Ha: Battlefield 3 PC’s Superiority Confirmed

It's a metaphor! The tanks are PCs and the smoke is disappointment and the horizon is public perception DO YOU SEE

You couldn’t ask for a nicer story to start the week with. Following a somewhat underwhelming showing of Battlefield 3 on chat show Late Night with Jimmy Fallon last week, the Battlefield community was roused from its sleepy state of contentment. “THAT LOOKS NOWHERE NEAR AS GOOD AS BEFORE,” they bellowed, probably.

That’s because it was running on a PS3. The unofficial Battlefield 3 blog has amassed some info on the matter, including tweets from Dice developers stating that the PC version of Battlefield 3 will not only run at a higher resolution than the console version, it’ll have double the framerate and more besides.

Don’t stop, PC! Don’t let those ailing console machine devices hold you back.

So, the console version of Battlefield 3 will, as with most console games, be limited to 720p, or 1280×720 pixels, but Dice are also only shooting for a framerate of 30fps. Dice say the PC version will run at 1080p, or 1920×1080, and 60fps, as well as boasting more complex lighting, more anti-aliasing, larger texture resolutions and other advanced graphical features.

On the one hand, Crysis 2 also shipped with a console version that ran at 720p and 30fps, so this is hardly unprecedented. On the other hand, Crysis 2 was always a PC focused title. Battlefield 3, though, is a game that’s made a song and dance about going after Call of Duty. Let’s take a pause to remember the words of EA CEO John Riccitiello.

“This November, we’re launching Battlefield 3. It’s going up against the next Call of Duty, which is presently the #1 game in the game industry. A game that last year did $400 million dollars in revenue on day one. [Battlefield 3] is designed to take that game down.”

Mm. And Call of Duty is a series which, the Battlefield 3 blog writes, has always run at 60fps.

I suspect our side on this particular clash of the titans has been chosen for us, gentlemen.


  1. Theodoric says:

    Well, you don’t really need muh in the way of AA with a 1920×1080 resolution, to be honest.
    I always turn it way down and the only change I see is a slight boost in performance. Does matter a lot to those with smaller monitors, though; it’s ridiculous how consoles don’t have anything in that area. The average console game is incredibly blocky.

    • PoulWrist says:

      Depends entirely on your monitor size, and thus DPI.

    • juandemarco says:

      At 2560×1440 I can clearly see the difference of having AA enabled.

    • AndrewC says:

      Pull back a little from the monitor – you’ll hurt yourself.

    • Toshley says:

      On my 1920×1080 monitor I can easily distinguish between no AA, 2x and 4x. I can even see a slight difference between x4 and x8.

    • PopeBob says:

      Are you kidding? You can’t tell the difference between having AA and having no AA? Take for instance AssBro, a game with a lot of detail in street debris and fabrics. Running down the street with no AA, you get a very grainy, dirty look to the game. Turn AA on, and suddenly everything’s much nicer.

      Another terrible example of lacking AA is the first inFAMOUS game. Holy hell did that city look jagged.

    • Outright Villainy says:

      Edit: oops, wrong reply, DISREGARD.

  2. Tomm says:

    I’m sure the suggestion of ‘up to 60fps’ on the PC will anger some, after all shouldn’t it be unlimited?

    In any case, I think I’m going to need a new GPU :(

    • stahlwerk says:

      Ideally the framerate should exactly be equal to the monitor’s refresh rate. Since 60 Hz is the de-facto standard for flat panel displays, you wouldn’t benefit from any increase beyond that. Better then to curb the frame redraw to that interval, and give the CPU and GPU some room to breathe (or do other stuff, like lighting calculations for Frostbite 2’s global illumination middleware) in between.

    • Tomm says:

      Yeah, I’m not complaining about it myself, but I’m expecting some people to be up in arms about it.

      Don’t refresh rates vary? I know 60Hz was almost a standard a few years ago, but nowadays it isn’t uncommon for people to have displays with other refresh rates. I mean mine’s 75Hz, some newer TVs are 100Hz+.

      In any case, there are always people who want to show off their framerates, and I’m sure even a slight suggestion of them being capped won’t go down well.

    • goosnargh says:

      This is an interactive medium. It’s not just about what you see, it’s about what you feel and you should definitely be able to feel the difference between 60fps and 120fps on a 60hz screen without vsync (depending on how latency dependent the game is though but online shooter = very much so).
      That and some of us have 120hz LCDs.

    • stahlwerk says:

      @goosnargh Tell me, how should this be at all possible? This is digital technology we’re talking about. if the VRAM content is sent to the display at 60/75/100/120 Hz, that is all you will get. And for “smoothness”, frame rate consistency is much much more important than a higher maximum rate. All that a higher fps increases is stress on the cpu, increasing the potential for heat-induced down-throtling hiccups (remember this is the pc, and every user energy management settings and mainboard choice needs to be supported). Games aren’t written as simple, single-threaded, single-buffered while(true) loops anymore.

