BF3 dev responds to fan frame-rate fury

By Tom Phillips Published 27 July, 2011

Gamers disappointed at console 30FPS.

Battlefield 3 developer DICE has moved to calm console gamers upset the game only runs at 30 frames-per-second on PS3 and Xbox 360.

That's half the speed of bitter Battlefield rival Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3, which runs at 60FPS on console.

"Console gamers shouldn't worry about this," DICE's Karl Magnus Troedsson told GamingExaminer. "This topic is discussed out of proportions. For those tech-savvy enough to have looked into the actual resolution of their console games it won't come as a surprise that a lot of console games today do not run at 1080p but rather 720p."

The game can run at 60FPS, Troedsson suggested, but DICE has chosen to sacrifice smoother graphics to include everything the 60FPS PC version has.

"We've made a conscious decision to stick with 30FPS on console. It's not a technical problem with getting our game to run in 60FPS but we do this in favour of the large amount of players, large scale maps, huge amount of vehicles, full on destruction and so on," Troedsson explained.

Battlefield 3 allows gamers to pulverise entire facades of buildings, exposing any enemies entrenched inside.

Battlefield's pace is "slightly slower than some other twitchy shooters of today," Troedsson added, "which lends itself well to this frame-rate."

EA's Battlefield 3 launches 28th October in the UK. Activision's Call of Duty juggernaut Modern Warfare 3 arrives 8th November, just 11 days later.

Battlefield 3 Paris multiplayer gameplay.

Picture of Tom.

About Tom Phillips

Tom joined Eurogamer in 2010 and has quickly made his mark writing news and columns and coming up with puntastic straplines. Questionable beard. @TomPhillips151 on Twitter.

Read more articles from Tom by visiting the Tom Phillips archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (79) Latest comment 10 months ago

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

  • MiniAmin #1 10 months ago

    I have no problem with this whatsoever. I'd prefer a less twitchy console shooter, with more vehicles, destruction and large scales battles, as opposed to a twitchy, smoother title which'd feature sterile, indestructable settings and bland set pieces.

  • layleeloo #2 10 months ago

    I still don't understand why considering 99% of people can't tell the difference anyway if they are not told

  • phAge #3 10 months ago

    "BUT I NEEDZ TEH SIXTY EFPEEES FOR MAH HEDSHUTS?!?"

    Christ.

  • jetsetwillie #4 10 months ago

    there is always a gamer pissed off about something or other.

    i wish the internet had an in-build bitch slap feature

  • Tomahawk #5 10 months ago

    You can hardly call it "frame-rate fury" lol, I haven't seen a s***storm brew because of this.

    I have to agree with John Carmack though, a smoother frame rate is a priority for a shooters but for competitive reasons. I don't think it's such a huge deal if your game is like Rage and isn't as competitive focused tbh.

  • Bibbo #6 10 months ago

    You don't need to defend yourself DICE. Clearly they ain't no Battlefield fan if they're bitching about it not being 60fps. I'd always want console Battlefield games to be locked at 30fps. As everyone has said a illion times. Bad Company 1 - 2 run at this, and nobody bitched about that.

    For those that bitch about no 60fps on console, Go buy it on PC. Do us all a favor.

  • MarketZero #7 10 months ago

    It's not a huge deal. 30 frames per second is plenty for me if the trade-off is more action on screen without slowdown. COD runs at 60fps but most of the time you can only see 20yds in front of you. You can add another zero onto that for BF.

  • optimusprym8 #8 10 months ago

    Have they made a statement about banning women from the Texan events in order to stop boys acting like asshats?

  • RevanNL #9 10 months ago

    There's one thing that concerns me about this: when the console versions get maps the same size as the PC version (designed with a player limit of 64), doesn't this result in a multiplayer game with maps that are far too big and thus feel empty?

  • LazyNinjaUk #10 10 months ago

    What would you do with those missing 30 frames each second anyway? I really couldn't give a shit as long as the gameplay is brilliant (which it undoubtedly will be).

  • Murton #11 10 months ago

    I can't speak for everyone (and I would never presume to do so anyway) but I'd much rather have Battlefield at a stable 30fps with all of its extra goings on than the slightly wobbly 60fps corridor-shooter that CoD has become in recent years.

