Battlefield 3: Don't worry about 720p and 30 FPS, says DICE

Yesterday, Gaming Examiner asked DICE VP and General Manager, Karl Magnus Troedsson addressed the displeasure that some gamers have expressed over Battlefield 3 being limited to 30 frames-per-second (FPS), while its closest competition, Modern Warfare 3, has promised that it won't dip below 60 FPS. It's an especially poignant question since Battlefield 3 is being released on Oct 25 and Modern Warfare 3 comes out a few days later on Nov 8. With both games so close together, they'll have to compete to earn action fans' attention and — maybe more importantly — money.

Troedsson had this to say in response to people who put a high value on framerate and resolution: “Console gamers shouldn’t worry about this, 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.”

“When people ask for 1080p they don’t see the compromises that would be needed to get there. As for the frame-rate we’ve made a conscious decision to stick with 30 FPS on console. It’s not a technical problem with getting our game to run in 60 FPS but we do this in favor of the large amount of players, large scale maps, huge amount of vehicles, full on destruction and so on.”

It's true the Battlefield franchise usually plays a little slower than other current-gen FPSs, and that could lend itself to a slower frame-rate without the graphics taking much of a hit in quality, but we’re curious to see how much “full on destruction” DICE has added to the game by knocking the frame-rate to half of what was promised by its nearest competitor.

When Troedsson was asked what he would consider a success for Battlefield, he simply said “that the people who play the game tell us that they enjoy it.” That's a much harder idea to argue with, but is he on track to achieving it?

July 26, 2011


  • BishopofHippo93 - July 28, 2011 4:41 p.m.

    You know what, Battlefield 3 is still going to be damn fun, regardless.
  • CommandantOreo - July 28, 2011 2:31 p.m.

    MW3 is going to wipe the floor with this trash! BF3 actually thinks they stand a chance? Stand aside Battlefield, you have been outplayed by the masters.
  • Jedipimp0712 - July 28, 2011 11:02 a.m.

    @otterpopafterbirth, i just watched old boy for the first time today, and it was effing AMAZING! related to the article, i still have a few people that are the "brain dead" cod players. i dont understand why they would want a game that is visually, and mechanically inferior. if you want to make the argument "graphics dont mean everything" then you can go play your watered down stories from the COD franchise. also, not bashing COD too much, but when you come out with a new installment every single year, you start to be like Madden.
  • waffman11 - July 28, 2011 4:29 a.m.

    Hasn't this been beaten to death at this point? I mean, this argument is all that the two developers have been willing to throw back and forth to try and "sway" some undecided members of the community. It was cute the first time that I heard about it, but after that it was like two school children arguing over which off-brand cola their respective families buy is better. Stupid, overdone, and cliche. I would much rather hear some *reasonable* criticism being thrown back and forth between IW (and Sledgehammer and Raven) and DICE. A real dialogue between the developers about what does/doesn't work could really help them all,and by all I mean IW. They could learn a thing or two about post-launch support and community input from EVERYONE, not just the biggest kiddie baby whiners. DICE could probably learn about...lots of frivolous unlock-able things. Like bits and bobs for you to tinker with. Sadly, this idea appears to have either never crossed their minds, or EA and Activision were too busy arguing over their off-brand colas to pay it any attention. So here we are. The lesson in all of this is that arguing over colas never solves anything, because Coca-Cola is better than Pepsi.
  • D0CCON - July 27, 2011 10:53 p.m.

    @nai1210 Us console gamers? I'm guessing your a PC owner though (and by the way, while some games like Witcher and Sup Com are ported to consoles, there are a ton that get ported from console to PC. I've been playing some PC games where the phrases "waiting for xbox live" or "press the A button" appear.
  • Gameguy94 - July 27, 2011 3:54 p.m.

    What's the difference? I really can't tell the difference between frames per second. Some gamers just bitch about the most insignificant things.
  • sleepyMexican45 - July 27, 2011 10:06 a.m.

    (i think) bad company 2 was 30fps, and I still play that amazing genius of a game instead of cod. This: "Even though it's 720p, it still looks better than any COD game in "1080p."
  • jackthemenace - July 27, 2011 9:14 a.m.

    What happened to the "we don't ship an Engine, we ship a game" quote? Wasn't THAT Battlefield too? Still, I'm playing Bad Company 2, and I'm preferring that to any CoD I've ever played, so, if it came down to it, I know which'd get my money.
  • oni - July 27, 2011 8:43 a.m.

    "Ours runs at 60 fps in 1080p" "Ours runs at 60 fps in 1080p" TheVoid, you forget that MW3 will also be friendly towards color blind gamers. At 60fps in 1080P no less! They even put less hotspots on mp maps so there won't be too many campers. Who needs destructible environment for that? Yeah, those are sure signs of superiority over Frosbite 2. It took 3 game developers working together on an old, "just tweak it" game engine to get those astonishing results. (While it took merely 6 guys working on a mod to make Hawken).
  • oni - July 27, 2011 8:27 a.m.

