Why PS3 Battlefield 3 is 720p and 30fps

By Robert Purchese Published 20 June, 2011

Dice defends "trade-offs".

On console, Battlefield 3 produces a 720p resolution at 30 frames per second.

The specs were confirmed by developer DICE following the first console demonstration of Battlefield 3 on US chat show Late Night with Jimmy Fallon, where PlayStation 3 code was shown.

DICE rendering architect Johan Andersson fielded questions about the demo on Twitter. He answered queries of why the frame-rate and resolution weren't higher, and why the console version of Battlefield 3 looked inferior to the game on PC.

"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."

The Call of Duty series prides itself on offering a smooth 60fps experience. Modern Warfare 3, Battlefield 3's target, will run at 60fps.

Andersson went on to mention a "special lighting solution" for the Xbox 360 version of Battlefield 3 that is "pretty awesome". He added that BF3 will run Edge MLAA code "with some tweaks of our own".

How key the frame-rate factor turns out to be in the battle between Modern Warfare 3 and Battlefield 3 - and indeed the war between the Call of Duty and Battlefield series - remains to seen. Does it matter to you?

Here's that Fallon footage.

Battlefield 3 on PS3.

Picture of Robert.

About Robert Purchese

Bertie is Eurogamer's Senior Staff Writer. When he's not hunting down news stories he's often found playing with his kids or gabbling about fantasy games and strange online worlds. @Clert on Twitter.

Read more articles from Robert by visiting the Robert Purchese archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (80) Latest comment 11 months ago

Comments for this article are now closed, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • StolenGlory #1 11 months ago

    So, 720p @ 30fps gets you full destructability, huge maps and more vehicles than you can shake a hairy stick at.

    Sounds fair to me.

  • patch #2 11 months ago

    I can't watch the video, but am I to take it from the headline and article that the 360 version runs 720p and 30fps? Or are you only mentioning PS3 because you can't confirm the 360 specs? Or is it a case of misleading headline is misleading?

  • LazyNinjaUk #3 11 months ago

    Why is Jimmy Fallon such a douche?

  • GiarcYekrub #4 11 months ago

    Blame Sony...

    "And technologically, I don't think it's possible to provide any advancement beyond what we have." - Jack Tretton

    http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2011-0...
    Edited by GiarcYekrub at 20/06/11 @ 09:21

  • des #5 11 months ago

    "These are my personal views."

  • couloir #6 11 months ago

    Pretty sure bad company 2 was 30 fps on console so I have no problem with this.

  • solidSnake04 #7 11 months ago

    Guess online it ought to make a difference.

  • Anciegher #8 11 months ago

    The only games running in 1080p on the consoles are low fidelity XBLA/PSN games. Only next generation can we expect all games to run in 1080p 60fps on consoles.

  • PixelPirate #9 11 months ago

    I think I would rather have destructible scenery and interesting, unpredictable game play than static indestructible buildings .

    obv. 60fps would be nice, but plenty of other shooters cope running at 30fps fine.

    But I have to ask. Where is the 360 demo?

    I haven't seen it yet, and I am surprised we haven't had the usual side by side shot of "look they are the same" yet.

  • karooo #10 11 months ago

    Even Uncharted 2 is 720p 30fps, why are people blowing this out of proportion? Does this even need an explanation?

    GiarcYekrub
    "Blame Sony...
    And technologically, I don't think it's possible to provide any advancement beyond what we have." - Jack Tretton"

    He was talking about Blu ray and stuff, use your brain.

  • GamesProgrammer Verified Games Team Programmer, Eutechnyx Ltd. #11 11 months ago

    eh 720 @30 is the standard for nearly all games, are people pissed its not 60 frames, cos it cant be that its not 1080p there are less than a handful of games that run in 1080.

    For me as long as the frame rate is locked then its fine, i have variable framerate.

  • SClaw #12 11 months ago

    In summary... B3 on console is for suckas. PC B3 is for winners.

    Not that a real human being will be able to tell the difference, no matter how hard they comment shout about it.

  • bumyoghurt #13 11 months ago

    Lolstation Fail etc

  • GamesProgrammer Verified Games Team Programmer, Eutechnyx Ltd. #14 11 months ago

    i seriously also dont think we will ever see a generation that runs at 60fps for the majority of games, devs are happy to run at 30 and if you give them more power they would rather use it to put more stuff on screen than to run at 60.

  • FireMonkey #15 11 months ago

    @karooo - "He was talking about Blu ray and stuff, use your brain."

    Stuff? Great clarification there.

    Also, quoting the original article:


    When will you start talking about PlayStation 4?