    • Tomm says:

      I think (reading between the lines), his point was that, if you’re running 120fps on a 60Hz you’re less likely to see the result of a framerate drop, than say if you were running 60fps on a 60Hz screen?

    • pepper says:

      The eyes have a framerate about 72hz, a bit faster on the sides(due to how its build on the inside). So, for the visuals 60 to 80 frames is just fines. What the faster framerate usually does is increase the simulation of the game on the backside, thus possibly resulting in a more accurate display of position, speed etc).

      Although this obviously differs per engine.

    • CMaster says:

      Eyes don’t have a frame rate though, that isn’t how they work. There’s probably a point past which it gets imperceptible, but I’m pretty sure its going to be higher than 60hz for good lighting conditions.
      That said, I’m a Vsynch fan and get constantly perplexed by these people who get really angry at frame rate limiting.

    • stahlwerk says:

      “Eyes don’t have a frame rate though, that isn’t how they work.”

      you sure?


    • bonjovi says:

      long time fps player here. addicted to it since second COD.

      on any 60Hz monitor – I can feel the difference between 60fps and 90fps, everything above 90 doesn’t seem to make any difference. That’s the reason i don’t enable vsync on fps games.

      I know the theory, I shouldn’t be able to see the difference, but it really feels that way.

      I think it makes a difference when you turn fast it seems to put more details on the screen, maybe in fast movement the image on the screen can contain parts of a different images, like the 3 photos cut in 3 and stitched together (since vsync is off) and my brain just learnt to process it? does it make any sense?

    • goosnargh says:

      @stahlwerk Less latency pretty much (~8ms vs ~16ms). It’s not night and day like 30fps vs 60fps but it’s there. Hell, 60hz CRT flicker and 60hz LCD blur are quite noticeable so I don’t see why it’d be that hard to believe.

    • Valvarexart says:

      As mentioned, some of us have 120hz monitors. And I do notice a slight difference between 100fps and 120fps, so I’m not quite convinced that our max is 72.
      I’m not sure that it will make a big difference, though, as the game will probably not go much above 60 if I don’t put all the graphics options as low as possible.

    • Valvarexart says:

      @Stahlwerk: The video is fake by the way. link to jonathanpost.com

    • theallmightybob says:

      FPS is more then just how many images our screen can display a second. Some games, (noteablely source engine games) tie your frame rate into your outbound data rate in the net code. That outbound rate is limited by how fast the server can pick it up.

      Thats why you see CS:S servers that say “100fps” because if you can get your game up to that you will max out your outbound data to the server (or that servers tick rate) and get better hit registration/less lag. so idealy in an FPS game like that you want to cap your FPS at the servers Tick rate.

      I have no idea if BF3 will have net code like that though.

  3. Longrat says:


  4. Patches the Hyena says:

    Good to see. Now, let’s see whether this focus on PC carries over to some other titles. It’d be nice if the quality control was similarly improved *couh*Dragon Age II*cough*

  5. Quaxi says:

    I also heard a rumor that they’re going to support mouse and keyboard for the PC version, any truth to that?

    Seriously guys…

    • Cyberpope says:

      thats just a rumour, but dont worry it has full kinect support

  6. Faceless says:

    I don’t think my PC will even be able to run it as a console would, given my increasingly outdated PC and DICE’s track record of optimisation, or lack thereof.

    • PoulWrist says:

      BC2 was nicely optimized for its visual fidelity. Runs well and scales extremely well as well. Multiple cores it eats up and is one of the few GPU limited games around.

    • Tomm says:

      Yeah it’s just a pity the massive lag inherent on every game server ruins any chance of the game running smoothly.

    • SaVi says:

      Are you serious? Both “HD” consoles are over 5 years old, you can strictly buy budget hardware for PC and would still end up with a way better system.

    • Wisq says:

      Were you absent for all the recent articles discussing the overhead caused by running a compatibility-patched game engine under a hardware-abstracted API on top of a preemptive multiple-tasking operating system? And how consoles can beat PCs with surprisingly high specs just because they have almost no abstraction, overhead, or compatibility code?

      (Or maybe I imagined those. Or maybe they were all Carmack misquotes.)

      My understanding is, PCs will always have the latest edge, but you do still need a significant hardware markup to exceed the performance of the (seemingly puny by comparison) console hardware.

  7. Branthog says:

    First, duh. I mean, Battlfield is not Bad Company. Battlefield is a PC game. This is like saying that Civilization V is better on the PC. Well, duh. Who would even consider playing it on anything else (and I’m a life-long PC gamer who came to realize a few years ago that there’s not much reason to remain purely die-hard about PC gaming anymore).