    And that's just the single player, when you go online and you have that extra level of network latency, a steady framerate becomes even more important and as anyone who has read a DF article will tell you, it's much easier to lock and maintain at 30fps than it is at 60fps regardless of what's happening on screen.

  • AphoticCosmos #12 10 months ago

    Without wanting to give anything away, from the time I've spent in Alpha BF3 is very slow paced compared to MW2. Not that it's a bad thing. Instead of rushing in to a hallway, akimbo shotguns from the 1870s blazing like a stupid maniac, unless you want to die you go prone/crouch/find cover and pray, then edge out of cover a bit to pop off a few shots, then run like hell to the next bit of cover. 30fps, 60fps . . . it really won't matter, it's a different type of game from MW entirely. It feels good, because it feels like Battlefield. The King is back, baby.

  • FireMonkey #13 10 months ago

    @RevanNL - "when the console versions get maps the same size as the PC version (designed with a player limit of 64)"

    Battlefield maps have always been scalable. You could play with small teams and the play area would be reduced and as you ramp up the number of people allowed on the server the maps playable area expands.

    Console will just not be getting the maximum size maps.

    See this image showing the 3 playable areas for a few maps from BF2:
    http://www.spartanwarfighters.net/3mid/6...
    Edited by FireMonkey at 27/07/11 @ 11:18

  • jablonski #14 10 months ago

    EG, you need to run a MW3 fluff story now.

    You're tipping the balance too much

  • AdamAsunder #15 10 months ago

    Oh come on. Did anyone actually expect it to run at more than 30FPS?

  • Golgo #16 10 months ago

    Not an issue.

  • darleysam #17 10 months ago

    STOP BITCHING ABOUT FRAME RATES. Good grief, if anyone is that bent out of shape by wanting to see something an extra thirty times per second, go spend a grand on a high end PC. Otherwise, shut up.
    Edited by darleysam at 27/07/11 @ 11:20

  • anthonypappa #18 10 months ago

    who the hell is complaining?! it's not the battlefield fans, is it?

    no-one complained about BF:BC2...

  • TheEarlOfZinger #19 10 months ago

    Justtakemymoney

  • LFace #20 10 months ago

    I can notice a big difference between 30/60 fps, but running at 30 is perfectly fine for me.

    Hell my PC is nowhere near good enough to run majority of games these days at 60 so im used to slower speeds. Id be happy if some ran at 30 to be honest. If all games ran at 60fps with no sacrifices then I would prefer that but frankly it just isnt possible on consoles these days.

    Maybe "next gen".

  • RevanNL #21 10 months ago

    @FireMonkey: Thanks for clearing that up, haven't played a PC Battlefield game since 1942. Was a bit worried because BC2's multiplayer really suffered when the lobby wasn't filled with 24 players

  • Iliad #22 10 months ago

    It's only CoD teenagers bitching anyway, as the 60 fps is the only technically better aspect they can bitch about, as BF3 is superior in every other aspect when it comes to visuals and audio.

    With any luck this will put off a few more CoD gamers from trying - and thus ruining - the Battlefield experience for the rest of us.

  • Pacmaninov #23 10 months ago

    I don't understand.

    60fps is incredibly rare for a AAA blockbuster franchise on consoles as graphics take priority over input latency - Halo reach, halo 3 (that was running sub 720p) gears of war, bioshock, gta/redemption, Alan wake (sort of sub hd) uncharted/killzone. And pretty much every other game they will have played on consoles.
    Cod isn't always a smooth 60fps anyway and the Lod and other graphical sacrifices (shadows, resolution) are pretty ugly

    Who's furroring anyway?

    ...

  • Xensor #24 10 months ago

    EG what are you, the gaming equivalent of the Evening Standard? Enough with the ridiculously overblown sensationalist non-stories.

  • Architect_z #25 10 months ago

    Who are these frame rate fury fans?

    Get a job, and just enjoy the game, if not, fuck off and buy the new COD game.

  • aphex187 #26 10 months ago

    'The game can run at 60FPS, Troedsson suggested, but DICE has chosen to sacrifice smoother graphics to include everything the 60FPS PC version has.'

    That there should be enough for Console guys to not even bother to whine about, jeez!....