    PlayStation 3 is really just hitting its stride. And technologically, I don’t think it’s possible to provide any advancement beyond what we have. What we’ve seen from the competition is trying to add features that already exist in PlayStation 3. We invested heavily in that, we rolled a very heavy rock up a steep hill, through the launch period. But now I think that all pays off, and we’ve got a long run way behind it. So, I wouldn’t look for any discussion of a next generation PlayStation for quite some time.


    Nope, nothing specific about Blu-Ray and 'stuff'. Sounds to me like he thinks the PS3 is the best they can do.

  • Gambit1977 #16 11 months ago

    Provocative headlining as usual I see.

  • bumyoghurt #17 11 months ago

    It's just simply what guillotine said above- Sony have taken a pounding with the PS3, with all the failed initiatives, that PSN world thing and move, even BluRay to an extent- they can't afford to start pushing the boundaries again in case they have a repeat of this generation.

    That's not to say that it's a bad idea holding onto the PS3, they can do what Nintendo do and only release their franchise titles that they know their fanbase will buy. They can sit back and just coin off of MGS, Uncharted and Killzone.

  • Apostle #18 11 months ago

    Looks pretty fucking good to me. I think I did spot to odd bit of slowdown though, hate to say it, but for how pretty it looks, I'd take that.

  • MiY4MOTO #19 11 months ago

    @GamesProgrammer

    I can honestly say I'd never considered that, but I dare say to a large extent that your right. Maybe the round of CoD on new hardware will run 1080p 60fps but I reckon devs would rather use the extra horsepower to deliver even higher fidelity visuals at 30fps.

  • StolenGlory #20 11 months ago

    "For single player, this is fine. Can't say I'm too impressed about 30fps in multiplayer though."

    I don't see the problem. EVERY Battlefield game that has been played online on consoles has been at 720p @30fps (or lower in some cases) only now we get a Battlefield game with a much more advanced engine and holds the same framerate.

    Still seems like a win to me.

  • koopa #21 11 months ago

    @SClaw
    If you can't see the difference between 30fps and 60fps you should see an eye doctor. But I'm usually satisfied with 30fps, except in racing and other fast moving games...

  • lemonfist #22 11 months ago

    These games are for pussies and they're so technically inferior it hurts my eyes, whatever they're played on. When I went hunting in the woods recently I was able to take out my target at a distance you wouldn't believe, all without night-vision goggles or red-dot scope. The frame rate was so high I couldn't even tell there were any frames in the first place and the edges were so smooth, everything anti-aliased to perfection, so that when I hit that bumble-bee from 500 metres away it seemed almost too easy.

  • asphaltcowboy #23 11 months ago

    Why the hell would they need to defend it? It looks amazing!

  • FireMonkey #24 11 months ago

    @FluffyTucker - ""pissed off", pissed means drunk. It's not yankeeretardgamer.net"

    You do realise 'pissed off' if a British term too don't you? Monty Python used it in the 70's and I believe it's been used here since at least WW2!

  • infernox1 #25 11 months ago

    anyone with a brain would know this. who the hell is complaining?

  • Haerger #26 11 months ago

    'I can't watch the video, but am I to take it from the headline and article that the 360 version runs 720p and 30fps? Or are you only mentioning PS3 because you can't confirm the 360 specs? Or is it a case of misleading headline is misleading? '

    Because Xbox 360 version isn't ready. I'm sure both versions will be brilliant.

  • Dizzy #27 11 months ago

    You can bet the CoD team, is going to rub it in.

  • Quak #28 11 months ago

    > The only games running in 1080p on the consoles are low fidelity XBLA/PSN games. Only next generation can we expect all games to run in 1080p 60fps on consoles.

    Actually, the Virtua Tennis games run at 1080p but of course that's because there's not much going on in those games.

  • King_Edward #29 11 months ago

    Maybe you could drop the res a bit more and give me zombie mode?

  • metalangel #30 11 months ago

    *flushes toilet*

    I just pissed! Hint: I'm neither drunk nor angry.

  • TheEarlOfZinger #31 11 months ago

    Couldn't care less. Looks bloody great, and will be.

  • MaxiSleep #32 11 months ago

    This article reads like a deliberate troll post.

  • BloodSaint #33 11 months ago

    FFS people stop whining! Look @ Killzone 3 and Uncharted 2, they were 30 FPS... Even though MW3 is @ 60 FPS it looks ugly...

