Battlefield 3 fills to 720p on console

By Robert Purchese Published 7 September, 2011

Uses black lines top and bottom of picture.

Console Battlefield 3 uses black lines at the top and bottom of the screen to fill a 720p resolution, DICE rendering boffin Johan Andersson has revealed.

This has helped improve performance.

"[Battlefield 3] is 1280x704 on both PS3 and 360," tweeted Andersson. "Removing a few lines from 720p saves good performance and memory for us."

"We have tiny eight-pixel black bars that often are invisible due to overscan - scaling would just ruin the picture," Andersson explained in response to a question by Digital Foundry.

As a result, Battlefield 3 still runs at a native 720p.

Many current generation games go far below 720p and opt to upscale the difference.

Call of Duty: Black Ops ran in 1040x608 on Xbox 360 and in 960x544 on PS3, according to the incredible library of game resolutions on the Beyond3D forum. Black Ops also ran at 60 frames-per-second, however - Battlefield 3 will run at 30FPS.

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 (105) Latest comment 9 months ago

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

  • Spielo #1 9 months ago

    No worries, I'll be playing it at 1440p on my iMac :-)

  • RodHull #2 9 months ago

    As we're losing out on 2.2% of verticle lines, will we get a similar discount?

  • geeza2020 #3 9 months ago

    pre-order cancelled ;-)

  • jetsetwillie #4 9 months ago

    *shudders*

    err black borders... reminds me of the piss poor PAL conversions that we used to have to suffer.

  • metalangel #5 9 months ago

    The closer to release, the more and more compromises for the console versions are revealed.

    Someone said elsewhere they half expect to be told there's something wrong with the jets/they're removed or only on one map on consoles at this rate.

  • RodHull #6 9 months ago

    No worries, I'll be playing it at 1440p on my iMac :-)

    Will you? I thought it was only out on iPad?

  • adofessex #7 9 months ago

    I don't understand why everyone is worrying with the stories about the compromises being made for consoles. Did you not play BF:BC2 on 360 or PS3? If anything BF3 will be an improvement and that is all that matters.

  • Bagpuss #8 9 months ago

    "2ManyBF3FanboysOnEG"

    ..i thought the chav shit kiddie COD players were back at school.

  • geeza2020 #9 9 months ago

    2manyBF3FanboysOnEG - ignored :D

    metalangel - yeah those 5/6 pixel borders are seriously game breaking arent they?

    /sigh
    Edited by geeza2020 at 07/09/11 @ 10:11

  • GAmbrose #10 9 months ago

    O...k....

    @2ManyBF3FanboysOnEg - Nobody has said this is good.

    But yes, destructable environments are quite important.

  • SFG_Clan #11 9 months ago

    I hate being treated like a second class consumer just because I don't have a gaming rig

    Hopefully it wont be too invasive but I mean come on DICE really?

  • GAmbrose #12 9 months ago

    @SFG_Clan

    The key point here is: We have tiny eight-pixel black bars that often are invisible due to overscan.

  • Khosrau #13 9 months ago

    I think it's sad consoles can't manage true HD resolutions (upscaled 960x544, really?).

    Don't get me wrong, I love my PS3, but I can not help but feel a bit disappointed playing Uncharted or Vanquish (or whatever) because I know it could have looked so much better, sharper and crispier on PC. I know, graphics ain't everything and these are still wonderful games but it's a pity anyway.

    If anything I hope the hardware of next gen consoles will allow all games to be played on native 1080p (and rather soon please).
    Edited by Khosrau at 07/09/11 @ 10:16

  • RedPanda #14 9 months ago

    Post deleted at 14:31:59 28-01-2012

  • FarbrorBaku #15 9 months ago

    Bring on the next gen consoles!

  • DAN.E.B #16 9 months ago

    I just hope it looks nearly as good as the pc version
    and the campains not short

  • The_Bloody_Kettle #17 9 months ago

    Heh. Black lines ? Not exactly going to hold off buying for that, but I'd say the same for COD (if I wanted to play another re skinned COD4, that is).