  • P1GEONPOO #27 10 months ago

    Bring on the next gen I say. 60fps 1080p on console oooo yeeeah.
    But in the meantime im cool with 30 and 720.

  • DarthInsinuate #28 10 months ago

    The Call of Duty PR machine is working, mwhahahaah mwahahaha!

  • BloodSaint #29 10 months ago

    I have no idea why everyone is crying over this, honestly. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure killzone 3, uncharted 3, resistance 3 and gears of war 3 are all running on 30 fps...

  • Lord_BeeJee #30 10 months ago

    Just sell an ultraspecial edition with a highsspec pc in the package disguised as an xbox addon! It'll silence the haters and triple income! :)

  • tiny_Eggy #31 10 months ago

    30 FPS stable is perfectly fine. Played plenty of PC shooters on those settings.

  • metallicorphan #32 10 months ago

    i am not a tech head so its likely i wouldn't be able to tell anyway,no idea what i would be looking for for starters

    as i am getting this for 360,i will just be happy if it plays as well as BFBC2,then i will be happy...but hopefully not have the usual EA server problems we BF players are always plagued with at the start of the BF games life(BFBC,BFBC2,BF43...can't remember if BF2:MC had problems)


    I would however like to see some more console footage,having only seen the PS3 footage on that Jimmy Fallon show(which wasn't a lot really) in the US,its about time in fact for some more console footage

  • gbish #33 10 months ago

    I remember playing a lot of CS & DoD at 10 fps on my TNT2 card and I enjoyed every single second. I think 30fps on what will be a fantastic and enjoyable game is perfectly fine.

  • geeza2020 #34 10 months ago

    Not seen any frame-rate fury tbh. Still, DICE didnt need to bother even addressing this IMO. BF3 will look amazing, I'm sure. As others have said, BFBC2 looked awesome, even at 30fps.

  • alimokrane #35 10 months ago

    What's the obesession with 60 anyway... have people not seen the videos? the game looks stunning!

  • carlitoswagon #36 10 months ago

    "Fan frame-rate fury"

    As a fan I haven't heard or experienced any of this so-called fury. Where are these furious people?

  • SilverNeon #37 10 months ago

    The fact there is so much going on on a large scale and there's little sacrifice to the image quality at 720p @ 30fps, although probably with a few dips to be expected they deserve credit for this tech.

  • bodhi85uk #38 10 months ago

    What is this? The Daily fucking Mail. Battlefield is 30fps because it looks awesome and we have 6 year old consoles. If you dont like it buy a PC or piss off and play CoD.

    Cant believe EG is reporting this, who are these simpletons erupting in fury? And why give them legitimacy by reporting their concerns.

  • Redflooch #39 10 months ago

    I really don't give a shit that MW3 runs at 60fps, the fact of the matter is, is that COD is PISH!!!!!

  • StolenGlory #40 10 months ago

    Fury? Eh? Battefield console fans have been expecting 720p @ 30fps since day one.

  • coojam #41 10 months ago

    The truth is people don't realise just how incredible a job the CoD devs do to get their games looking as good as they do at 60fps. They know they can't compete, so don't, though their argument that the game is slower paced is a valid one.

  • evilrobot #42 10 months ago

    Post deleted at 22:12:53 08-05-2012

  • schnide #43 10 months ago

    "BF3 dev responds to fan frame-rate fury.."

    That's Sun-worthy alliteration and provocation right there. You've outdone yourselves EG.

  • God_Octo #44 10 months ago

    I'm sure its only the pedants that complained. As loads of you have said, like the majority of games run at 30FPS. Its not a problem at all. Then again, I get the feeling that EA keep brining it up just for the exposure. Just get on making the game even more excellent that it is already EA and DICE.

  • Snufkin #45 10 months ago

    I think this originated from a few stories on N4G that had people moaning in the comments thread, but mostly it was PC gamers lording their stable 60fps, 1080p uber-rigs over the filthy console-playing proletariat. The console crowd were quite happy with the idea of the game running at 30fps, as am I. I associate 60fps with more arcadey experiences like Burnout Paradise and CoD.

  • udat #46 10 months ago

    I for one and furious, furious I say. Not quite sure about what, but I am sure some news outlet somewhere will tell me where I should be directing my fury.