    Anyway . . . So, this means that Dice did a shitty job on the console versions? I mean, John Carmack and all the console manufacturers out there keep saying that this current console generation isn’t anywhere near even coming close to being maxed out, which I would assume has to mean that it can keep up with the PC (otherwise, it obviously would be maxed out, right?).

    I mean, how do they reconcile “it’s half as slow as the PC version, worse resolution, and can’t handle nearly as many simultaneous players” with “the console’s power hasn’t even been near maxed out and fully utilized and it has years of life left in it before there’s any reason to bother with a new generation”.

    If that’s the case, then the ONLY possible answer is “because developers suck”. Right? Or can they finally please come out and start being honest about the shitty state of consoles which can’t keep up anymore and stop pulling the Microsoft and Sony lines about “gosh, they have years left in them and there’s no reason to want more power”.

    • Theodoric says:

      Consoles just can’t handle demanding engines at anything higher than 720 andp and with 30 FPS.
      Crysis 2 has a very demanding engine, and was also limited to 720p and 30 fps. Call of Duty games might run with higher stats on consoles, but they keep recycling the same old engines, especially in the case of Treyarch games; those still run on a modified CoD4 engine.
      This is really the best proof that consoles are holding graphics back.

    • MD says:

      I don’t have the article in front of me, but from what I remember, Carmack’s point regarding the current console generation was that much more can be squeezed out of them, but it will require extreme knowlege of and attention to low-level detail. So he wasn’t saying they’re cruising along and not being made to work hard by the current crop of games, but that with enough skill and effort programmers will be able to push them harder. I wouldn’t call that a case of “developers suck” — if Carmack says something is complicated, it’s probably brain-meltingly complicated.

    • FriendlyFire says:

      If I’m not mistaken, Quinns has missed an important point about Call of Duty: 4 and above all run at only 600p, not 720p. The console just scales the video back up to 720p.

      I tried finding a denial, but couldn’t, so I’m assuming that this is true. It’s apparently not the sole game with that compromise, too. With about 300k fewer pixels to push, it’s no wonder it can reach 60 FPS especially with a rather dated engine.

    • Sir-Lucius says:


      There was a list floating around a while back of the native resolution of console games. If I remember correctly, ~60-75% ran under 720p native and were upscaled. A few ran at native 720p and only a handful of smaller, graphically “simple” titles ran at 1080p on either PS3 or 360. In most cases, regardless of which console you choose, the game is getting upscaled to a HD resolution.

  8. Kaira- says:

    PC-version looks better than console version, surprised people include: my cat (though she always looks surprised, so I can’t really tell)

  9. pblackburn says:

    Time to start saving for my next PC upgrade

  10. Branthog says:

    “The PC version will run at up to 1920×1080 and 60fps”

    That doesn’t make any sense. Most monitors are not at a ratio of 1.9, are they? They’re 1.6. My 30″ runs at 2560×1600, which means I presumably won’t get anywhere near 60fps, even with a 2gb ati 5970. But the next step down would be 1920×1200 — not “1920×1080”.

    • studenteternal says:

      1920×1080 seems to becoming the standard for monitors, probably because you can just cut it from the same slab that you are making LCD HDTVs from so its cheaper. 1900×1200 is still available of course, but last time I bought a monitor trying to stick to the 1.6 would have severely reduced my choices (to one at my local frys, a bit better off new egg) and increased the cost by about 15-20%.

    • VelvetFistIronGlove says:

      From the latest Steam hardware survey:

      1152 x 864 1.33 (4:3) 0.98%
      1280 x 720 1.78 (16:9) 0.66%
      1280 x 768 1.67 0.64%
      1280 x 800 1.6 (16:10) 5.28%
      1280 x 960 1.33 (4:3) 1.01%
      1280 x 1024 1.25 12.45%
      1360 x 768 1.78 (16:9) 1.35%
      1366 x 768 1.78 (16:9) 6.27%
      1440 x 900 1.6 (16:10) 9.56%
      1600 x 900 1.78 (16:9) 3.92%
      1600 x 1200 1.33 (4:3) 0.94%
      1680 x 1050 1.6 (16:10) 18.18%
      1920 x 1080 1.78 (16:9) 21.10%
      1920 x 1200 1.6 (16:10) 7.46%
      2560 x 1440 1.78 (16:9) 0.65%
      1.33 (4:3) 2.93%
      1.6 (16:10) 40.48%
      1.78 (16:9) 33.95%

      So 1.6 aspect monitors have a noticeable lead on 16:9, but not an overwhelming lead, and the number of 1920×1080 monitors is growing fastest (+1.49% since the previous month).