  • Bullet_Tunnel #18 9 months ago

    remember the days when you had sonic on the mega drive and the master system?, similar games, running at the level the platform could perform, in my mind thats the same difference with pc vs console. Battlefield will be great on console, and so what if theres no jets!!, the first 2 days will be full of people nosediving into the floor on take off, just like they do with choppers on the others, the only thing i would miss about them is not learning to snipe the pilots out.
    also-the cod vs bf thing... they are completely different games,Cod is a snack, junk food-bf is a three course curry with free larger nd poppadums. ive played bf for 6 years,played cod up until the mod fest that was mw2 (that put me off them completely). Battlefield is a slow burner that rewards patience and tactics, cod is a point and click,fast paced 2pumps and a grunt kind of game... over quick and leaves you sweaty. enjoyed both but a 30 min bf match, for me, outweighs a 10-15 run and gun fest- as much as i enjoy it.
    And forgive me for not really noticing 30fps difference, seems my dna failed to give me the sight reflexes of a house fly, the only time ive ever noticed a difference of that sort is when i went from playing tekken 3 on jap import to the pal version, it was like playing in slow motion, people would float when they jumped. Both games will be good though, just one will be better.. i know which mine will be.
    Edited by Bullet_Tunnel at 07/09/11 @ 10:58

  • MattyD #19 9 months ago

    "console gaming"

  • mattk84 #20 9 months ago

    If it allows for smooth gaming then fine by me. I'm just looking forward to being able to choose servers again.

  • arcam #21 9 months ago

    Where did this no jets rumour come from?

    I don't think there is any worry of jets not being on the console versions.

  • BillMurray #22 9 months ago

    No jets rumour is as load of balls.

  • Moz #23 9 months ago

    meh - to date for my taste BF has had better gameplay then COD and I don't see that changing which is all that really matters

  • mattk84 #24 9 months ago

    And who said destructible environments are important in FPS?

    Me for one. Important but certainly not essential but killing by destruction 2.0 is satisfying.

  • AbracadaverAK #25 9 months ago

    Jesus, if anything this is good news. I can't remember the last game that ran at native 720p on consoles. I'd say a tiny black border you probably won't see if a pretty good sacrifice.

  • CaptainQuint #26 9 months ago

    I couldn't give a fuck since I'll be playing on 47" which is plenty, even with thin little insignificant borders top and bottom. I also have sex regularly which helps in matters such as this.

    Enjoy the rest of the comments section on me, tinhats.

  • DiamondIce #27 9 months ago

    I remember a day when you lost almost a third of the screen (top and bottom added together) with black borders depending upon the game.

    I don't think a few pixels in this instance is going to be game breaking. If it helps performance then I am fine with it.

  • Ryze #28 9 months ago

    Master System versions.

  • Galvatrime #29 9 months ago

    @2ManyBF3FanboysOnEG
    The eye can only see a max of 30 FPS so it would make no difference!

  • joelstinton #30 9 months ago

    Jesus. I can't wait till both BF3 and COD are out. Lets be done with the bashing/fanboyism. And play two good games.

  • Bibbo #31 9 months ago

    Who cares? I'll be busy playing the shit out of the game.

    Next up: People moaning about Online Pass for the game.

  • GamesConnoisseur #32 9 months ago

    The old days of PAL gaming had far worse bigger borders and people are quibbling about a darn damn few lines?

    GET REAL!!

  • Architect_z #33 9 months ago

    @geeza2020

    Dammit, I wanted to say that! ^_^

  • iamtheoneneo #34 9 months ago

    so really what their saying is that if you actually want to play bf3 the way it was intended - you need a pc.
    nuff said.

  • TheEarlOfZinger #35 9 months ago

    So a tiny change like this to improve performance and people are whining? Get real, the console versions will be compromised to shit anyway, that's just how it is. Buy a pc or shut up.

    Yours sincerley, a realistic ps3 owner.

  • DiamondIce #36 9 months ago

    Of course the PC will run better. I don't care, though. I only have a console and I am sure the job Dice have done on Battlefield 3 will make it as good, if not better, than BF2. And I think that played pretty good.

