BF3blog.com -- the leading Battlefield 3 fan site, with news, updates, videos, screenshots, rumors, and more.
  
On June 18th, 2011 in News

BF3 PS3
A few days ago, Battlefield 3 was showcased on the PlayStation 3 during the Late Night show with Jimmy Fallon, and it sparked a lot of discussion among console owners who thought that the PlayStation 3 version looked inferior to the PC counterpart. While DICE has always said that the PC version would feature extra graphical capabilities in form of higher resolution textures, more anti-aliasing, among other thing, they’ve now revealed a few more details on what to expect on consoles.

DICE developers confirmed via Twitter that the PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360 versions would run at 720p, as opposed to 1080p, which both consoles support. Furthermore, console versions would run at 30 frames per second, which is considered the bare minimum frame rate for first person shooters. The news comes after DICE developer Johan Anderson confirmed via Twitter that the game will run at 30 fps on consoles, and later confirmed that it will be in 720p as well.

It’s not a big surprise that Battlefield 3 won’t support 1080p — very few games are run in 1080p, especially graphics intensive shooters and action games (for instance, Crysis 2 ran at 720p and 30fps as well). Regarding the frame rate, it’s interesting to note that BF3′s main competitor, Modern Warfare 3 and its predecessors have always run at 60fps, which resulted in the familiar smooth gameplay that Call of Duty is known to deliver on consoles. On the other hand, Battlefield 3 and the new Frostbite engine offer full destruction, larger maps and more features than any Call of Duty game.



362 COMMENTS & TRACKBACKS

  1. Caio
    June 18th, 2011 at 11:52 pm

    Can’t understand why they don’t push it a bit and run it on 1080p 60fps, i think PS3 can support it .

    Thumb up 16 Thumb down 67
    • Rob
      June 19th, 2011 at 2:13 am

      Reason why is probably the console cannot handle it. Remember, the consoles are all generally 4+ years old each. New generations of graphics cards and CPUs have since released.

      HIGHLY RATED Thumb up 44 Thumb down 6
      • James Bond Haha
        August 6th, 2011 at 4:07 am

        Guess again the PS3′s CPU can handle it, but the good ol’ 360 can’t so that 360 players don’t put DICE on fire they kept it equal (PS3 can handle better graphics 32+ players online and more than 60 FPS [if my PSP can handle 32 players online... my guess is the oh so powerful frostbite 2 engine would make it possible for PS3] then again, it’s that for us console players held back again because of the 360) .

        Thumb up 38 Thumb down 95
        • Oliver
          August 22nd, 2011 at 1:41 pm

          This is really annoying me now. PS3 players are acting like the 360 is inferior, and it is holding them back, and that the 360 is awful and the PS3 is awesome.

          It really isn’t like that.

          The 360 and the PS3 are both extremely similar in terms of what they are capable of, neither is holding the other back. The PC is the one being held back, because DICE must make it seem like the consoles aren’t getting a bad deal out of it all, and so the PC has to be lowered so it isn’t so much better than your precious consoles.

          This video nicely sums up my views: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7DrSsskShrc&feature=related

          HIGHLY RATED Thumb up 62 Thumb down 14
        • big fred1
          October 15th, 2011 at 6:48 pm

          Sorry mister Bond, but the 360 isn’t the reason BF3 is running 720-30fps, its the fact that live play on either console won’t work at higher rates. thats also why we won’t get 32 players.

          Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1
        • PhiL
          January 10th, 2012 at 4:27 pm

          Stupid ps3 can’t handle that kind of a power in battlefield 3 if it uses 256 ram for graphics and 256 ram for processing so that means on the ps3 it can’t support 1080 and it would lag the process like hell. The graphics is also gay as hell on ps3 compare to Xbox it uses 564 ram and it’s operating system reduces problems to make battlefield 3 better than ps3. Ps3 can host a 32 player server if they want but they’re too cheap to give money to dice to make it 32 so it’s their fault and if they do 32 player on the ps3 they would have to reduce the graphics for ram processing which is impossible. PC is meant to handle the the frostbite 2 engine bit the consoles are not that’s why PC runs faster than consoles dued to graphics card. Consoles uses video cards developed by graphics card company like nvidia and ATI.

          Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4
        • PhiL
          January 10th, 2012 at 5:24 pm

          This is a correction not a boast I dont give a fuck about what nerds are saying these days and I know these because I have a nerdy friend who are mentally dissembling his consoles for knowledge hear my words

          Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2
        • Anthony
          January 22nd, 2012 at 8:23 am

          Guess again.
          It won’t run.
          You want good graphics?
          Get a PC.

          Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
      • TIM
        October 4th, 2011 at 7:24 am

        I am tired of people saying that the consoles are 4 plus years old. 4year cycles are the old standard. This gen consoles are pushing 10. The 360 was released in 2005 so next year it makes 7 by technology standards that is a calcified fossil. Im not trying to flame you and I hope you do not take offense. Garmers are just used to that 4 year cycle, but that rule no longer applies. We both no the ps3 can’t handle it. I have a quad with 8gb of ram and 1g of ddr on my 9800gt and I can just barely squeak by.

        Thumb up 10 Thumb down 3
      • Wuzzin Me
        October 30th, 2011 at 5:26 pm

        The consoles should be able to handle it, lets not forget that these consoles have the hardware (especially the PS3) to run games until 2014, the limits have not been met, we just have not developed the software to utilize the hardware to its fullest potential.

        P.S. Before it seems that I’m promoting PS3, I don’t own one, I have a 360, but that doesn’t change the fact that PS3 has some impressive hardware.

        Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1
    • Adam
      June 19th, 2011 at 3:28 am

      No way it can. The PS3 and Xbox run on GPUs that are similar to the 6800. The picture you see in all the trailers is running a PC with multiple 570 GTX.

      The 6800 is 5 generations of Graphics card old. Its like 7-8 years old even though the console is only 5 or 6. Its quite sad how behind on tech that the consoles are. Even with the 720p and 30 fps the textures will be reduced heavily.

      The game is not gonna look like those trailers. Sorry.

      HIGHLY RATED Thumb up 36 Thumb down 7
      • James Bond Haha
        August 6th, 2011 at 4:13 am

        hold your horses man the PS3 can stand 1080p 60+ FPS and 32+ players online (The PS3 has CPU no GPU) if my PSP handles 32 players online, my guess is that the Console version is being held back because of the 360 Why? because if they push the PS3 to the limit the X360 players will catch fire and won’t buy BF games on 360 DICE DOESN’T WANT THAT! so that’s how we have what we have. Sad story? YES!