      Edit:Sorry for the sucky table, it seems this site disallows pre tags.

    • stahlwerk says:

      use <code>, then!

    • Highstorm says:

      So does this mean BF3 won’t support 1920×1200 at all? I’m suddenly confused…

    • Branthog says:

      Highstorm: I don’t think it’s a case of BF3 not supporting 16:9 (ie, 1920×1200 or 2560×1600) — they were just stating that it would run 60fps and all the other performance marks at 1920×1080, which doesn’t seem particularly impressive to me, since a 30″ monitor which is becoming very common (and which I’ve been using at least one or more of at a time for most of the last decade) which is natively 2560×1600. So dropping to 1920×1200 or even 1920×1080 seems like a big drop to reach 60fps.

      I actually didn’t realize as the other had mentioned, that 16:10 was becoming a more common monitor size. My monitors have always been ACDs, which are 16:9 and I assumed that was the standard. After all, why would I want to run my desktop at HD television resolutions, right?

  11. KauhuK says:

    I pre-ordered BF3 but cancelled it because of the dlc juggling but now I had to pre-order it again. This time I’ll keep the pre-order.

  12. Terraval says:

    One assumes that 1920×1200 will also be supported? For those of us unsatisfied with the commoner’s 16:9, of course.

  13. Po0py says:

    This is called: “Marketing”

  14. MrSing says:

    Is it bound to EA’s Origin? I don’t want to install this shit on my machine..

  15. vodka and cookies says:

    If this BF PC centric fanboyism continues this will pretty much secure a defeat by Call of Duty, gamers don’t like being told the version they are getting isn’t “special”. I’ve seen this attitude on GAF, on Gametrailers and so forth, even Bobby Kotick was smart enough to drop the same message.

    Console owners will get turned off being told this is a PC centric title and BF3 has no chance against the massed numbers of CoD on consoles + the PC .

    • Theodoric says:

      There’s more to selling ganes than a marketing campaing and record first-week sales. Pc games have much more staying power; folks still buy Battlefield 2 and older games for the PC, while lack of backwards compatibility mostly removes that for the consoles.

    • Nalano says:

      Blockbusters emphasize marketing campaigns and day one sales.

      Blockbusters are not widely regarded as the height of the movie craft.

      Why are you defending blockbusters.

    • skinlo says:

      Because they are often fun to watch if you like special effects like me!

    • Jimbo says:

      I don’t think anybody genuinely believes BF3 is going to outsell MW3 anyway. EA are just talking it up, as they should do.

      Of course, it doesn’t really need to outsell MW3. If they can give CoD a bloody nose and make some ground on them, EA will probably be happy enough. If BF3 sells 8-10 million copies and MW3 ‘only’ sells 15 million (instead of the usual 20 million), EA will probably be ecstatic.

  16. Corrupt_Tiki says:

    I just ejaculated.

    I might visit the local PC retailer shop and enquire about a preorder :>

    Edit; Also, I SEE, oh god I SEE!.

  17. Ed123 says:

    “On the other hand, Crysis 2 was always a PC focused title.”

    You mean the same Crysis 2 running on an engine modified specifically for consoles, and designed from the ground up around the limitations of console hardware? Or am I immune to sarcasm? :P

    • Joshua says:

      That same crysis 2 that had all sorts of graphics options the console gamer did not get, such as global illumination?

    • Jamesworkshop says:

      you’ve missed the point it’s not the tech but the placment, battlefield 3 is intended to steal sales from COD, Crysis 2 was intended to make as much money as Cod (in addition to it not to replace it)

      Cryengine 3 was pushed for consoles so as to decrease the work load when making cross-platform titles, thats not the same as Crysis 2 the game which is a product of Cryengine 3, they are not the same thing.

  18. lunarplasma says:

    Umm, if they’re gunning to beat Call of Duty then surely they will need to step up their console marketing engine and tone down on how much better it will look and play on the PC.

    After all, the greatest chunk of CoD profit was on the consoles, wasn’t it?

    • Nalano says:

      Or, y’know, they can focus on PC sales as a nod to their PC market and trounce CoD on the PC, which we – as PC gamers – would very much appreciate and enjoy.

      I do not, nor I suppose do you, want them to dumb down the game like they did in BC2 for the console market. What could you possibly stand to game from second-guessing them in this current decision?