    Fury!

  • Medieval #47 10 months ago

    most of the back-lashings are from the playstation fanbase
    they having been so suckered into thinking the ps3 is the most powerful console ever created - believe it or not, i have read many ps3 guys thinking the ps3 is on par with and even better than PCs
    ^^perception and marketing is sony's ammo ajnd it's working!

    guess what, the ps3 is not all that and a bag of chips, so to all ps3 guys get off that horse and start using common sense and not be so naive and ignorant...for you guys give us console players a bad name!

    i'm surprised DICE hasn't flicked the 2 proverbial bird gestures and let out a few Swedish explatives and diss on the ps3 or leave the console market all together

    in summation: everyone not understanding how things work, just shut up, for you aren't a developers and also respect developer, for they know (atleast most of the time)

  • Murton #48 10 months ago

    "The truth is people don't realise just how incredible a job the CoD devs do to get their games looking as good as they do at 60fps."

    Everyone chastises the CoD devs (all of them) for sticking to that one engine for so long but that level of performance is only possible because they've stuck to that engine, constantly modifying, adapting, optimising, the side effect is that you can't get the features that people want, like huge maps and destructible terrain.

    Crazy to think that at the core it's the same engine from Quake 3 Arena, but it's proven to be one hell of a starting block with its natural strength in terms of frames per second allowing IW (and Treyarch) to tweak and improve for 10 years now and give us some pretty good games along the way. However you look at it it's hard not to be impressed really.

  • Ryze #49 10 months ago

    Play the PC version on a decent rig for 60+ FPS. A decent PC is now the current 'next-gen' platform :)

  • VibratingDonkey #50 10 months ago

    Sad that this is something that needs to be officially addressed. People are so stupid.

  • Feanor #51 10 months ago

    Does Bramwell actually read the shit that gets posted as "news" on his site, or is he past caring?

  • asphaltcowboy #52 10 months ago

    Which idiot actually has a problem with it not being 60fps? Seriously?

  • Stratix #53 10 months ago

    They need some way to show that the difference is negligable.

    Films in cinemas are shown at something like 24 FPS, although you are not going to get direct feedback from them.

  • jetsetwillie #54 10 months ago

    there is a very easy and simple way to solve this. all you need to do is go out and buy a PC that has the hardware to run BF3. hey presto BF3 no long runs at an ugly 30FPS

    if you're not prepared to do this then you need to shut the fuck up and go back to you 5 year old hardware and like what you have
    Edited by jetsetwillie at 27/07/11 @ 14:13

  • asphaltcowboy #55 10 months ago

    Dear EG, please provide evidence of this "fury".

  • geeza2020 #56 10 months ago

    jetsetwillie - believes everything he reads obviously. If he actually read the comments AFTER the article, he would realise that most console players in fact have not been moaning about this at all. In fact, the majority of people who moan and bitch about this are PC players trying to make themselves feel better about their utterly empty and meaningless lives by gloating about a few pixels or frames per second they can acheive with their awesome "rig". Grow up, son.

  • jetsetwillie #57 10 months ago

    @geenza

    id did read the comments but i didn't believe them.

  • Buran #58 10 months ago

    1) Latest COD games doesn't run at 60 fps, but more like at average 50 fps.

    2) Battlefield 3 runs at 60+ fps. You just need to play it in the platform that is meant to be played in. And no excuses please: at some point in your live is expected from you to get a work and make some money. Then start to build your rig instead of rely in your parents to magically get your console.

  • Bravestinsane #59 10 months ago

    Meh, ill be getting it on PC, my PC is a about 3 years old now, so i doubt ill be able to play it in all its glory.

    Will probably be about 40-50fps on medium/high as opposed to ultra.

    As long as it scales well with graphics slightly better than BC2 ill be happy. FPS doesn't bother me even as a PC player, i can't see the difference.

    I have been #1 on the server with games running at 30fps and close to the bottom at fps rates far above 60fps.

    It makes no difference at all, people who think they do need a reality check, if you too busy on focusing on the FPS your not playing the fucking game!

    When im playing the game i don't notice trivial things like FPS rates because im too busy trying to find cover and watch my back to even notice it.