        Thumb up 18 Thumb down 70
        • stig074
          August 18th, 2011 at 2:42 am

          I agree, the PS3 version is being held back due to the fact that the 360 just cant do certain things. Dice is right in holding back the PS3 version. You cant make a game much better on one of the consoles. It would be bad for buisness. And for all you PC DBs if you cared to understand what the PS3 actually can due you would see it is very powerfull. Sony made a game console that uses a hole new arcitecture. Its not just that there 8 proccessors. Its the way they can work together that make the PS3 so powerfull. Look at Gurilla and Killzone. Once they started workng with the PS3 they had to completally change the way they made KZ2 and relearn how to make a game. They even admited that the PS3 was more powerfull then even they took advantage of. Fact is PS3 is somewhere between a high end game PC and the 360. PS3 guys will always suffer when a game is cross platform. Any serious PS3 exclusive is always amazing. And as for all you PC DBs sorry that my $300 machine only trails what your $1000+ machine can due. Just wait till the PS4 comes out (if it even does), your really going to be pissed then. Because then I will be saying sorry my $500 PS3 is as good as or better then $1000+ rig is. Flame al you want below, but deep inside you know I am right. Thats why your comments below will be so anger drive. Flame on dBs………

          Thumb up 28 Thumb down 71
        • stig074
          August 18th, 2011 at 2:45 am

          I agree, the PS3 version is being held back due to the fact that the 360 just cant do certain things. Dice is right in holding back the PS3 version. You cant make a game much better on one of the consoles. It would be bad for buisness. And for all you PC DBs if you cared to understand what the PS3 actually can due you would see it is very powerfull. Sony made a game console that uses a hole new arcitecture. Its not just that there 8 proccessors. Its the way they can work together that make the PS3 so powerfull. Look at Gurilla and Killzone. Once they started workng with the PS3 they had to completally change the way they made KZ2 and relearn how to make a game. They even admited that the PS3 was more powerfull then even they took advantage of. Fact is PS3 is somewhere between a high end game PC and the 360. PS3 guys will always suffer when a game is cross platform. Any serious PS3 exclusive is always amazing. And as for all you PC DBs sorry that my $300 machine only trails what your $1000+ machine can due. Just wait till the PS4 comes out (if it even does), your really going to be pissed then. Because then I will be saying sorry my $500 PS3 is as good as or better then $1000+ rig is. Flame all you want below, but deep inside you know I am right. Thats why your comments below will be so anger driven. Flame on dBs………

          Thumb up 11 Thumb down 45
        • lvl50guy
          September 13th, 2011 at 12:13 pm

          DUDE, ARE YOU FUCKING SERIOUS!!!!! THE PS3 HAS NO GPU!!!!! You obviously talking out of your ass and don’t know anything about the console you’re defending so much. How can a graphics intensive device not have a GPU? In case you didn’t know, GPU stands for graphics processing unit. What boggles me is how you compare the PSP to the 360 and believe the PSP is more powerful. The 360 is about 10 times more powerful than the PSP and the PS3 and 360 are similar, the only thing the PS3 has that is “better” than the 360 is the Blu-Ray drive, but that doesn’t really matter in games other that the PS3 will require less discs for larger games than the 360 (such as in L.A. Noire). The only thing better than the PS3 and 360 is the PC, because you can replace the old hardware for better hardware, but a PC is more expensive than a console. I usually don’t write this much for a reply but your ongoing stupidity made me do so. “The PS3 has CPU no GPU.” Come on man, you can’t be this dumb. You managed to get on this website and type. Next time you should do a little research so you don’t look like a complete fool in front of everyone and don’t be afraid to ask your friend google for help.

          HIGHLY RATED Thumb up 45 Thumb down 6
        • Multiplatform player
          October 2nd, 2011 at 3:17 pm

          This is so funny. Fanboys crying who actually believe that their consoles ar up to date and capable to play these games. Xbox and PS3 are nearly the same. Same graphics. Actually PS3 has a slightly better GPU (Yes idiot, ps3 DOES have a graphic procesor unit) than Xbox. Whereas xbox has more RAM and overall better architecture (More similar to a PC). Notice these gamming machines are way far from an actual average PC. (Hey, not self built, just a medium brand new computer), and not to mention a gamming pc, with more than 4x the ps3 potential. You could probably have a better home family PC than your PS3, and you are not a 40 yo vir- oh wait

          Fanboys U MAD

          Thumb up 11 Thumb down 9
        • Starpest-
          October 2nd, 2011 at 6:15 pm

          The ps3 and X-box 360 are not equal in terms of processing capability. The ps3 (although i hate to say it, i really am an xbox fanboy) runs higher load graphics better. It is the reason why games like killzone 3, as much as they wanted to, could not back away from ps3 because of the graphical capabilities. The cell broadband engine is just too powerful, yes it will (or is, your pick) be outdated, but 5 years running and it can still dish out full 1080p gfx on so many games if they would provide the option. For xbox, go ahead and buy your multiple dvd rom games, and dont complain about ps3, sony knew what they were doing and microsoft rushed the market with next gen consoles, so now they’re overcharging for better ones and everyone has fallen behind. Curses microsoft, halo was fun again, but at what cost?!

          Thumb up 5 Thumb down 11
    • Asgaro
      June 19th, 2011 at 7:14 am

      Wtf… how old are you?
      CoD doesn’t even run on 1080p, and thats with an old engine!

      HIGHLY RATED Thumb up 32 Thumb down 10
      • goody
        October 22nd, 2011 at 7:31 am

        hey asgaro
        on ps3 cod blacks ops can run on 1080p at 60fps if you have a slim model
        not the original ps3 model

        Thumb up 0 Thumb down 5
      • Nick
        October 22nd, 2011 at 7:23 pm

        u dumass ps3 runs at 1080p on cod blackops not mw2 its all xboxs falt u fan boy

        Thumb up 0 Thumb down 5
        • miki
          October 23rd, 2011 at 3:03 am

          Correction mw2 runs at 1080p 1080i 720p on ps3 but u got to be kidding me no gourmet I roflmao he must have have fallen on his head as a child

          Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
    • Kossy
      June 19th, 2011 at 10:17 pm

      @CAIO

      LOL, sorry man – I couldn’t help laughing – you don’t know much about tech, do you? Frostbite 2… 1080p… at 60fps! on a PS3. You’ll find that would require more than “pushing it a bit”, perhaps, maybe a miracle! would do the trick.

      720p, 30fps was always going to be the case with BF3; anyone who expected more is a fool.

      HIGHLY RATED Thumb up 52 Thumb down 1
      • DeadCell
        September 8th, 2011 at 11:26 pm

        I think that everyone should just put a sock in it and wait and see until the FRIGGIN BETA and then well pretty much see for ourselves what the consoles can and can’t do, well i know for sure that 60fps is right out of the window but i think that DICE can get it pretty close to 1080p or maybe i dont know what the hell im talking about, oh well ill see u in my sights sooner or later HA HA HA…its in the game

        Thumb up 2 Thumb down 10
    • Max
      June 20th, 2011 at 6:54 pm

      CoD runs in 1080p on my PS3, and 60 FPS, not saying that I like it all that much, what I’m saying is that, the PS3 CAN handle the 1080p and 60 FPS. I don’t know why’d they do that to the consoles. The XBox I understand, but not the PS3

      Thumb up 2 Thumb down 43
      • atavus
        June 20th, 2011 at 7:29 pm

        CoD runs at 1064*600 at 60 Fps, it’s upscaled to reach 1920*1080 =>
        There’s pratically a difference of 4 in raw power needed to attain 1080p.
        I won’t even make the comparison between size of the map & content between Battlefield & CoD.
        So yeah, Consoles are 6 year Old hardware stop dreaming about what they can handle, it’s nowhere close of an actual computer hand made at 800$.