  19. machinaexdeus says:

    “The PC version will run at up to 1920×1080 and 60fps, as well as boasting more complex lighting, more anti-aliasing, larger texture resolutions and other advanced graphical features”

    Not on my PC it won’t. Currently playing Witcher 2 and realising the ‘puter is getting old :(

  20. abhishek says:

    I feel a bit sorry for the people who genuinely believed the game would look as good (as the PC footage shown earlier) on their consoles. While it’s fairly obvious to folks like us that it was never going to be the case, I’m sure BF3 will get a few console sales from people expecting the game to look like the PC footage and they will be disappointed. In fact, the PS3 footage doesn’t look all that spectacular for a console game either. And then there’s the double whammy of looking worse and running worse as well. 720p@30fps is more of a target than what will actually happen… it’s possible that the resolution might be even less and frame rates may drop (which is significant because even 3fps dropped is a 10% performance decrease). All these problems on the platforms where 80% of paying gamers reside. MW3 is going to murder BF3 in sales.

    • jezcentral says:

      Or maybe not. Don’t forget, these are the people who have been playing COD at this resolution. They actually think this is what games are supposed to look like.

      You have a point, though. Much was made of Dragon Age: Origins loveliness on PC over console, and maybe some people chose not to buy on console as they thought they were getting an inferior product, and no-one likes that (even if the alternatives are just as bad, as long as it isn’t worse than the other guy’s).

    • abhishek says:

      Don’t forget, these are the people who have been playing COD at this resolution. They actually think this is what games are supposed to look like.

      Well the tradeoff of playing COD at that resolution has been that the game runs at 60fps, which is a significant advantage. BF3 on the console doesn’t look all that great (which has been a major selling point for EA) and it runs far worse as well.

    • Magnetude says:

      And I believe CoD still runs at something more like 640p on consoles. There was a bit of a hoo-ha when it came out and some neckbeard discovered they weren’t getting the full 720.

      I don’t mean to be rude and all, but… how is this news? Games run better and smoother on better hardware? Unless I am Missing A Joke, in which case ignore me

    • Lukasz says:


      that can’t be right. I played HL1 at 800×600 14 years ago.

  21. Chuck84 says:

    Woop, i guess. This is great news for enthusiasts with a great rig. It’s also great news for the PC master race fart-sniffers, but screw them and their warped sense of self worth.

    What concerns me is how well it’ll scale down. I, like many, many out there, have a somewhat crappy rig, and i want to know if i can get the game to run acceptably without spending several hundred euros upgrading for one game. Life’s changed that i can’t responsibly justify spending a lot of cash on 1 game, and i don’t really want to save my whole gaming budget for 4 months.

    One of the great things about current PC gaming(in addition to the explosion of amazing indie games) was that if you were careful you could build a solid rig for not that much. One of the worst things about PC gaming in the past(rose-tinted glasses off) was the technology arms race. Now that it’s cooled off, PC gaming is more accessible to all.

    It’s great that this game will look so good on monstrous machines, it’ll be nice to have something that will make the watercooled behemoths sweat, but I also want to play BF3 with my friends, and i hope DICE bear this in mind.

    • Quaxi says:

      These days it’s ridiculous how much you get for low money. I recently built a high-end computer for around 600$ for a friend, and it plays even the most demanding games silky smooth.

    • pepper says:

      What this man says, in Europe you can get a kickass gaming rig for 600 euro’ s given that you build it yourself and pick the right parts(quad core unlocked to 6, tad bit overclocked, big fans, ATI 6000 series etc).

    • Chuck84 says:

      Oh yes i totally agree, you can build a great machine for a quite reasonable price these days, especially if you cannibalise some of your old machine’s parts. It’s just that my personal circumstances(about €60 a month max gaming budget) don’t allow me to upgrade right now.
      I might try save and get a new GPU, but my concern is that it won’t be enough to run the game acceptably. Which would be a shame, since the game looks great.

    • chaos4u says:

      it really boils down to. not buying behind the curve.

      to many people try and save money when building or buying a pc and end up using technology while still new in the box is actually 3 years old.

      countless people are buying core 2 duo systems , older amd /intel quad core systems, thinking they are buying a kick but machine. When actually they have effectively limited the life time of the computer they just purchased. Any one looking at a pc today should be looking at the core i5 systems or the new amd processors with equivalent performance . A bare minimum of 4 gigs of ram 8 recommended (ram is cheap splurge on 12 or 16 if you can) and at least a graphics card from amd or nvida costing around 250.00 or more if allowable. that should get you through at least 3 years of pc gaming.

      where as the core 2 duo and older quad core systems/amd and intel, are coming up on their limitations extremely fast .

      with that being said this is being written on a core 2 duo e 8500 that i have had for almost 3 years and that is after i upgraded from a e6600, machine was built 5 years ago.
      while the system has served me well.
      its time for a new platform. It will be either a core i5 or a core i7 which ever i have the money for (may even wait to see if there is a promo that will bundle bf3 in with the componets purchase) .
      and i then will be playing battle field 3 with glee :)

    • mashakos says:

      Responsibility this. Responsibility that.