  • Gecks #34 11 months ago

    oh cool, Battles are on next! ... (video stops) ... aww

  • oi #35 11 months ago

    "DICE rendering architect Johan Andersson fielded questions about the demo on Twitter. He answered queries of why the frame-rate and resolution weren't higher, and why the console version of Battlefield 3 looked inferior to the game on PC"

    That is one of the most retarded thing I have ever read on the internet ever. Actually the whole 'news item' is simply baffling.

    Did anyone expect anything higher than 720p? No, no they didn't. Same goes for the frame rate. The CoD games aim for 60fps but 99.9% of console fps target 30fps so again, no one is surprised. As for "why the console version of Battlefield 3 looked inferior to the game on PC" and we're in full retard mode at this point.

  • GamesConnoisseur #36 11 months ago

    30 fps are fine for most games except racing and very fast moving games like koopa said, there where such differences really matters. Fighting games also where 60 fps helps, each frame make a difference in how to react.

    [link url=http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frames_can_humans_see.htm
    ]http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frames_ca...[/link]

    So if 30 fps but well implemented with motion blurs and so on, can feel like a 60 fps game, again if 60 fps but minus all the effects can feel too neat and bit plain. So this situation should improves radically next gen, in meantime there's always the PC...

  • kirankara #37 11 months ago

    This whole article is ridiculous . A few retards thought that this gen consoles could run an fps looking like a pc version and wanted 60fps too. Clearly they need some sort of medical help.

  • betrayerofhope #38 11 months ago

    ridge racer. the only high visual game to get 60fps at 1080p natuve resolution. when that game was released during ps3 launch i had high hopes.

    In anycase bf3 still looks graphically inferior to killzone 3 on playstation 3.

  • chessboxer #39 11 months ago

    @Quak & Anciegher

    The first ever native 1080p console game was Ridge Racer 7 (released 2006), it also ran at 60fps. There are a few retail titles that run natively at 1080p but you are right that the majority of them are digital releases.

    There are well over 60 available on the PS3. The 360 has its own (although smaller in quantity) catalogue of 1080p titles.

  • FireMonkey #40 11 months ago

    @FluffyTucker - "Firemonkey, that is what I was saying. Pretty clear?"

    No, you said "'pissed off', pissed means drunk. It's not yankeeretardgamer.net" and I am pointing out that 'pissed off' ALSO means annoyed in English and has done for well over 30 years. It is not just American.

  • BonzoBanana #41 11 months ago

    I'd like to see a 1080p first person shooter on 360 and PS3. I realise it will cut down massively on polygons, textures etc. Might even require going to 24bit colour or even 16bit but I'd like to see it done out of curiousity. I'm guessing visually it will look about ps2/wii level except for the resolution. Maybe if it was limited to indoor sections small rooms etc it would be possible for a game to switch between 720p outdoors and 1080p indoors.

    Just finished the single player campaign of bad company 2 on 360 and have to say it was a stunning game with a great engine. Visually at times it was quite poor, fair few jaggies and minimal textures but the scope of the engine is better than many games. One of the most enjoyable single player campaigns of a fps game in a long time for me.

  • mAc062 #42 11 months ago

    For me the diffence between 30fps and 60fps is hugh, after playing some 60fps titles on my consoles or games at 60+ FPS on my pc going back down to 30fps takes getting used to and makes some games unplayable.

  • riz23 #43 11 months ago

    720 what? 30 fp-huh? I think what is interesting here is that Battlefield gets a piece on Late night with Jimmy Fallon. Can you imagine that happening here on the One Show or Chatty Man?

  • WJF #44 11 months ago

    This is just the inevitable reaction when you show your (primarily aimed at console gamers*) game running on a high-spec PC for months on end, building up hype over something that just couldn't possibly be real for the majority of would-be purchasers.

    In a perfect world everyone that would buy these games would have realised that the consoles wouldn't be able to do the same level of GFX as a top of the range PC, like all you guys (well most of you) in this comments thread, but it's not.


    *Yes, it's a PC series originally, but the majority of sales and the advertising is going to be aimed at the home consoles

  • Ryze #45 11 months ago

    The Roots band!

  • Tryhard #46 11 months ago

    I am well trained in Bad company 2 so anything similar is fine for me.I just love Battlefield games as my FPS.

  • MattyD #47 11 months ago

    LOL what are these wh

  • thecapsaicinkid #48 11 months ago

    It blows my mind how many people don't understand the concept of a finite amount of hardware resources and the tradeoffs that need to be made if certain aspects are pushed harder.

    If these people saw 2 versions of the same game, one running at the usual 720p 30fps sweetspot and another at 1080p 60fps then you can absolutely guarantee they would come away agreeing with the developers choice. People are effectively saying, nope, I know better, make it 1080p. It's beyond obnoxious.