        HIGHLY RATED Thumb up 33 Thumb down 2
      • Darren
        June 20th, 2011 at 7:59 pm

        COD doesnt run at 1080p..it is just display as 1080p there is a difference

        HIGHLY RATED Thumb up 40 Thumb down 0
      • inthepastxx
        June 20th, 2011 at 8:16 pm

        LALALA, sorry had to get that out, do you truly believe that the PS3 or even the 360 run any game at 1080p? If you do jump of a cliff now, just because you have the option to run your console at 1080p doesn’t mean it runs at that in fact the PS3 doesn’t even run at 1080p like the person above said 1064×600 = not even close

        HIGHLY RATED Thumb up 25 Thumb down 1
        • Gangsta
          August 6th, 2011 at 3:58 am

          Gran Turismo 5 runs beautifully in 1080p on the ps3… however, the extra used power due to frostbite and more things going on in the environment is the reason why… Don’t say a ps3 can’t handle 1080p haha 360? i don’t have any clue on those things…

          Thumb up 4 Thumb down 27
        • DJ Grav!ty
          November 5th, 2011 at 8:46 am

          LMAO! Let me guess, your mommy got a PC which you found out can play games, then you asked her if you could get a PS3 or an xbox but she said no, you ran up to your room and cried for a while till you realized you can just go on some forums and pout and bitch about both of them because you where so hurt mommy would rather spend her money on some crack? This is probably why you are on here talking out of your ass like theres no tomorrow? lol People GET THE FU*K OVER IT!!! The Playstation 3 has a MUCH more powerful than most of the PC’s most of you fanboys own! The PS3 does not have a Dual Core or even a Quad Core processor, it has an 8 Core Processor, No PC has a processor that powerful, NONE!!! Not only that but that processor is cell powered and it comes clocked at 3.2 GHz, You bet your as* the PS3 can run at 1920x1080p and 60fps NO QUESTIONS ASKED, This system is a beast when it comes to calculations per second and graphics and processing power. Now I don’t know where you retarded sons of bit*hes got that the PS3 can’t run 1080p or that “It’s scaled to look like 1080p” but that just comes to show how ignorant people can be sometimes, Yes some of the earlier PS3 games have a native resolution of 720p which can be scaled to 1080p but lately all the games I have seen are actually made in 1080p. Some people are gonna bitc* for me saying this but come one people, research it yourselves before you say something so stupid, ignorant and outrageous cause I just made you ALL look terribly bad.

          The xbox 360 is not nearly as powerful as the PS3, This is why they made the game in 720p-30fps as opposed to 1080p-60fps, Not only would this cause xbox users to become extremely mad and not buy the game but Microsoft would also get pissed off that they made the 360 look inferior compared to the PS3 and cause problems all around, People… The PS3 is being held back because the 360 can’t do what the PS3 can, I know it sucks for some of you to hear it and some PC users hate to think that a gaming console is much more powerful than your PC’s but facts are facts.

          For you xbox users, I might as well piss you off a little more… Your xbox is not only MUCH inferior when compared to the Playstation 3 but even a handheld gaming system is about to own your systems, The Playstation Vita (AKA Playstation Portable 2) or (PSP 2) is more powerful than the xbox 360, thats right, this tiny system has a 4 Core Processor as opposed to your xbox’s 3 core processor.

          Hate all you want people but the PS3 owns your PC’s and xbox 360′s no matter how you look at it and we PS3 owners are being held back because of shi*ty xbox.

          Thumb up 1 Thumb down 9
      • iLuvLamp
        June 21st, 2011 at 5:06 am

        Sorry, but these days a $70 graphics card can be more than twice as powerful than the one in Playstation 3. It’s simply out of date hardware wise.

        Trying to run Battlefield 3 in 1080p on a Playstation 3 is like trying to haul a ton of bricks in a Geo Metro. It’ll move, but it won’t move very fast, and it certainly won’t look pretty.

        HIGHLY RATED Thumb up 43 Thumb down 3
      • Random
        June 21st, 2011 at 12:11 pm

        Are you a fucking fanboy?
        do you know the ps3 is that shitty that it can’t even play music while playing a game.
        i know that’s not necessary but, that is bad multi-tasking by the ps3.
        Ps3 and xbox is pretty much the same. if you mean ps3 should handle it, why did ps3 overheat because of L.A Noire?

        Thumb up 19 Thumb down 24
        • Shrub77
          August 10th, 2011 at 12:07 am

          thats a RAM issue, ps3 has 256mb of ram and xbox has 512 mb, my PC has 16gb…

          HIGHLY RATED Thumb up 44 Thumb down 1
        • shattheshit
          November 30th, 2011 at 3:44 am

          Come on now, who wants to listen to 50 Cent when they play L.A. Noire? F*** that horse s***.

          Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
      • plumokin
        June 22nd, 2011 at 3:05 am

        maybe u should have read better. ps3 AND 360 overheated, it was a problem with the game, not with the console, they fixed it.

        HIGHLY RATED Thumb up 15 Thumb down 0
      • name
        July 8th, 2011 at 5:18 pm

        DICE developers confirmed via Twitter that the PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360 versions would run at 720p, as opposed to 1080p, which both consoles support. Furthermore, console versions would run at 30 frames per second, which is considered the bare minimum frame rate for first person shooters. The news comes after DICE developer Johan Anderson confirmed via Twitter that the game will run at 30 fps on consoles, and later confirmed that it will be in 720p as well.

        this is a copy from up top who the frick said consoles couldnt suport it

        Thumb up 1 Thumb down 9
      • NoFreakinIdea
        August 1st, 2011 at 11:47 am

        you obviously have no clue what you are talking about.

        HIGHLY RATED Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0
      • A gamer
        August 23rd, 2011 at 7:32 pm

        dude they strech the game on consles so Call of duty is 540p 360p on the consles

        Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1
      • A gamer
        August 23rd, 2011 at 7:32 pm

        dude they strech the game on consles so Call of duty is 540p 360p on the consles

        Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1
      • Sharps
        September 4th, 2011 at 8:12 pm

        Yea we do know that it CAN support 1080p and 60fps on OTHER games.

        But it cant have all these nice new graphics and destruction etc on 1080p and 60fps, or DICE would just do it in the first place. It cannot handle it so they have to sacrifice the resolution and fps a bit.

        Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2
      • Malav
        June 28th, 2013 at 1:32 am

        Ps3 is the only console that was capable of doing full hd
        The Xbox cannot do it the games are up scaled even their exclusives
        Gran turismo 5 does full hd at 30ish fps

        Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
    • Jmrwacko
      July 15th, 2011 at 3:50 am

      1080p at 60 fps? My computer has about a dozen times more graphics processing power than a PS3 (Geforce GTX 560-TI), and I’ll probably only be running BF3 at ~40 fps at 1080p, with SSAO and other advanced options enabled.

      HIGHLY RATED Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1
    • Kierenblade
      August 23rd, 2011 at 3:39 pm

      If I remember correctly, the PS3 can only run some games at 750p.
      All my PS3 games only support 750p except Gran Tourismo 5 and some others.
      And I don’t think the PS3 will fun Battlefield 3 at 1080p and still get 60fps.
      Either there won’t be enough RAM, the CPU can’t handle it or the graphics card will overheat. And it gets pretty hot while idling in the Menu, with nothing around it to block the air flow. On PC, to run BC2 you need a pretty good graphics card to run it at 60fps on 1080p, with the Physics of all the objects.
      When I played Far Cry 2 on my PS3, it was a bit laggy at some points.
      I also own a 360, and I really can’t see the difference between them, or if there is, then it’s defiantly not clearly noticeable.

      Now I only play on my consoles with friends.
      I prefer PC, it can handle games better and you can upgrade it if necessary. I’m not hating on the console players, I still love playing on the consoles with my friends!

      In my opinion, if you can afford a good gaming PC, GET ONE! Really worth it!
      Or if you prefer consoles, stay with consoles.

      HIGHLY RATED Thumb up 18 Thumb down 0
    • barnaby007
      August 25th, 2011 at 11:37 pm

      because ps3 and xbox cant handle it

      Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2
    • PC ELITE NEED TO SEEk THEREPY
      October 31st, 2011 at 9:06 am

      console can but pc babies cry that their so called exclusive runs too good on other platforms. this article was only meant to stur up problems…the site admin is a pc player!!!! anything that comes out about consoles is taken with a serious grain of salt because the admin plays on pc. its a biased column and an even more biased website. its obvious
      this comment wont make it past the admins but you know what? atleats toshiro and possibly more will see it. your disgraceful to the internet community the same level as ea/ pasta padre/ign/gameinformer/gamespot. its too easy to be honest games today are criticized by people who have biased opinions same as the movie biz

      Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3
    • Blake
      November 21st, 2011 at 12:21 am

      That would be nice and I wouldn’t have to spend $2,200 on a new gaming laptop (I have a ps3), but the graphics card just can’t handle that infact 30 fps at 720p is pishing the graphics card to it’s maximum.

      Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
  2. CJMock
    June 19th, 2011 at 12:09 am

    I have no problem with the 720p, but disappointed in the 30fps

    HIGHLY RATED Thumb up 14 Thumb down 3
    • safsdfasdfasdf
      June 19th, 2011 at 2:08 pm

      thats what you get for using a CONSOLE. buy pc

      Thumb up 26 Thumb down 36
      • Tyler
        June 20th, 2011 at 6:24 pm

        Wow dude, first off notice your name, yea…. secondly stop trolling, if someone wants to play xbox or ps3 or pc LET THEM, stop being a little troll fanboy, you’re making you’re system look like a bunch of douchebags play it

        HIGHLY RATED Thumb up 25 Thumb down 4
      • lamboninjaguy
        June 21st, 2011 at 11:04 am

        how much do you think it would be to get a BF3 playable PC, because I have a completely basic Xbox 360 with a cheap 13GB hard drive that costed me a total of 200$ and that was expensive to me.

        Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4
      • plumokin
        June 22nd, 2011 at 3:08 am

        pc’s are expensive, about $600 to play bf3. my suggestion, get it for 360, it wont be as good as the pc version, but u’ll have tons of fun. ppl still play bad company 2 on consoles and they think its great

        HIGHLY RATED Thumb up 15 Thumb down 4
      • Bryce
        June 22nd, 2011 at 9:08 pm

        I HATE HOW PEOPLE ARE ALWAYS LIKE “PC IS SO MUCH BETTER BLAH BLAH BLAH GO BUY ONE!” well some people arent 40 year old virgins. and some people dont have the $900 to spend on a pc for games because SOME people actually have a life…… say wat u want to me cuz im not going to be looking back on this site or care if someone over the internet that i dont even know talks shit about me.. GOOD.. BYE!

        Thumb up 23 Thumb down 37
        • Scott
          July 20th, 2011 at 3:11 am

          Spoken like a boy who could build a Lego house much less a PC.
          Because if you could you would be the troll boy yourself while calling PC’er trolls. We have lives and part of that includes building things.

          Thumb up 21 Thumb down 18
      • Jmrwacko
        July 15th, 2011 at 3:52 am

        LOL @ the 40 year old virgin comment. Apparently, you have to be 40 years old and a virgin to afford a $1000 computer.

        HIGHLY RATED Thumb up 40 Thumb down 1
        • Starpest-
          October 2nd, 2011 at 6:22 pm

          well there is a reson why people buy consoles. yes, the pc is much better, but consoles are portable, never have to update drivers or shit like that, and are built for one thing: gaming. and at $300 a pop, its not half bad. Stop hatin on ppl with the consoles, because although pc gaming is much better, pc players prove themselves to be mindless idiots time and time again.

          Thumb up 10 Thumb down 6
        • shattheshit
          November 30th, 2011 at 3:49 am

          A single parent with 2 adult children could afford one, HA!!

          Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2
      • PC ELITE NEED TO SEEk THEREPY
        October 31st, 2011 at 9:08 am

        you do know that consoles dont have the pc problems right???? ten minute crashes????? sorry but i havent crashed my ps3 on bf yet. soooo maybe you shoulda bought a console!!!

        Thumb up 0 Thumb down 7
  3. Nibbit
    June 19th, 2011 at 12:11 am

    The details are amazing! I hope I have enough money for a new pc before they release BF3….

    HIGHLY RATED Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1
  4. Freeman
    June 19th, 2011 at 12:13 am

    If I recall correctly, Crysis 2 ran at under 720 on consoles. And CoD is so graphically weak and boring that 60 fps is no problem. I’d rather take 30 fps with some great visuals.

    HIGHLY RATED Thumb up 34 Thumb down 2
    • Flim Flam
      June 20th, 2011 at 12:38 am

      i agree wit you 100%

      HIGHLY RATED Thumb up 17 Thumb down 1
    • Trsdevil
      June 20th, 2011 at 3:43 pm

      The graphics are all your gonna be looking at on BF3 cause at 30 fps the multiplayer is gonna suck ass like all the other BF games!! Nice try Dice but MW3 is still the king of all shooters!!

      Thumb up 3 Thumb down 72
      • inthepastxx
        June 20th, 2011 at 8:20 pm

        Are you dumb? You know the only reason people say COD is a great game is because of the sales? It’s the same game over and over and over again, all their really doing is bringing out a map pack. MW3 is the same game as BO, MW2, WAW and MW. I’m going to be so happy when this sad game is done for good let’s hope that in 2 years(which btw is all they have left to make the COD series) its over. Fanboy thinks COD is the king oh boy.

        HIGHLY RATED Thumb up 35 Thumb down 2
        • God
          August 13th, 2011 at 8:14 pm

          Why pretend you’re so sure of yourself when you have no idea what you’re talking about? COD4, MW2, and MW3 = IW Engine. Far superior to the dated POS Treyarch uses. WAW and BO don’t even run at 60FPS. It’s literally two different games. You might as well call Medal of Honor COD.

          30FPS is what makes BC2 so choppy on console (along with poor netcode). A great game, but not without it’s faults. Expect improvement with BF3, but realize the obstacle that aging consoles present for developers.

          Thumb up 8 Thumb down 4
        • Sharps
          September 4th, 2011 at 8:25 pm

          Well i used to like call of duty, i have been playing it from call of duty 1 on the PC and your right, since call of duty mw2 its been the same thing over and over again and it just like a map expansion. I have also been playing battlefield from the early days aswell (battefield 1942) And im looking forward to battlefeild 3 more than mw3. I looked at mw3 and thought well that just looks like mw2 and block ops. but this game blew me away with the graphics and the destruction etc!

          Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
        • RebornShadow
          October 11th, 2011 at 12:48 pm

          @God
          You are so stupid.
          Even I as a non-CoD player know that every Call of Duty since CoD 2 uses the “IW Engine”, which is the Quake engine(id Tech) recycled all over again in every game.
          Again:
          Call of Duty 2 –> Call of Duty Modern Warfare 3 = IW Engine.
          Even if CoD BO and WaW were developed by Treyarch, they still use the same engine.

          Get your facts right next time.

          Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1
      • abcde
        June 20th, 2011 at 8:29 pm

        Your stupid, yourcrappy game won’t even compare to Battlefield 63 we got vehicles (you drive them without killstreaks), destruction (not just glass), maps that are way bigger than what cod could support because there engine is crap.

        HIGHLY RATED Thumb up 21 Thumb down 2
      • Andrew
        June 20th, 2011 at 9:32 pm

        Really? Did you even play Battlefield Bad Company 2. It ran beautifully on those specs.

        HIGHLY RATED Thumb up 14 Thumb down 0
      • Hoarderlands
        June 24th, 2011 at 8:27 am

        Dude stfu. I’m 16 and I’ve played every single call of duty since I was a kid until now. WaW was the last great call of duty ever made and what everyone is saying is true, it’s just a different location with the same graphics. Battlefield 3 is gonna be amazing considering that bad company was amazing and that was test.

        HIGHLY RATED Thumb up 14 Thumb down 2
        • justgotmyplatinumstaronmym1rifle
          September 3rd, 2011 at 11:03 pm

          Hook= Bf3
          Line= Sucks
          Sinker= Donkey BALLS

          you guys just got trolled.