      If you can’t build a PC that can last five years… you shouldn’t be building your own PC. Like many things in life, leave it to the professionals.
      Be like all other responsible adults: work reaaal hard for a year, save up for a properly configured, professionally designed product that will last for 4-5 years. Do you expect washing detergent to work as advertised on your home-made washing machine? Exactly.

      I still build my own machines, but I’m an 8 year software programmer with an obsessive interest in electronics, industrial design and soldering stuff. I’ve machine cut my case, designed a compact water cooling loop that can fit in a mini-ATX case, regularly used to volt-mod graphics cards in the past etc.

      If you aren’t prepared to reach that level, trust me you will always build crappy rigs i.e some PC config that will run games well for about 6 months before you have to scale things down.
      Now if you’re just not interested in making the effort, save up for a proper rig designed and manufactured by people who know a lot more than you and me about building PC’s. Not Dell or Alienware, there are quite a few boutique PC builders out there with real know how and design skills.

      Just like cars, either buy a real one or settle for a ricer.

  22. mda says:

    “The PC version will run at up to 1920×1080 and 60fps”

    How can you run a PC gaming site and not find this sentence completely ridiculous?

    Any modern game for PC should be able to run games at up to 2560×1600 (or more with multiple screens) and only the hardware (CPU+GPU mainly) will determine the FPS.

    • mda says:

      Well, any modern “AAA” title. (soz no edit button)

    • rhizo says:

      My thoughts exactly. It would be ridiculous to limit the resolution at 1920×1080 with modern hardware available on the PC side. Moreover I seriously doubt they would go about limiting fps at 60, what with 120Hz LCD displays becoming more common and some still having their gaming CRTs on hand as well.

  23. leeder krenon says:

    consoles are toys for retro gamers. you may as well be gaming on a commodore 64.

  24. MistaJah says:

    It will run on any frame rate I want it to. This isn’t news.

  25. subedii says:

    When did this become about blatant schadenfreude? I mean if it runs great on PC’s that’s great, but who cares what happens console side as long as it’s up to the status quo anyway?

    HD and 30 FPS has been standard for most console FPS’s pretty much this whole generation. And that’s fine. CoD was one of the exceptions by running at 60 FPS, but it does so by not even running at 720p. PC side anyone looking to max out BF3 and still get 60 frames / second is probably going to be looking at some hefty hardware anyway.

    Or am I just missing the sarcasm? I mean I guess it could be sarcasm, seeing as Crysis 2 was mentioned as PC led in development, and that game didn’t even have an options menu.

    • Nalano says:

      “HD and 30 FPS has been standard for most console FPS’s pretty much this whole generation. And that’s fine.”

      I read this as “Halo and aim assist has been standard for most console FPSs pretty much this whole generation. And that’s fine.”

      Because that’s how ridiculous your acquiescence sounded to me.

  26. negativedge says:

    saying it’ll run at “double the FPS” on the PC is a little meaningless. it sure won’t be running at 60 fps on my computer, for instance.

    • stahlwerk says:

      Exactly, and that is why the PC will — in most cases — be the less desirable target platform to program for compared to a “recent-gen” console. On one end, you’ve got the silly SLI-overclocked ePeeners, and on the other end you’ve got the “casual” integrated chipset users. And you’ve got to cater to both and everything in between, because if you make only one market segment unhappy it will lead to many a gnashed tooth in this technicolor age of internets.

    • Inglourious Badger says:

      Lol, I was going to say the same. Very confident statement from DICE that it WILL run that well on my ‘cheap when I built it 3 years ago’ PC!

  27. davidRR says:

    looking forward to this game very much! I preorderd BF3 for only 31.99$ at http://www.ultimatumgamekeys.com
    also bought Dirt 3 there..pretty nice website with very low prices!

  28. metalangel says:

    At that crucial moment, when you’ve just barely managed to kill the guy capturing the control point, your screen is all red, and then an enemy tank rounds the corner and starts firing, and you dive behind the wall as explosions go off all around, and you put your hand into a pool of mush that used to be your buddy’s face…

    … you don’t give a crap about the framerate or how many light sources are being modelled.

    • Nalano says:

      Your ability to kill the guy and your immersion what with your friend’s face mush are directly correlated with frame rate, resolution and light sources.

  29. cavalier says:

    30 FPS on consoles isn’t anything new. Like you said Crysis 2 ran at 30, and so did BF:BC2 for that matter. so does halo reach, GTA4 and a bunch of other games. the only reason COD can run at 60 is because of the small player count, small maps, static environments, and fucking old engine altogether. I would hope an engine based on 12 year old tech can run well on a 6 year old system.

  30. Giftmacher says:

    Hell, it’s about time.