  • obscured021 #37 9 months ago

    Its like back in the day when you could re-size the screen in games like doom and dark forces to get better performance, when that starts to happen its time for new hardware.
    It would be cool if the 360/ps3 could do 60fps @ 1080p, but thats why i got back into pc gaming again

  • evilrobot #38 9 months ago

    Post deleted at 15:13:18 09-05-2012

  • CaptainKid #39 9 months ago

    "Call of Duty: Black Ops ran in 1040x608 on Xbox 360 and in 960x544 on PS3"
    Wow, I thought I ran my games at low resolution (1280-1024/1360-768)..

    I know on the old TV's resolution wasn't that much of a deal compared to (CRT) monitors because the TV's blurred the jagged edges how does a LCD/Plasma/LED TV compare to a TFT monitor?

  • NotSoSlim #40 9 months ago

    Making me lean towards getting gaming pc and pay it off over 12 months.

    Can't beat consoles gaming but you can't beat full resolution ganesh either especially on my tv

  • Darren #41 9 months ago

    "We have tiny eight-pixel black bars that often are invisible due to overscan - scaling would just ruin the picture," Andersson explained in response to a question by Digital Foundry."

    A mute point considering that no HDTV is actually 1280x720 native anyway so scaling is being done by the Xbox 360 and/or TV depending on whether you have 720p or 1080p selected in the Dashboard and whether your TV is 1360x768 native (so called HD-ready) or 1920x1080 native!

    It's confusing to explain but the gist is that pretty much all HD consoles games are upscaled in some way except for true 1080p games on 1080p TVs. As we all know the true 1080p games on the consoles are extremely rare (read: rocking horse shit rare) due to the dated hardware inside the current consoles which struggle to do 720p nevermind 1080p. Even games like Gran Turismo 5 and Wipeout HD are not true 1920x1080p as they cheat by using horizontal scaling.

    I'm just saying... ;)
    Edited by Darren at 07/09/11 @ 11:29

  • vizzini #42 9 months ago

    If EG really wanted to find out which publishers have balls in negotiating with Microsoft they might run with this headline every time this type of thing is tweeted.

    Has Publisher contractual obligations reduced resolution / frame-rate and increased tearing on another PS3 multi-platform game?


    I thought the game was tear free, native 720p and smooth frame-rate at E3 on PS3, so what anti development has happened since?

    edit:
    Darren: Even games like Gran Turismo 5 and Wipeout HD are not true 1920x1080p as they cheat by using horizontal scaling.

    Please tell me you have some proof, other than some made up unscientific pixel counting algorithm from beyond3D to refute the 1920x1080p@59.97hz the game itself reports.
    Edited by vizzini at 07/09/11 @ 11:36

  • kingcrowbar #43 9 months ago

    Does anyone actually use overscan and not 1:1 on their TV?

  • metalangel #44 9 months ago

    @geeza: Did I say it was game breaking? No! Jesus Christ. It's just yet another compromise they are readily admitting has had to be made to get the game running well.

    @arcam and BillMurray: it's not a rumour, it's a comment made by someone on here with regard to the various compromises made to the game. The original commenter said something to the effect of the slow reveals of altered/reduced features by DICE for consoles (small maps, less players, etc) made them worry they'd make more dramatic announcements like jets shortly before launch. I can see why they might think that possible: even with the reduced speed and ability to fly off the map edges, they must really push the engine on the consoles.

    @adofessex: BC2 was one huge compromise compared to BF2 and BF1942.

  • Tryhard #45 9 months ago

    I have tunnel vision so alls good.

  • MiniAmin #46 9 months ago

    I also have sex regularly which helps in matters such as this.

    Lube and Redtube doesn't qualify as sex. Sorry mate.

  • des #47 9 months ago

    1280x704 is not 720p,filling the rest with black bars or not is irrelevant.BF3 launch/reviews will be fun to watch.

  • celery7 #48 9 months ago

    I can live without the 8 pixels at the top of the screen, thats just sky but the bottom 8!!?? Any fool knows thats where 90% of the action takes place - I'd rather lose 8 from the middle if given the choice.