          Thumb up 0 Thumb down 21
  5. DANISFLYING
    June 19th, 2011 at 12:43 am

    Offical battlefield 3 was going to be release onto pc but then they started developing onto Xbox and PS3.

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 7
    • maxbox99
      June 19th, 2011 at 3:56 pm

      BF3 wasn’t meant to be only on PC, I hope you know that. Stop thinking only PC players should play a real BF game.

      HIGHLY RATED Thumb up 10 Thumb down 2
      • inthepastxx
        June 20th, 2011 at 8:22 pm

        Actually this is very true, BF3 at first was only going to come out on the PC. But I agree everyone PC or console has the right to play it which is why I’m happy Dice decided to develop the game for everyone.

        HIGHLY RATED Thumb up 17 Thumb down 1
      • TheHydroImpulse
        June 20th, 2011 at 10:34 pm

        Probably one of the reasons why they expanded to consoles for bf3 is because of sales. There is no way to make that big of a game just for pc. Especially trying to compete with multi-platform games.

        HIGHLY RATED Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1
      • Archaon
        September 9th, 2011 at 6:59 pm

        BF3 was always going to be a Multi-platform game, the console market is too large of a goldmine to snub it in the least.

        The days of PC -exclusive are long gone, although there are a few kicking around that are getting their start in gaming, they too with eventually port to consoles.

        Do you realise they sold 18million map packs for BLOPS… 18million!

        This game is going to look fantastic at 720p for consoles, and 30fps is, although not ideal, acceptable FPS to get an enjoyable experience, especially with explosions and huge maps!

        I will be enjoying this game at 6060×1080 res, so i definately dont have anything to complain about! :P

        Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
  6. plumokin
    June 19th, 2011 at 12:45 am

    i thought the 720p and 30fps were slow but then again, this is the best of the best in terms of graphics and gameplay for any fps

    Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1
    • Jonathan Razo
      September 7th, 2011 at 6:46 am

      My PC runs san andreas at 20 FPS and it’s still not laggy depends if i play SA-MP so consoles will run good but not as good as PC

      Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1
  7. Richard Y
    June 19th, 2011 at 12:47 am

    its the right idea build big and let the hardware catch up lets face it in short order, the ps3 and xbox will no daubt come out with a new version, and when they do, bf3 will be the big hit as people want to push there new consoles.

    I brought this new expensive pc, and lets face it theres nothing out there that can even slow down a new graphics card. bf3 have it right dont dumb down the game, when the manufacturers see there hardware performing slowly in frostbyte, they wont stand by long without an answer to it.

    HIGHLY RATED Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0
  8. rxandl
    June 19th, 2011 at 1:23 am

    30 fps? Looks like Activision has nothing to worry about then. COD will remain king for another holiday season. When will other developers wise up and give us a 60 fps shooter? No game will touch COD until it at least has the framerate and tight controls.

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 38
    • Bloodmuffins
      June 19th, 2011 at 3:07 am

      CoD may have 60fps but there is so much lag in both MW2 and Black Ops that it doesnt even make a difference

      HIGHLY RATED Thumb up 15 Thumb down 1
      • bryan
        June 19th, 2011 at 4:26 am

        ya the reason some games are better than others is obviously the number of frames it can run :p its not that bf3 has way better graphics, huge maps, and generally more chaos happening on the screen than cod

        HIGHLY RATED Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0
      • lamboninjaguy
        June 21st, 2011 at 11:12 am

        wow nice name “BLOODMUFFINS” lol

        Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4
    • SaM
      June 19th, 2011 at 8:20 am

      60fps, at what cost? does it have huge maps? does it have destruction? does it have vehicles? nope, CoD has none of that.

      HIGHLY RATED Thumb up 22 Thumb down 0
      • Noob
        June 21st, 2011 at 12:20 pm

        Why are you positive at having vehicles.
        atleast in Call of Duty.
        It will destroy the Franchise.
        And Campaign in a Multiplayer game?
        Haha, im not trolling, i like Battlefield but sometimes they have gone to far.

        Thumb up 0 Thumb down 22
    • ThexDLolNoob
      June 19th, 2011 at 1:41 pm

      Have you seen those trailers? They (videos) run at 24 fps. Game is going to run smooth on consoles, trust me. Same as in BFBC2.

      HIGHLY RATED Thumb up 12 Thumb down 2
      • inthepastxx
        June 20th, 2011 at 8:25 pm

        Agree Dice does an amazing job as always Optimizing their games. Not to mention BFBC2 before a general computer upgrade I was able to play that game smooth at 23FPS. 30FPS for console & PC will be okay.

        Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1
    • Talnoy
      June 19th, 2011 at 9:58 pm

      Let me respond to your comment with an analogy:

      Imagine 2 cars: A Lamboghini, and a Civic.

      The Lambo is a PC, and the Civic is a console.

      No matter how hard you try, the Civic just CANNOT run as well as the Lamborghini. You can try and jazz it up with a body kit (which is what DICE are doing) but it’s still just a Civic, and can only do so much.

      Battlefield 3 is meant to be driven by Lamborghinis. Not Civics. It can run on a Civic, just slower.

      Now, think about it in tech terms:

      BF3 is the most technologically superior game out there (when it’s released) and it simply CANNOT run well on 7 year old graphic cards. It’s just not plausible to think they could push 60fps out of it without compromising your play experience. If you want 60fps, build yourself a pc. Gaming pcs aren’t expensive anymore either – you can build a damn good one for ~600 bucks. (Which is exactly what a PS3 cost on release).

      TL/DR: Stop bitching. BF3 won’t run well on consoles.

      Thumb up 21 Thumb down 19
      • Dubstep Transformer
        June 20th, 2011 at 1:55 am

        Fucking retard.

        Thumb up 12 Thumb down 11
      • plumokin
        June 20th, 2011 at 4:20 am

        yay, we have our own troll… -_-

        HIGHLY RATED Thumb up 14 Thumb down 3
        • shattheshit
          November 30th, 2011 at 3:53 am

          who totally chokes on troll cack

          Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
      • silverbullet
        June 20th, 2011 at 8:28 am

        Thats probably the best way to put up, stfu with the argueing. Console players, you dont want the hassle and the so called “expense” of a pc, so you have your simple plug n play console’s, you have to accept that there are limitations to the 4 year old + system now. Bloody hell i mean pc gamers have been getting crappy ports of games now for years, about time we had a game that the developers put tht extra effort in to make it worth wild for the pc.

        HIGHLY RATED Thumb up 13 Thumb down 5
      • aphiX
        June 20th, 2011 at 7:34 pm

        Lol are you stupid? There are plenty of modified Civics running 800+ BHP that can KILL stock Lamboghini’s. That’s crap use of comparison. PC’s are upgradable, consoles are not (to an extent) and therefore PC’s will always be able to produce better graphics until manufacturers produce parts that allow you to modify the components of a console.

        Thumb up 3 Thumb down 12
      • BIG AL
        July 6th, 2011 at 2:30 am

        boys your forgetting bout the fact who gives a shit bout graphics i just cant wait to play the fucking game to me its all ready 100x better than cod because well do i really need to xplain (frostbite 2)

        HIGHLY RATED Thumb up 24 Thumb down 1
      • Stephen
        July 31st, 2011 at 8:03 am

        Bodykits don’t make cars go faster

        HIGHLY RATED Thumb up 19 Thumb down 1
        • justgotmyplatinumstaronmym1rifle
          September 3rd, 2011 at 11:07 pm

          Stickers do…
          they add 10hp each…

          HIGHLY RATED Thumb up 15 Thumb down 1
      • JohnnyCarguy
        August 6th, 2011 at 12:30 am

        If you wanna talk cars lets talk cars. I don’t care about all this hubba-baloo about reso ‘ fps, the DICE always has a great game, I’m not worried. But lets talk cars.