  31. torchedEARTH says:

    They said on the show that it was an exclusive look at console gameplay. Not an exclusive look at PC gameplay made worse.

  32. Land says:

    Quintin: Yes, I see. Best metaphor ever.

  33. Arithon says:

    Just checking, but despite COD’s success, isn’t it just a speck compared to World of Warcraft?
    WoW gets overlooked (rather conveniently) by console gamers, but it has been around since 2004 and while MW2 sold 4.7 million (much trumpeted) copies, there were 10 million subscribers to Wow in 2008 and the number is growing, not falling.
    [Edit] 2011 subscribers are 11.4 million, that’s three times as successful as the best selling COD title.
    I don’t play WoW, as my interest is FPS, but PC gaming is HUGE compared to console gaming and while I want to see BF3 a success, I don’t want it “specially ruined for console” just to persue a niche market of console twitch-shooter FPS players, who don’t want depth or strategy, but an endless stream of XP and DLC.

    • shaydeeadi says:

      MW2 sold 4.7 million on it’s first day, not overall. In total that or Black Ops would of sold more overall than WoW has subscribers, 2 years ago or today.

    • Jimbo says:

      MW2 and Black Ops each sold 20 million copies. You were close though.

  34. Moni says:

    I’m absolutely amazed at this news that Battlefield 3 will run on my Pentium 4 at 1080p at 60fps.

    • Batolemaeus says:

      Dammit, I just wanted to say something similar.
      Awaiting Bf3 to look awesome at 60hz on my athlon x2 6000+ and hd whatsitcalled.

  35. pagad says:

    Wait, I thought PC gaming was dead or something.

  36. wodin says:

    I thought anything over 25fps was smooth to the human eye…aslong as it’s smooth I’ve neve rnoticed any benefit from higher frame rates….more frame sis good for super slow motion etc but honestly do you all really notice a difference betwwen say 30 and 60 fps??? Or is it all in your head?

    • Batolemaeus says:

      This is more about tearing on vsynced monitors. Plus, if you’re running at 60fps, should your fps dip below that point, you can fall back to 30fps and it will still feel smooth enough while still preventing ugly tearing.
      Also, the 25fps figure doesn’t apply to interactive games. Even on film the difference between (ironically enough) “jerky” high quality film and low quality but smooth camcorders is noticable if you view it side by side.
      Another problem with lower framerates is, that the time between two frames becomes inconsistent. One frame might be finished a few milliseconds faster than the previous one because the scene has a bit less to render, and suddenly you get sublte but extremely noticable jumps and jerks.

      All of the above is why steady, sustained 60fps are great. It’ll be smooth as silk with no tearing.

    • Baka says:

      That’s such an old claim now and besides testing it easily for yourself by playing any fast shooter on capped 30 fps and comparing it to uncapped FPS, here are some of the standard URLs posted in response to this:

      link to boallen.com
      link to freespace.virgin.net
      link to 100fps.com

  37. The_Great_Skratsby says:

    Crysis 2 really wasn’t a PC focused title at all .

    Anyway Battlefield 3 is looking swish.

    • SuperNashwanPower says:

      Agreed – even Cevat Yerli said “if it worked on PC and not on consoles, we left it out”. It was very much a cross-platform effort. They did try to make multiplayer fit around PC controls better, but I think the most you can argue is it was one of the better optimised PC versions of a more console-centric game we have seen recently. Technical discussions of graphics capabilities aside, CryEngine 3 is a step down from 2, with good multi-platform reasons. Thats fine by me, but I think trying to say Crysis 2 was PC centred is a bit silly.

  38. aircool says:

    The PC is full of win. For games such as the BF series, a good framerate has always been more important than eye candy. As PC champions, we can decide how much eye candy we want. Consoles need flashy graphics to sell as the console market is a fickle beast, try selling minecraft to the core demographic of consolites.

    The PC is full of win, and is getting back to being the cutting edge beast it was back in the nineties.

  39. markcocjin says:

    Battlefield 3 PC version the best version confirmed!

    Battlefield 3 on Origin and not on Steam best version points deducted!

  40. squirrel says:

    I heard somewhere that EA and DICE are seriously considering port it to Wii U.

    But that’s not important. The point being, that is it sth about PC gamers’ ego to have console game look graphically inferior so we feel good? I really dont see the difference of gaming on PC and on game consoles. The only difference may be that one usually play the former one with mouse and keyboard, while with joypad / joystick / joywheel / joy…… And actually you can use joypad on PC too. Game console provide a cheaper alternative for gamers, which is good since it really makes no sense to spend like hell on video game. PC gaming is dying just because large game publishers do not support it whole-heartedly. Or in worse case, some intentionally kill it off. It’s desirable for both forms of gaming co-exist. Afterall, game modding is prospering on PC gaming. For gaming, PC and game consoles are just the computing machines that run the games. It really isnt beneficial to us PC gamers at all to have games running on game consoles in inferior graphics. This inferior console version of Battlefield could be made better if EA is willing to wait for the new generation of Playstation / Xbox. All EA is considering, however, is the god damned first mover advantage over Activision’s COD.

