Console owners who intend to buy Battlefield 3 will have to live with only half the frame rate of it’s more powerful brother, the PC.
It was only a few weeks back that executive producer Patrick Bach stated that all three versions of Battlefield 3 will perform similarly, with the Frostbite 2 engine able to perform smoothly on all systems.
So then why are we now told that the console versions will run only at 30 frames per second? Would this allow for an equal to PC graphical version? Enabling the consoles to adequately handle vehicles and multiplayer matches?
According to DICE’s Johan Andersson, their games are always pumping out 30 fps on consoles as it’s “not possible to fit in vehicles, fx, scale and all players otherwise” when running at 60 frames.
In comparison, it seems Infinity Ward and Sledgehammer have been able to get Call of Duty Modern Warfare 3 to churn out a constant 60 fps and not a digit below. That is what they say.
To me, it seems the 30 fps needs to be constantly hit for the console gaming experience to be one that matches the PC. Lag wouldn’t help the frame rate either I suspect, but that’s something that can’t really be coded in, so that’ll be something we need to live with.
What do you guys think? Does the frame rate matter or not so much? Let us know below or even in the forums.
Battlefield 3 is due for release in the UK on the 28th October 2011. If you want to get your hands on it on launch day, place an order here on Play.com, Gamestation, Game and HMV to name but a few outlets.
Related articles
E3 Award winners include Bioshock Infinite and Battlefield 3
Battlefield 3: Which version will be better?!
E3 2011: Battlefield 3 out before MW3
Battlefield 3 “My Life” trailer with gameplay footage
Battlefield Heroes ‘Easter Heroes’
framerate is vital, the only reason i got rid of battlefield bad company 2 was because of poor framerate, it has to nail it to modern warfare 2 standard