  • CaptainQuint #49 9 months ago

    I also have sex regularly which helps in matters such as this.

    Lube and Redtube doesn't qualify as sex. Sorry mate.

    Hmm, I suppose my eight month old daughter must be a fuckin' miracle then, you clever sod.

    What's "Redtube", anyway? You apparently know a lot about it. Is it something a sexless nerd gets off on?

  • axman303 #50 9 months ago

    Might cause a bit of burn-in on some Plasma screens.

  • mcreddie #51 9 months ago

    But you're not going to mention the crippling screen tearing that will be apparent throughout, like all of the other battlefields.

  • Freek #52 9 months ago

    Black bars?? What is this a poorly ported SNES version?? ;)

  • bad09 #53 9 months ago

    "Lube and Redtube doesn't qualify as sex. Sorry mate."

    Doesn't it? Damn...

    / scrubs 100,000 off his tally. ;)

    @ Galvatrime
    "The eye can only see a max of 30 FPS so it would make no difference!"

    unless I'm the only person on the planet who can see the difference that is absolutely a made up statement.
    Edited by bad09 at 07/09/11 @ 12:18

  • TheEarlOfZinger #54 9 months ago

    @Freek

    I think you mean poorly ported MEGADRIVE version ;)

  • apoc_reg #55 9 months ago

    To quote m$ "I'm a PC..."

  • Tryhard #56 9 months ago

    "I can live without the 8 pixels at the top of the screen, thats just sky but the bottom 8!!?? Any fool knows thats where 90% of the action takes place."

    I am going to camp in that 8 pixels at the bottom and start collecting dogtags.lol

  • Yuroko #57 9 months ago

    @Freek & TheEarlofZinger
    Ooh! A proper fan boy fight. I've been whisked back to my childhood.

  • kongzi #58 9 months ago

    So is DF already toying around with BF3 then?

    At least they're honest enough to tell it upfront. Resolution is overrated as a factor in graphics. But it depends on preference I guess. I'd rather have lower resolutions and polycounts but with good lighting, shadows and AA, a lot of movement and throwing alpha textures and post processing goodies on the screen with great abandon. Still, looking at BF3, it's almost a miracle they even got it running on consoles the way it does. Looking forward to trying out both BF3 and MW3, they're both the same genre, but different games entirely.

  • BSMR #59 9 months ago

    Holy shit, people using 8 pixels to try and win a fanboy war. I thought I'd seen it all.

    Pathetic.

  • Freek #60 9 months ago

    Oh yeah, well, my dad could totally beat up your dad! So there. :p

  • FireMonkey #61 9 months ago

    @Galvatrime - "The eye can only see a max of 30 FPS so it would make no difference!"

    I wish people would stop posting this completely untrue 'fact'
    They eye and brain are actually very clever and what they perceive is dependent on much more than just a refresh rate. For instance if the images are similar (by using motion blur) the perceivable difference between frames is less and so a lower refresh rate will not be spotted. However if no blurring is used and the image is suddenly changing in contrast (such as flickering from black to white) the change can be perceived at rates of about 500fps.

    Check this out, it's quite interesting and debunks the whole 60fps better than 30fps argument: http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frames_ca...

  • shortyluke2010 #62 9 months ago

    Another thing being changed for the console versions.. Not a massive thing but its another thing. Not sure if im that excited for it now :/

  • andijames #63 9 months ago

    @2ManyBF3FanboysOnEG

    There is a reason why Ive called myself what I have, its cos every article I read has idiotic, un-educated comments from BF fanboys, and Im sick of it.

    Erm. In all fairness you're doing a rather good job of just adding to the idiotic, uneducated comments. Hypocritical much? If you don't like the comments on EG then why do you come here?

    OT: the border's won't make much of a difference to be fair if they're just overscanned parts of the frame. Still looks good thou and am looking forward to playing it come release day :)

  • bungle360 #64 9 months ago

    Time to get a bigger TV to compensate?