  • MattyD #49 11 months ago

    LOL what are these whining noobs complaining for? Do they even know what hardware is in a console? I have a pretty meaty PC (core i7-920, ATI 5870, 6th RAM) and even I can't run Bad Company 2 at 60fps / 1080p. Native 720p puts it above most console games already and 30fps is fine for a slower-paced game like Battlefield.

  • Soton4084 #50 11 months ago

    Jimmy Fallon is such an irritating moron, I literally cringed when he asked 'is that accent for real?' I thought it bordered on disrespectful and wasn't at all funny.

    As for Battlefield 3, I'm surprised that people believed that the PS3 version would match the PC version. It still looks stunning and as others have said, 30fps and 720p is comparable to Uncharted 2 (the best looking console game this gen in my opinion) and Killzone 3.
    Edited by Soton4084 at 20/06/11 @ 12:26

  • BonzoBanana #51 11 months ago

    I'd quite like to see an update of a classic fps game like Half Life 1. You could do this in 1080p at 60 frames per second on ps3/360. the engine is quite dated now and even if you improved textures etc there is still only limited number of enemies and events and the engine world size is small. Don't see why a remix of a game like that couldn't be done in 1080p at 60fps. I'm sure the original xbox could handle a 720p version of the original half life, it managed a 480p version of half life 2. So there is something wrong if ps3/360 couldn't do a 1080p version. Generally you'd think most original xbox/ps2/gamecube first person games could be done at 1080p on 360/ps3.

  • dfunked #52 11 months ago

    "He answered queries of why the frame-rate and resolution weren't higher, and why the console version of Battlefield 3 looked inferior to the game on PC."

    Erm... Perhaps because the PS3 is massively inferior to a PC as far as specs are concerned...
    Where do they find these retards????

  • Spuzzell #53 11 months ago

    Loo loo loo I love my PC, loo loo loo you should get one too..

  • kosigan #54 11 months ago

    Black Ops runs at 960x544 on PS3 consoles, but no-one complained about that as far as I remember.

  • kirankara #55 11 months ago

    "This is just the inevitable reaction when you show your (primarily aimed at console gamers*"
    Ive been saying for a while now, that they should either show pc footage for games alongside console footage, or keep the two completely separate in terms of promoting the game, whilst stating explicitly that it's pc footage and console versions will look different, as idiots like the ones referred to in the article believe that they are going to be getting that game.
    I understand that they want to promote the game looking it's best, and in an ideal world , idiots would be put down at birth, but it's not an ideal world, and they have to accommodate the idiots of world unfortunately .

  • mumblyjoe #56 11 months ago

    Eurogamer really is the Daily Star of games journalism...

  • Segaswirl #57 11 months ago

    Was anyone really expecting BF3 to be 1080p?

    I think the Perfect Dark remake on XBLA is the only 1080p FPS of this generation so far... could be wrong though.

  • Tyrhinis #58 11 months ago

    @BonzoBanana - Perfect Dark on XBLA (which was released a couple of years later than HL1) runs in 1080p and 60fps, and looks extremely sweet doing it I might add.

    On-topic - yeah, while 60fps would be nice, the huge levels + terrain damage + high playercount more than make up for 30fps. I also don't think that 1080p looks much better than 720p (certainly not enough to justify it being twice as hard to render).

    Maybe the next gen should mandate 60fps across all games? That'd be interesting...

  • ozzzy189 #59 11 months ago

    When he asked if his accent was real, he should've asked if his was too. What an ignorant twat.
    Nice looking game, there's very little difference between 720 and 1080p visibly , unless you're sat really really close to the TV, really really not an issue, 60fps would be great,but no way was I expecting that with all this game will be doing.

  • mcwildcard #60 11 months ago

    "FIVE YEAR OLD CONSOLES IN LOWER FPS THAN HIGH SPEC PC RIDDLE"

  • carlosdfn #61 11 months ago

    I wasn't even expecting 720p lol. If they manage a solid 30fps people should be happy with it, this game does some pretty impressive things that you wont see in COD. Besides, I'd rather have 720p at a solid 30fps than the ridiculous 960x544 resolution of black ops on PS3.

  • VibratingDonkey #62 11 months ago

    Why would you expect a PS3 to run a game as well as a high-end PC? And like, Uncharted 3 and Killzone 2 are also 720@30FPS. Don't know why that's something anyone would be disappointed by.

    I see the tweets repi replied to were from some CoD fanboy thinking it's a shame BF3 is not 1080p on consoles. Which is of course quite funny since CoD typically runs at something like 620p.