  • agent55 #60 10 months ago

    If you have any sense of the technical limitations of the current gen consoles, you should actually be IMPRESSED that BF3 can run at 30fps with all of this game's features intact. I am at least.

  • SteveOssy #61 10 months ago

    If you really can't tell the difference between 30 & 60 frames per second you need to go get your eyes tested, idiots the lot of you.

  • IronGiant #62 10 months ago

    I'm furious and upset about COD and MW games not having destructible scenery, lacking vehicles in multiplayer, being ridiculously scripted single player campaigns that last about 4-5 hours, lacking the graphical detail and fidelity of BFBC2 and so on. Can you please ask activision to apologise. Or better still stop reporting this crap!

  • Rizo #63 10 months ago

    Belive it or not this is the reason I will not be buying BF3.

    The framerate making the gameplay more twitchy is simply not true and a basic lie.

    FPS at 30 fps just don't feel as smooth as the ones which run at 60 FPS. Same was racers play the burnout serious some of the games do run at 60 fps a sec and you can tell the difference in smoothness.

    I would prefer to loose some of the detail for 60 fps but thats just me.

  • FireMonkey #64 10 months ago

    @SteveOssy - "If you really can't tell the difference between 30 & 60 frames per second you need to go get your eyes tested, idiots the lot of you."

    It all depends on the situation, brightness and motion-blur. A version of a game with decent motion-blur and anti-aliasing running at 30fps CAN actually look smoother than the same game without motion-blur and anti-aliasing running at 60fps.

    http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frames_ca...

  • StooMonster #65 10 months ago

    Anyone else get an invite to the Battlefield 3 alpha testing group today? I'm all signed up and will be downloading after work, although the caveat is that one has to install Origin.

  • StooMonster #66 10 months ago

    tjtj: Films are 24 FPS, I'm sure people will be fine

    Films are changing to 48fps because 24fps is a bit to juddery for motion, check out news on The Hobbit for one example.

  • GooseUK #67 10 months ago

    I dont think I have seen one complaint written anywhere. Most Console games run at 30fps. This is just hype for no reason, no one gives a shit. I will play 30FPS BF3 on my Xbox.

    On my PC I will play it at whatever frame rate I get - unlocked. I dont care, No one cares, Call of Duty runs at 60FPS because it is not pushing anything significant on-screen and that even drops below very often on the last couple of games. In that light, 30FPS dropping to 25 is less noticable than 60 suddenly bombing down.

  • Pehmu #68 10 months ago

    Majority of console shooters run 30fps anyway (including the previous Battlefield game) so I don't think BF3's framerate should a big shocker to console gamers.

  • jimr9999us #69 10 months ago

    It's about time *something* gave to push graphics tech forward. Christ, I'm so tired of playing games from 2006.

  • Totza #70 10 months ago

    I don't know why I still visit this site, its horrible in everyway :|

  • Rennieboy #71 10 months ago

    30/60 I don't give a rats ass, Battlefield will own MW3!! It might not sell as much but we all know what will be the better game :)

  • Centrifugal #72 10 months ago

    Some people bitch way too much about the most stupid things.

  • wizyy #73 10 months ago

    Time for next-gen consoles then. I hate playing at 30 fps, to be honest. Going to play this on a PC.

  • MaxiSleep #74 10 months ago

    Bullshit article to generate hits.

    Shame on you Eurogamer

  • hiddenranbir #75 10 months ago

    Why not 45fps!

  • DocktorJ #76 10 months ago

    Why would people complain about 30FPS on 6 year old tech? I'm surprised it's even being released on console - seems like a shame, given the technical step forward the developers have obviously achieved with uninhibited PC hardware.

  • CamberGreber #77 10 months ago

    DAMMIT Eurogamer please Remove Activisions Cock from your mouth.

    This Article need never been posted.

  • cyber_nicco #78 10 months ago

    Look, this has been a known difference between the two forever, so I am annoyed that it is coming up so much lately. The truth is, the difference between 30 and 60fps is somewhat startling when you switch between the two games. That being said, I enjoy both of them a lot, and have been playing Bad Company 2 quite often lately...

  • DRUNK3N-_-DRAGON #79 10 months ago

    there was nothing wrong with badcompany 2 so whats the big fuss bout!