  • Moz #65 9 months ago

    @des don't see how it's going to effect the reviews very few games are actually 720p most are upscaled in one way or another.

    at least with the route DICE have taken there's no stretching or resampling. and the number of actually rendered pixels is higher then most other "720p" games

  • Bravestinsane #66 9 months ago

    You guys are aware they said 8 pixels right?

    Thats a couple of millimeters, you wont even notice it from a distance

    30/60

  • mattk84 #67 9 months ago

    Right! You lot outside now!!!

  • jablonski #68 9 months ago

    @Spielo

    "No worries, I'll be playing it at 1440p on my iMac :-)"

    iMac?
    And you're proud to admit that?

  • Quak #69 9 months ago

    > I love my PS3, but I can not help but feel a bit disappointed playing Uncharted or Vanquish (or whatever) because I know it could have looked so much better, sharper and crispier on PC.

    It's such a shame to have been playing Centipede on my Atari 2600 in 1987 too when it would have looked so much better, sharper and crispier on today's PCs.

    If only we could all time-travel so that incremental advances in technology were made obsolete, eh?

  • Spielo #70 9 months ago

    Wow, my comment about having a computer/display that will let me play the game at 1440p is down to -61 and keeps going down! What part of that comment is so upsetting to people?

    For the record, absolutely nobody will notice 2% of the pixels "missing" on the console version, so this absolutely doesn't matter. Can't you all just be happy for me that I get to play it at more than 4x the resolution?

  • mr2ange #71 9 months ago

    @Galvatrime "the human eye can only see at 30fps"

    Can we just put this one to bed please, I've seen this idiotic comment so many times.

    the human eye can see well beyond 30fps, well beyond 60fps too.

    If you happen to only be able to see in 30fps then i feel sad for you, you must need to update your brains gpu... :p

  • andijames #72 9 months ago

    @2ManyBF3FanboysOnEG

    Ok who in this thread is actually slating BLOPS? Actually who is even mentioning it? Apart from you? It's irrelevant the article is about 8 sodding pixels.

  • DiamondIce #73 9 months ago

    @Spielo: Yes I am very happy for you.

    On another note:
    I drew 8 pixels on my graphics software. It really is bugger all.
    Edited by DiamondIce at 07/09/11 @ 13:10

  • mattk84 #74 9 months ago

    "Wow, my comment about having a computer/display that will let me play the game at 1440p is down to -61 and keeps going down! What part of that comment is so upsetting to people? "

    Mate, after a while it becomes comic value to mark down and you've just fuelled that fire!
    Edited by mattk84 at 07/09/11 @ 13:11

  • Zander #75 9 months ago

    I was wondering when a dev would do this. I think it is way better than up-scaling for 2 reasons.
    1) the up-scale is never perfect thus a blur effect
    2) the extra process of up-scaling can be used to squeeze out a different rendering effect.

    To be honest 30 vs 60 fps, full 1080p vs 720p... i don't really care as long as the resulting images and GAMEPLAY are good.

    Oh and @axman303 - No burn in as the pixels are turned off. Now if they were red bars then yeah :p
    Edited by Zander at 07/09/11 @ 13:17

  • MiniAmin #76 9 months ago

    Hmm, I suppose my eight month old daughter must be a fuckin' miracle then, you clever sod.

    What's "Redtube", anyway? You apparently know a lot about it. Is it something a sexless nerd gets off on?

    You sound very defensive, 'twas but a joke. The irony is you're sounding pretty sexless and desperate here. Enjoy your day lothario, you'd better leave us sexless nerds to comment on a video game website while you make love to supermodels on Elysian fields.

  • RustyBullet #77 9 months ago

    shut the fuk up allready with the 30fps shit. All previous BF games on console have run at 30fps and they all look better than any COD games. cok muncha

  • Brownie-uk7 #78 9 months ago

    @2ManyBF3FanboysOnEG:

    wow. you're really hurting, aren't you?

    if you are old enough, take yourself to the pub, have a pint or two and then think on your posts here ... feel shame and embarrassment.