  • neems #63 11 months ago

    @FireMonkey, not having a go, but I think you've misunderstood what FluffyTucker is saying. He's saying that using 'pissed' to mean angry is American english, whereas 'pissed off' is English english.

    Also there is no story here. Some idiot on twitter asked a silly question and a Dice dev answered him. That's it.

  • thiagots85 #64 11 months ago

    EA, I don't like some of your latest decisions, but making some effort to deliver a better experience for each platform, and not just making some shit port from a console, is an A+

    I'll be playing BF3 in my PC, but for people who like more the consoles,this is a great news (and I want the PC version to be perfect!)


    People, most of the games runs at 720- 30FPS on consoles.... so, why so mad?...is just a matter of choice...some like to look at the Gfx to judge a game, others like the perfect experience of playing and others like both to be balanced... well,some like none and just keep bitching about anything, but I think there's none here

  • markmitt #65 11 months ago

    As long as it's an absolute rock steady 30 fps, then there's no problem... Variable framerate however is a no go...

  • IronCladChicken #66 11 months ago

    @FireMonkey
    The man is probably referring to component price vs. console price vs. consumer uptake.

    Currently it's probably not possible to produce a console which would have the horsepower to match current high end PC's, along with a consumer friendly price tag - Which would also provide a noticeable improvement in graphics or gameplay in order to entice buyers... since most consumers really don't care about 30fps vs. 60 fps or 720p vs. 1080p... They just want games that look good and play well (& I agree)... A setup which is currently being catered for quite nicely with the current gen hardware...

    If you've gotta have cutting edge - Then you gotta splash the cash on a high-end gaming PC.

    & Don't forget - Neither Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo or Apple are in this out of the goodness of their hearts...As businesses they are only interested in profit - (even if they do promise they are your very best friends for ever and ever if you pay them X amount) - I'd imagine that it's currently not profitable enough to go through another release cycle.

  • Desmios #67 11 months ago

    MLAA only on PS3

    struggled with the XB360 Deferred Render therefore had to find a solution.



    forgive my english

  • Layzlo #68 11 months ago

    This Robert Purchese is a great troll. I think he writes the best troll bait, I just wonder how he gets away with it.

  • ShakaCarnage #69 11 months ago

    The special lighting solution is Enlighten. Dynamic radiosity. It doesn't sound big or clever right now, but when you play BF3, you'll know why it looks so bloody lovely.

  • anthonypappa #70 11 months ago

    what's the big deal?

    bad company looked amazing. more importantly, it felt gritty, very atmospheric and immersive.

  • dr_faulk #71 11 months ago

    I don't know if showcasing a new game on a chat show is depressing, or a positive sign that games are so main stream that they're as accepted as books and movies.

  • cheeky_BILLY #72 11 months ago

    doe's anyone really care?

    I mean ,if your lucky enough to afford a pimped out PC that will run BF3 at max settings then good luck to you, But it'll cost what? 3-4 times more than a PS3? and will it REALLY look 3-4 times better?

  • DrStrangelove #73 11 months ago

    1200p and 60fps for me. yarr!

  • Andeus #74 11 months ago

    DICE rendering architect Johan Andersson fielded questions about the demo on Twitter. He answered queries of why the frame-rate and resolution weren't higher, and why the console version of Battlefield 3 looked inferior to the game on PC.

    Seriously?

    Someone went ahead and asked that question?

  • ballshock #75 11 months ago

    that's fine, frame rate is wil be better than Black ops surely lol

  • DAN.E.B #76 11 months ago

    "Black Ops runs at 960x544 on PS3 consoles, but no-one complained about that as far as I remember"

    Yeah but there was alot of other problems to complain about.

  • Kaminari #77 11 months ago

    A few weeks ago, the general consensus about BF3 was that it would be just unable to run on consoles.

    Now a short footage of the impressive PS3 port is released in the open and every PC owner is left with the only resort they know about: nitpicking over details. From what I can see here, the framerate is uber smooth and the lighting engine trumps Crysis 2 out of the ocean. Is there anything else to discuss? No. Just enjoy what many thought was impossible a few weeks ago.

    http://youtube.com/watch?v=-1LSRDTJryo

  • brod #78 11 months ago

    I prefer 60fps. Good thing I intend to play the PC version of BF3 so I don't have to compromise.

  • tonixuk #79 11 months ago

    Whether we like it or not, graphics are very important to the majority of gamers and BF3 looks amazing regardless of the framerate. As for MW3 it makes no difference to me whether I'm being sniped or noob tubed at bloody 100 fps let alone 60!

  • shadowdogg #80 11 months ago

    So Xbox or PS3 version will look best?