    LoL. A year ago console gamers would dismissed playing any games beyond 30fps. Most of them would say why bother if the game doesn't dip below that constantly and would ask the rhetorical question what's the difference between 30 and 60 anyway. Who cares whether it's 30 or 60, as long we're having fun. Now that CoD MW3 promised 60fps for all platform suddenly everyone wants one. Like kids seeing other kids with a slightly different toy than he has. I have installed Half Life 1 recently, just for old time's sake. It ran beyond 100fps! If they give that old game some HD treatment, add some physics and particle effects, bloom and HDR, better sound system, I'm sure it will still play at 60 fps. Hey, isn't that what Activision is doing now?
  • eon - July 27, 2011 5 a.m.

    Doesn't Modern Warfare run at like 640p?
  • TheVoid - July 27, 2011 4:59 a.m.

    I'm with Troedsson on this one, and it doesn't hurt (help?) that I'm a long-time BF fan (since 1942 came out on PC, lawds yeah) and have always found the GAMEPLAY more than capable of kicking the ever-living snot out of COD. Which isn't to say I don't like COD - I do - but BF has always managed to bring a sense of realistic tension and awe to the table while COD continues to play out like a ridiculous Michaal Bay movie: fun, for sure, but pretty weightless when it comes down to it. And I think that's why we are seeing this truly overblown arguement continue to grab the industry's attention: Activision clearly put a lot of eggs in the "COD is truly high def and runs smoother than you'd expect" while DICE - still on the upward climb, releasing a steady stream of increasingly improved BF titles - is like "yeah, whatever". You see, DICE knows they have it, and that by all counts BF3 will be a better gaming experience even if not running at 1080 and 60 fps. The reoccuring theme here is correct: most games are 720 at 30 fps anyway, so why should DICE sacrifice the standard if it means a major hit in the gaming dynamics? I'm currently glued to BFBC2, which stands humbly in the shadows of the "main" BF series, and I'm excited as hell in regards to BF3's Frostbite engine because it's impact on BFBC2 is outstanding, and has given the overall series a huge boost in it's already amazing multiplayer. Bottom line: DICE knows what they are doing because they've been doing it for a while now and have the means to make BF3 a grand slam. Those not familiar with the BF series soon will be. Meanwhile, Activision scrambles to make good with everyone with a lost-from-the-point-of-origin "flagship" (only?) series under the direction of a new team set straight to task in keeping the COD franchise breathing. That recap alone speaks volumes. And what is the focus constantly pouring out of their mouths? "Ours runs at 60 fps in 1080p" "Ours runs at 60 fps in 1080p" "Ours runs at 60 fps in 1080p". Yeah, OK, got it. But what else do you have Activision? Was Black Ops really so amazing that the world sits poised to see what comes next, even at those specs? Why do I remain unconvinced that CODMW3 will be worth my time and money immediately upon release? Are those numbers that important to me? Don't get me wrong, I hope that CODMW3 is solid. More of that Micheal Bay crazy rollercoaster gameplay, please. But when I'm in the mood for some modern combat with an extra serving of strategic depth and tactical bliss (not to mention shit flying everywhere), I'll be reaching for BF3. On a PC. So I can jack it the hell up to 1080p and 60 fps.
  • monicleman - July 27, 2011 4:53 a.m.

    The game will still look better than mw3, if it needed something it wold be more people on console multilayer.
  • Thanadros - July 27, 2011 4:15 a.m.

    I thought that the human eye itself could not tell the difference with anything above 30fps, the only thing that tips us off is when the performance takes a hit
  • Yaro - July 27, 2011 3:58 a.m.

    Well that all may be true, but Modern Warfare 3 has Glen Schofield...I think I want to give my money to him, all of it. MW3 is still slightly more favorable...
  • nai1210 - July 27, 2011 3:54 a.m.

    yeah 30fps is standard for console games,thats why more and more gamers are now playing on PC,us console gamers are getting inferior ports of PC titles cause our console's can't handle them at full force hence why there is a great deal of console gamers out there who feel it's time for PS4 and XBOX720
  • OtterPopAfterbirth - July 27, 2011 3:17 a.m.

    poign·ant adjective /ˈpoinyənt/  Evoking a keen sense of sadness or regret - a poignant reminder of the passing of time Keenly felt - the sensation of being back at home was most poignant in the winter Sharp or pungent in taste or smell
  • FlameChucks76 - July 27, 2011 2:01 a.m.

    I don't understand how this is even an issue. There really is no comparison graphics wise when it comes to both games. I think it's a childish argument that really doesn't go anywhere because at the end of the day, both games are going to offer a different experience.
  • NubberzTheHedgehog - July 27, 2011 1:48 a.m.

    @azureguy it runs at 720p and 30 fps on console. And still looks damn good.
  • PleaseSitDownICannotSee - July 27, 2011 1:45 a.m.

    I remember Modern Warfare 2 ran at ~600p on consoles so I'm unsure why people should be concerned (although it was so IW could get a constant 60fps). That game still looks killer.

Showing 1-20 of 35 comments

Join the Discussion
Add a comment (HTML tags are not allowed.)
Characters remaining: 5000