  • Hog-lumps #79 9 months ago

    To be honest 30 vs 60 fps, full 1080p vs 720p... i don't really care as long as the resulting images and GAMEPLAY are good.

    +1

    At last - a voice of reason! \o/

  • geeza2020 #80 9 months ago

    I like that he feels he needs to stand up for poor little multi-billion dollar franchise CoD, its so helpless, constantly breaking sales records, as well as record player numbers. Yeah, you fight the power brother lol.

  • agparrot #81 9 months ago

    Whilst pixel-counting news stories often seem to bring out the worst in people, I'm going to ask you all very nicely to stop using personal insults weighted with homophobia and excessive swearing. It isn't helping to further the discussion, and as I don't want to spend the rest of my afternoon deleting stupid comments, I will ban repeat offenders.

  • Puriel #82 9 months ago

    2ManyBF3FanboysOnEG

    you say and I quote......I read articles, MW2, Blops and now MW3, i dont read BFBC2, BF1942, BF3 articles, cos Im not interested.

    For someone not interested in BF3 articles you are spending alot of time commenting on one.

    All the very best of luck to you

    thanks for the neg 2many xx
    Edited by Puriel at 07/09/11 @ 14:05

  • MisterCraig #83 9 months ago

    lol@Spielo negs.

  • BrotherTobious #84 9 months ago

    PC for the win welcome back to how it should be :)

    /flame proof pants on :)

  • mousearmyone #85 9 months ago

    @zander LCDs burn in on dark images when they lose their ability to return to a "relaxed" or off state. White images have the pixels switched off and let the backlight shine through.
    Edited by mousearmyone at 07/09/11 @ 14:21

  • UkHardcore23 #86 9 months ago

    With how bad this game looks on console's compared to PC and with it only running at 30fps im amazed the devs are struggling :S
    Edited by UkHardcore23 at 07/09/11 @ 14:29

  • riseer #87 9 months ago

    Read it elsewere that it won't full HD.That said it should look really good still,people need to understand both consoles are running 512mb their are going to be cuts.This game is meant for a mid/highend Pc so the console versions have to take a seat.

  • Moz #88 9 months ago

    I guess on the screen burn issue it all depends if it stays in the reduced res during the between matches screen or not. But even if it is permanently black throughout your time in the same it not really any different to the hud in most games. you have to have a lot of lengthy session before running into any issues.

  • SonicUk #89 9 months ago

    Oh no, black lines I won't notice or see like when playing my Megadrive. I must cancel my preorder straight away /sarcasm mode disengaged\.

  • mashk #90 9 months ago

    All these boring details, yet we still haven't see the 360 version. And we've seen very little of the PS3 version. Certainly nothing worth writing home about.

  • mrblonde #91 9 months ago

    There are jets in the MP console version i presume?
    dice said content would be exactly the same, except game sizes. Anyway i bet 80% of sales will be on consoles at least, so most dev resources will be aimed at 360/ps3, like every other game. The p.c. will be unoptimised code with only fairly powerful hardware getting the console beating performance, its just not worth the money to do otherwise.
    BTW MOST GAMERS COULDNT BUILD A P.C., HOW MUCH TO GET A READY BUILT SYSTEM TO GET THIS 1080P 60FPS STABLE PERFORMANCE?
    P.c. gaming just isnt worth the hassle compared to consoles , even with the slight performance upgrades. Yes the vast majority of performance enhancements are slight on 95% multi plat titles.
    Edited by mrblonde at 07/09/11 @ 15:15

  • Jabjabs #92 9 months ago

    Just so people know all of Insomniac games titles on Ps3 have been using this trick since Ratchet and Clank : TOD. Overall it gives the GPU an extra 1% of render time on the rest of the screen and they save 1MB of video memory. It's only a very small gain but considering the boarders are so tiny you will never notice them and the extra performance is just another little trick in the massive arsenel for getting just a little bit more out of these machines.

  • dagas #93 9 months ago

    Tomb Raider Underworld is only 1024x576. Tha'ts almost SD resoultion. 1280x704 is still very good.