    What graphics can deliver us? I want a 128 or even 256 player-match!! Honestly, 60 and 30 fps do have difference to players like me (really, no matter how scientific you are trying to prove there is no difference for human visual, I do feel the difference myself), however, how much are you willing to pay for that slight visual improvement? And is it beneficial for development of game industry if computing power is employed on graphics than on other aspects of gaming, say, AI? While I watched youtube videos on Onslaught mode of Bad Company 2, those stupid bots made me realize I lose nothing without Onslaught mode for my PC version of BC2. Someone can run 1,499 bots (plus gamer himself / herself, 1,500 players) in an offline ARMA 2 match (before any DLC for ARMA 2 was released). Can you deliver such game, EA?

  41. Makariel says:

    Just upgraded my PC last weekend, thus: bring it on :)

  42. Mr_Initials says:

    Part of the probelm in “taking Call of Duty down” is the the fact that COD is mostly a console shooter. Yes you can give PC amazing graphics and performance, but what about the other half of the gaming group. Will the consoles still play well? Is it not possible to give them the same graphics and performance. It seems like people would say “hey COD has always been good to me and Battlefield said they were not going to put their best work into the console version so i think I’ll buy COD.

  43. kibayasu says:

    So did everyone who watched that episode simply not notice the PS3 controller or something?

  44. Unaco says:

    Ok… that’s graphics… one of the components with lesser relevance to myself. What about dedicated servers, prone, lean, a full suite of PC centric options, mods and an SDK, a decent server browser, and availability on multiple DD Platforms. When I know a little more about these things, I might get interested.

    “I suspect our side on this particular clash of the titans has been chosen for us, gentlemen.”

    Funny… I thought you had made your minds up before either was even announced.

  45. gwathdring says:

    I’m confused. Why does it matter if it looks better on PC? I mean … I don’t own a console, do you have to make sure the console is constantly feeling like an insecure omega to prevent it from urinating boldly on the carpet?

  46. gwathdring says:

    I’d also like to join those above who express disinterest in the extremes of graphical power. If it looks good to me, it’s not going to have as much to do with the resolution and the wheezing of my cooling fan–it’s all in the visual style, lighting, level design, etc. I care how it looks. And the same game looks better at 1080p than 720p. But I’m not buying games so I can frame the screenshots on my wall, I’m here to play the things.

    Besides, I have an old box television. Not that old really, only five to six years, but it’s a square, boxy affair and not of unusual proportions either. Avatar still looked damn gorgeous right up until I fell asleep. I don’t need the highest resolution, and there are a fair number of PS3, 360 and even PS2 games that can make your mouth drop if you don’t care about the pixel count.

    That said, BF3 is a damn fine looking game. It’s not just the pixel count. The lighting is good. The particle effects are good. The animations are damn good. It’s a very pretty game. And it will still be pretty on the PS3.

  47. JohnnyMaverik says:

    Most games run at 720p at around 30fps on console with worse lighting, less anti-aliasing and smaller textures than the pc version. Forget unprecedented, this is the default, if a game is going to come out on console and on pc, unless the devs half arse it, the pc version will run at a better frame-rate and with better graphic fidelity, (if your PC is more powerful than a console that is).

    Don’t get why we’re supposed to be cheering this, it’s just as depressing as cheering games supporting dedicated servers, it shouldn’t be something to be proud of or a special selling point, it should just be.

  48. Saucy says:

    “Crysis 2 was always a PC focused title” What a load of bull, have the author even played the game? It’s so dumb down to fit the consoles.

    Anyway.. I don’t understand why console kiddies are whining, if you want the better quality of the game, get better hardware that supports it, but the consoles have 5+ year old hardware while PC hardware gets updated every month or so.

    I still don’t believe DICE when they are saying BF3 has PC prio. When the consoles are out there with shitty hardware, they always go with the consoles before the PC because games sell more on consoles and believing games on PC only gets pirated.

  49. DOLBYdigital says:

    Too many dam graphic whores these days…. Just give me good gameplay with options/variety and mod support so we can make nice changes to the game and keep it fresh. As long as the PC version gameplay isn’t compromised for accessibility or the lowest denominator then I’m happy.

  50. mashakos says:

    Haven’t upgraded my CPU, motherboard and ram for 4 years. Still playing games at the highest possible settings
    *pssst. gtx580*