with a frame rate of 20-60, and trust me you could tell, but that's because it was struggling to "draw" the textures if you will. With Xbox, you have a piece of hardware that the developer has the specs for, can optimize the game for, and hence make it a smooth enjoyable experience. With PC, you got an infinite number of variables, not to mention everyone's own unique combination of these variables. Only way to be sure the game will run smooth on that is to be sure you have the "top of the line" hardware at the time of release.