  • Bullet_Tunnel #94 9 months ago

    i thought things were 60fps BECAUSE thats the speed we process visual info, therefore making the movement realistic/smooth, like the early movies were jerky and looked sped up because they were over 60fps.. (i read something in new scientist in the doctors waiting room.. then i read about katie price in some Gabber-yak rag... did you know her and peter have split up?, thats important news). is there a boffin that can explain why 60fps is optimum, because i dont seem to give a shit either way. enlighten me so i can join team smug!.

  • arcam #95 9 months ago

    60FPS isn't optimum. In a world of infinite power, 120 or 240 FPS would be even better if your display supported it. Most LCD displays cannot display more than 60FPS so any higher than that would actually be entirely pointless.

    But once you get past 60FPS the benefits really start to become minimal and not worth the resources they require. Clearly some/most developers feel 30FPS is the best balance between smoothness and hardware requirements right now.

    If you're really interested, read this: http://www.tweakguides.com/Graphics_8.html

  • Kaminari #96 9 months ago

    "Black Ops also ran at 60 frames."

    Black Ops most certainly did NOT run at 60 frames per second.

  • Totza #97 9 months ago

    im loving the bottom of the article when you try and prove how much better cod is LOL embaressing stuff as always on this awful site :)

  • Sharzam #98 9 months ago

    Iam intreasted as to how optimised this will be on PC. Ok i wont have any issue (GTX570) but will be intreasting to see how lower end GPUs handle it because if anything remotly decent can run it then it begs the question;

    Why buy the console version ?

  • TONYgr #99 9 months ago

    Resident evil 4 on gamecube anyone?Lol!

  • TAPNGO #100 9 months ago

    the downside of a 10 year life cycle for consoles, we need more competition in consoles to force microsoft, nintendo and sony to do something innovative, it will soon be six years. How many people
    have a six year old computer.
    Edited by TAPNGO at 07/09/11 @ 21:24

  • FireMonkey #101 9 months ago

    @mrblonde - "Anyway i bet 80% of sales will be on consoles at least, so most dev resources will be aimed at 360/ps3, like every other game. The p.c. will be unoptimised code with only fairly powerful hardware getting the console beating performance, its just not worth the money to do otherwise."

    Umm... have some facts:
    [link url=http://www.vg247.com/2011/04/15/dice-bf3-will-look-better-on-consoles-due-to-pc-being-lead-platform/
    ]http://www.vg247.com/2011/04/15/dice-bf3...[/link]

    It is focused on PC as Dice say that is the best platform and developing for it actually makes for better console versions. So be a console fan boy and diss the PC all you like, but without it you would not be getting the quality of game that you will be.

    "HOW MUCH TO GET A READY BUILT SYSTEM TO GET THIS 1080P 60FPS STABLE PERFORMANCE?"

    Yes, it costs more than a console. That's pretty damn obvious, but to get a PC that could run the game at the same spec as the consoles isn't going to cost that much more than an actual console. There is also a very good reason why PC's cost more than consoles and that is that they can generally run the games much better than the current consoles, they can be used for productive / work uses as well as just gaming and they can be upgraded at a later date if needed (whereas with a console you end up having to buy a whole new console and unless you keep your old consoles lying about you will be unable to play all your old games as the new consoles will not be backward compatible or the compatibility will be removed a few months after release).

    If none of that is important to you then that is fine, stick to console as that will be the best option for you, but for some of us a PC is easily the best option.

  • SonicUk #102 9 months ago

    dagas - "Tomb Raider Underworld is only 1024x576. Tha'ts almost SD resoultion. 1280x704 is still very good."

    I'm sorry, what?!!?? You do know SD is 640x480 right?

  • Zander #103 9 months ago

    @mousearmyone

    You are right but dark images != total black... don't LCD's that use a full RGB value of 0,0,0 just switch off the pixels? I am far too lazy to research this so if you know then much obliged!

  • Spielo #104 9 months ago

    Two more negs to -100!! :-D

  • freakybun #105 9 months ago

    Sign of the times I guess. I mean come on, look at the tail end of the ps2 and some of those God awful framerates... seems like there's a compromise this Gen.