        First off the only people who think Lamborghinis are cool are people who don’t know jack shit about cars.

        As others have said there are civics that are pushing 800+ hp and are still cheaper than a fucking lambo.

        “run better”. lol yea whatever. As of 1995-2008 through Honda’s b series and modified K series motors equipped with VTEC/ iVTEC they have produced 15 million and change engines. guess what, not ONE engine has failed unless due to user error/ modification. Before Lamborghini became a fancy Audi their reliability was comparable to a coke head with a broken watch. Even after the Audi take over they are still spotty like a teenage girl.

        A Honda Civic is one of the greatest FF sports cars of all time and Lambo is a mediocre super car. Civic may be “slow” but it will get to where-the-fuck-ever faster than you and your skinny jean, backwards hat wearing hip hop friend could push it.

        Looks… a lambo tries hard and puts up a good fight but its still gotty and ugly. A civic is a good looking car, to those who know whats up. I also wouldn’t key a civic.

        Your argument is invalid.

        Thumb up 9 Thumb down 8
        • S7riKTLYxD4NK
          September 15th, 2011 at 7:16 pm

          LOL. The new 2012 lambo aventador LP700-4 is stock with V12 and 700HP. To get your Honda civic to 800 HP is gonna take alot of work. All in all LAMBO is still a better car stock then a honda civic ever would be….and we were never talking about who can afford what. all in all a LAMBO stock will beat your honda civic in about .2 seconds from the starting line. and Put a lambo and a civic riding next to eachother and see if ANYONE is even looking at your civic……No one will be looking at your civic. Once the lambo doors open up its all over for the looks of your honda civic. So your “ugly and gaudy” opinion is out the door. Everyone will be looking at the lambo like they just shit thier pants. (Cept maybe you and your civic loving friends..which i am sure your friends will be aweing at seeing a lambo in person for the first time)…so just STFU.

          Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3
      • beastkillao.o
        August 15th, 2011 at 6:48 am

        no offence but you are a real pc tool arent ya?for consoles it will run good just not as good as pc so stop trollin get a life fuck a girl and stop bein a know it all retard :]

        Thumb up 3 Thumb down 8
    • jay
      June 21st, 2011 at 1:02 pm

      Because us guys using a pc like to get some use out of our GTX580 graphics cards and multi threaded cpus…. consoles are old tech atm and i hardly think we should stop improving graphics until they catch up?

      HIGHLY RATED Thumb up 14 Thumb down 0
    • Scott
      July 20th, 2011 at 3:14 am

      Which is Great because all the raging Tweeners will be on COD and not BF. I can live with that any day.

      HIGHLY RATED Thumb up 14 Thumb down 0
      • SamJ
        September 28th, 2011 at 8:36 pm

        happily on BF there is no quick/no scoping, as that defeats the object of a sniper rifle

        Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
  9. brian
    June 19th, 2011 at 1:30 am

    wow really i was looking forward to this game for the xbox 360 and it cant push for 60fps and 1080p they can do great sound quality but the ggameplay they showed in the ps3 looked like crap worser than bad company 2 if that was pre alpha footage on the ps3 and it will fix later on then i will consider. my expression on the pc gameplay was like wow no wonder why they didnt show console gameplay at e3 because mw3 would of won the awards

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 9
    • Asgaro
      June 19th, 2011 at 7:18 am

      Ah c’mon, do you live in a fantasy world or what??
      1080p in 60 fps?
      Do you know any games that support that? Yes, Wipeout and other small scale games.

      Even CoD runs on 720p!

      I don’t get how people can think so illogical.

      HIGHLY RATED Thumb up 11 Thumb down 1
      • Hornet331
        June 19th, 2011 at 7:55 am

        No CoD runs @ 102x x 60x (like all cod games) and is scaled up to 1280×720. How do you think they can deliver 60fps avg on that hardware..

        Blops even only runs @ 960×544 on the PS3, while on the Xbox it 1040×624.

        Still ~30% less then 720p.
        Heres list of the most popular titles and at what reslution the run:
        http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=46241

        Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1
    • SaM
      June 19th, 2011 at 8:22 am

      These consoles are 5 years old. You cant run BF3 on those settings on a 5 year old PC. Give the consoles a break, it’s old hardware that’s about to be replaced.

      Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1
      • cockmuffen
        August 18th, 2011 at 7:32 am

        yeah it will…but not by pc

        Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3
  10. joongoon
    June 19th, 2011 at 1:54 am

    i think richard is right, but i dont really care because i already have a awsome PC. u guys should upgrade to a pc, really steam gives amazing deals on games i save like 75 dollars my first month with it. steam makes it cheaper to own a pc (GTA 4 with all DLC 15 dollars, Far Cry 1 & 2 75% off, crysis and crysis warhead for under 20 dollars)

    Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2
  11. Rob
    June 19th, 2011 at 2:14 am

    Thankfully I have a PC that will run this in 3D on top of highest settings, but for hte rest of you console players keep in mind:

    This will probably be the best and most realistic game you will get to date for console. Remember, it’s being made on PC which can support the latest technology, and it will be picked at so consoles can run it (aka remove components and tweaks).

    Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
    • Scott
      July 20th, 2011 at 3:17 am

      Ha they say there isn’t a CPU out there that can sustain enough FPS to play it smooth at they top setting yet. High setting yes Highest nope !

      Thumb up 0 Thumb down 6
  12. Leo
    June 19th, 2011 at 2:36 am

    I’m not rich, if I had the money I would have a nice PC with 3D monitor and fiber optic internet, the PS3 version will keep me happy.

    Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0
    • SaM
      June 19th, 2011 at 8:24 am

      I played the PS3 version of bad company 2, it too ran at 720p and 30 fps I think, and it was still an awesome game.

      Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0
      • Leo
        June 19th, 2011 at 8:49 am

        I still play BFBC2 on PS3, an BF2 on occasion, as long as its fun to play graphics don’t mean much to me.

        Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0
  13. SaM
    June 19th, 2011 at 2:46 am

    I’m not surprised, BF3 has to push far superior graphics, destruction, and huge MP maps. CoD has none of that, so of course they’ll get 60fps. So would Battlefield if it looked like CoD.

    Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0
  14. ClouDz
    June 19th, 2011 at 3:08 am

    i think il be fine with my rig that i build just for battlefield 3 and going to play in 1200p whitch is better then 1080p (have been collecting money for the past 3months)

    Raven RV01B-W full tower case
    2 x ASUS GTX 560 TI SLI (overclocked)
    I5 2500k at 4,5Ghz
    Asus sabertooth p67
    D14 Cpu cooler
    4 x Ripjawz 4gb DDR3 RAM
    TX950 PSU
    64GB SSD

    1400 dollars

    playing bad company 2 at highest settings and 1200p
    75fps max 58fps minimum 64 average

    Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1
    • Leo
      June 19th, 2011 at 8:46 am

      Does posting that make your cock feel bigger?

      HIGHLY RATED Thumb up 14 Thumb down 5
      • Kossy
        June 19th, 2011 at 10:29 pm

        @ LEO

        LMAO! amen brother. Retards posting their specs with phony uncertainty makes me laugh – at least the out-right braggarts are honest, though. I’ve got a pretty good build, but why would anyone but me give a shit about it?

        Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5
    • Nick
      September 7th, 2011 at 4:45 pm

      blehh, nVidia. Go Radeon. Combined with AMD processing, you’ll get the best visuals. Plus they’ve got the new FX Bulldozer chips coming out

      Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1
  15. ReaperX
    June 19th, 2011 at 4:22 am

    Lol… poor console fanboys. If anyone needs help or suggestions with building a computer, email me @ reaper2794@gmail.com, Id love to give you guys tips and Ill even put together a whole build for you guys according to your budget and make sure you get your moneys worth. I can also answer many questions about building a PC, so just hit me up with an email

    Thumb up 5 Thumb down 4
    • Dubstep Transformer
      June 19th, 2011 at 5:46 am

      Hey reaper, no one is a console fanboy. Anyone who buys consoles, buy it for the simplicity and fun of gaming. you’re just another dick PC gamer who thinks hes better than everyone else who has a console just because PC has better graphics. but with the PC, comes WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY more hackers and nerds than consoles. not everyone is a spoiled little brat like you who has thousands of dollars at their disposal. Quit being a fucking troll you inconsiderate little prick. BFBC: 2 ran at 30 fps and has 720p, but it has better graphics and gameplay than Cod… so even if BF3 runs at the same, I definitely will not mind, so long as it has better graphics than BFBC: 2, which it will.

      Thumb up 8 Thumb down 4
      • Asgaro
        June 19th, 2011 at 7:23 am

        I’m a PC gamer but I agree that PC gamers don’t need to live with their heads in the sky.
        Those guys pay a lot for their slick hardware, while console gamers can spend the money otherwise, like beer :D

        Actually we are the ones that should laugh at the “oohh myyyyy, I need to upgrade, nom,nom, I want to play on high! take all my $$$$$ pls”

        But apart from that, some console gamers are stupid as hell!
        They expected 1080p at 60 fps? NO WORDS FOR!! IQ = -20?

        HIGHLY RATED Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0
        • Other Brian
          August 4th, 2011 at 5:21 pm

          BEEEEEEEEEEEER! =D

          Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1
        • OMNOMNOMNOM
          October 17th, 2011 at 2:52 am

          I dont wanna play at highest settings just with 32+ players.

          Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
      • Nacelle
        June 20th, 2011 at 11:37 am

        It always seems like the biggest poo-pooers of PCs are the ones that can’t afford it. Of course they’ll deny it by saying their job is better than yours and make 6 figures or something. I have an eyefinity setup that I really couldn’t afford to buy in one shot. I use Christmas bonus’, tax returns, birthday money, and overtime to buy parts as I go. I also don’t smoke or drink. That saves a lot of money. If you want the best, you buy the best. The thing is, there may be hackers, but there’s also modders that improve games on the PC and get played for much longer than they would otherwise. The console version get stuck with nothing, gathering dust.

        Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1
        • Dave
          August 19th, 2011 at 1:15 pm

          Listen everyone…. i read some of those comments…. and i gotta say, alot of stupidity is involved.

          i work as a Mechanic For the military in a Hangar…. since i was a kid i always loved to play games, but now to another story.

          i can afford pretty much anything i want, but still i am at the consoles.

          it might be 5 Years old, it might play games that are equal to the Graphics of CounterStrikeSource or GTAIV, but then again here is the Advantage:

          we don´t got any hackers Trying to ruin the game for us…. we don´t have to change Hardware when a new game Comes out wich is Very xspensive, sometimes you can end up changing the whole pc just to play the New games.

          then Again PC is always up to date, but it is very Xspensive.

          do the math and you can see why people are buying Consoles. its to save there money. i had a PC before and i got Tired of inserting new Hardware everytime. its like every half year your PC gets Outdated.

          thats why i bought a console, to save money. it can play any game for years without having anything changed… and in longer terms it gets outdated very slowly, but they always end up with a new console After 5 years.

          about COD compared to BattleField i would Say, For those who loves CloseCombat stays at COD. for Those who love Real Combat with a very Big Variation of Modern Warfare stays at BattleField =]

          Regards David… PSN: Divutski

          HIGHLY RATED Thumb up 13 Thumb down 3
    • Asgaro
      June 19th, 2011 at 7:25 am

      @ ReaperX: srry thought I was answering to someone else.
      You want to help, and don’t brag about ur specs. my bad :)

      Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
      • Dubstep Transformer
        June 19th, 2011 at 7:58 am

        I don’t think any console gamers care about the specs of the game, they just want BF3 to be the best console game. The reason why YOU think they are so called “dumb” is because consoles already come with the bare essentials to play games without having to know what to put into the console. PC gamers NEED to worry about their specs because companys like Intel come out with a new freaking processor every fucking month…*i know its exagerrated but you knwo what i mean.”… because everytime you buy something for your PC, its already obsolete. Once again, consoles are for casual people who just want to have a PC, without litterally HAVING a PC, just for fun. PC gamers care about spending their money every 5 seconds just to have the best of the best to only be disappointed later. and also, once again, Console gamers don’t really have to worry about hackers and modders because it’s sort of protected. PC is so unsecure that there are actually servers and shit dedicated to modding, which is fucking nerdy and stupid…

        Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3
      • Asgaro
        June 19th, 2011 at 8:28 am

        @ Dubstep Transformer:
        I don’t expect console gamers to know about specs, but really, 1080p on 60 fps? They ALL know that most games run on 720p while only some ps3 exclusives run on 1080p. So still, I don’t get their remarks.

        And about the amount of upgrading: it depends!
        My PC is 3/4 years old and this will be the first time I upgrade a part (the graphics card). Not all PC gamers are rich guys who spend their money on hardware you know.

        I personally don’t care that much about the bling bling, I care about the sharpness and the mouse control!
        I will be able to play BF3 on medium and only maybe on low with 64 players on a server.

        I thought CoD had matches, where you get a big XP boost and shit?

        Also, you don’t know what your talking about: every PC game has cheaters but most games aren’t that bad.
        BFBC2 has a good anticheat system.

        Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
      • Dubstep Transformer
        June 19th, 2011 at 11:37 am

        And yes i DO know what im talking about, and you actually proved one of my points,”every PC game has cheaters but most games aren’t that bad.” It still doesnt matter when you say that most games arent that bad, they still hve hackers, and i dont feel like getting spawnkilled or wall hacked or some other stupid nerd shit everytime i play, i like to play fair and competitive. Thats why i like the console. However I am making a special exception for BF3, considering that, yes BFBC: 2 does have a very good anti cheating system. Plus the other reason i like consoles, is because whenever you want to talk to someone, you dont have to join some stupid Ventrillo server just to talk to people, i can go and talk to just one, or a group of my freinds instantly without having to write down stupid IP adresses.

        Thumb up 0 Thumb down 5
      • plumokin
        June 20th, 2011 at 4:27 am

        skype?, idk wtf a ventrillo is but its really simple to use skype, and its free

        Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
      • inthepastxx
        June 20th, 2011 at 8:35 pm

        Lol yeah skype for everything. it’s as simple as that

        Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
  16. plumokin
    June 19th, 2011 at 5:08 am

    bf3 at dreamhack, better be some coverage on this site lol

    im running the game at a little over 720p at a little under 60fps on my comp so im happy

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  17. DOOMZDAYZ
    June 19th, 2011 at 12:03 pm

    Well thats not surprising. This game is the absolute pinnacle of graphical gaming at the moment. Can you honestly expect a 2011 game to run perfectly on 2006 hardware? Hell no. COD achieve’s 60 FPS because its maps are fucking pictures! COD maps BARELY change throughout the game, While Battlefield 3 have to manage 24 players, Blowing up huge maps, with vehicles and more. That is alot to handle! Bad company 2 was an awesome game, even at 720p and 30 FPS. I’ll be playing on PC and Xbox and I’m sure I will enjoy both versions. Count on DICE ;)

    Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0
  18. Moldune
    June 19th, 2011 at 2:04 pm

    720p at 30fps on 360, im happy with that, ive been a mass BF fan since 1942, and ive enjoyed all the battlefield games to date, some more then others, but they’ve all been good bad and frustraiting in their own ways, but thats battlefield for you, and just because of BF3 im actually saving up to get my first ever gaming computer, and im not spoilt, im going to be saving for months and months and months before i can afford it, but i dont care, ill have a top of the line comp that’ll last me for a good 2 years before i needto upgrade it, because im really only getting it for Battlefield 3…

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
    • ThexDLolNoob
      June 19th, 2011 at 5:09 pm

      Be sure to buy a computer with a good graphics card, that way it’ll run about all the latest games for 4 years.

      Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
    • inthepastxx
      June 20th, 2011 at 8:39 pm

      Make sure you build it yourself always always cheaper that way and you get more for your dollar this way as well. I’ll put it this way my build cost me around 1400-1500 if I went to dell/hp/sony or god forbid dell/alienware I would have spent near 3000+ no problem.

      Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
      • plumokin
        June 22nd, 2011 at 3:21 am

        if u go to hp’s website u can get a really nice amd 6 core w/ good graphics for around 1100 but besides that, building urself is the best option

        Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1
  19. Henneberg
    June 19th, 2011 at 5:14 pm

    I hope to death that people understand why it “only” runs 720p and 30FPS. This game is astounding! A quick comparison with Black Ops yields that you can’t shoot through most shrubs and bushes and some wooden fences. But in Battlefield you can destroy entire buildings! Imagine if Nuketown was a BF3 mad – It would be an entirely open battlefield after the first 20 seconds.

    This is why it can’t run 60FPS like Black Ops’ sad, low-resolution maps and textures.

    For the detail in BF3, I think 720p and 30FPS is admirable to say the least. Frostbite 2.0 must be a really solid engine!

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
  20. Public Knowledge Announcement
    June 19th, 2011 at 5:15 pm

    Every CoD game since CoD4:MW1 has been on a souped up and renamed Quake 3 (Id Tech 3 – 1999) engine. 720p and 30FPS on consoles from BF3 is an amazing feat.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
    • VineFynn
      September 1st, 2011 at 12:34 pm

      the cod engine has been a quake 3 hack since coughcod2cough. :)

      Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
  21. duncan
    June 19th, 2011 at 5:48 pm

    @Brian really you are judging a poor video of a video the ps3 version will be just as good as the majority of the pc players not everyone will be able to run it at full spec on pc unless the have a good rig i will be getting this on pc and ps3

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
    • Kossy
      June 20th, 2011 at 5:58 am

      @Duncan

      I’m not into console bashing, but don’t go too far – I’ve seen high-res screen shots, so it’s not the “low-res” video that’s making it look worse. It looks fine on PS3, and I’m sure people will love it, but if you start trying flex it up to the PC version you’ll just end up frustrating yourself. Even on low, the PC will still own the PS3.

      Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3
  22. MalianteNCX
    June 19th, 2011 at 7:04 pm

    I will be getting the PS3 Version, it looks pretty good for a multiplatform with big maps and destruction 3.0(?)… i dont have the time neither the money to build a good pc =D

    Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0
  23. Anon
    June 19th, 2011 at 9:21 pm

    Dont give a rats arse what consoles are doing

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 7
    • Dubstep Transformer
      June 20th, 2011 at 1:54 am

      Fag, you are.

      Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4
      • plumokin
        June 20th, 2011 at 4:29 am

        stop trolling

        Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3
      • Dubstep Transformer
        June 24th, 2011 at 9:23 pm

        I’m not, he’s just another bragging PC fag.

        Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3
      • plumokin
        June 28th, 2011 at 1:51 am

        lol i meant both of u. im just saying to have a real conversation and not to just yell insults

        Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
  24. Clyde Hidershaj
    June 19th, 2011 at 9:47 pm

    I bet everyone here, that no one can tell the difference between 720p or 1080p, much less tell the difference between 30 fps or 60 fps. There is no point in getting hung up on specs which have nothing to do with gameplay.

    Bottom line is that DICE is pushing the technology (in terms of game engine), which in my opinion every developer should aspire to.

    As far as visuals and frame rate go, 720p at 30 fps will give it a more movie like feel.

    So unless you’re one of those X-men freaks, who can calculate the rate of change of pixels over time, i think you’ll be ok.

    HIGHLY RATED Thumb up 12 Thumb down 2
    • Dubstep Transformer
      June 20th, 2011 at 1:55 am

      Thank you, finally someone with some god damn sense…

      Thumb up 6 Thumb down 3
      • plumokin
        June 20th, 2011 at 4:30 am

        @dubstep maybe people wud listen to u and not think ur a 3 yr old if u posted comments like this person, PROPERLY

        Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4
    • enterprise2448
      June 20th, 2011 at 12:00 pm

      Jesus christ, is this for real? There is a HUGE difference both in 720p vs 1080p (more than two times the number of pixels) and in 30fps vs 60fps. Claiming 720p in 30fps “feels more like movies” is just plain stupid and such a pathetic excuse.

      Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5
      • Dubstep Transformer
        June 24th, 2011 at 9:25 pm

        Your math sucks… 1080p vs 720p having twice the difference in number of pixels? Go back to school.

        Thumb up 6 Thumb down 5
        • Hatti
          August 14th, 2011 at 8:13 pm

          1280×720=921600 (720p)
          1920×1080=2073600 (1080)

          921600×2=1843200

          2073600>1843200

          :)

          HIGHLY RATED Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0
        • im no troll *troll face*
          September 27th, 2011 at 4:30 pm

          PC is better than console its a fucking fact get over it already your just one of those people who always whines about stuff that you cant afford but when you could you would probably be in the PC bandwagon.

          Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1
    • safsdfasdfasdf
      June 20th, 2011 at 12:19 pm

      “I bet everyone here, that no one can tell the difference between 720p or 1080p, much ”

      “As far as visuals and frame rate go, 720p at 30 fps will give it a more movie like feel. ”

      What the fuck? First you say that nobody can tell the difference and then you say that 720p at 30fps looks different?

      I can see difference in 720p/1080p, its not even hard. 30/60fps isn’t that difficult either.

      Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4
    • PhailQuail
      June 23rd, 2011 at 10:14 am

      Can’t tell the difference between 30 and 60 FPS? Are you shitting me?

      http://www.boallen.com/fps-compare.html

      Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
      • shattheshit
        November 30th, 2011 at 4:04 am

        I LOLed at the quote ” If films were shot at 30fps it would make No Country For Old Men look like Days Of Our Lives” That would really f**k up the pacing XD

        Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
    • Jmrwacko
      July 15th, 2011 at 3:56 am

      You can easily tell the difference between 720p and 1080p. Although you can tell a far greater difference between the Quake 3 engine and the soon-to-be-released Frostbite 2 engine. And, as other people have said, the Modern Warfare franchise actually runs at < 720p resolution on consoles. It's upscaled to 720p resolution basically by barfing extra pixels on screen, it has nothing to do with actual rendering.

      Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
  25. Carl
    June 20th, 2011 at 2:05 am

    The early Battlefield games were first developed for the PC and its the platform where its best experienced. Do yourself a favour and sell your console and put that money towards a PC. The console versions of this game will be lame, you are giving up too much.

    Thumb up 5 Thumb down 9
    • MalianteNCX
      June 20th, 2011 at 3:25 am

      do yourself a favor and stop telling other people what to do…

      Thumb up 6 Thumb down 5
      • Carl
        June 20th, 2011 at 7:47 am

        Do yourself a favor and chill the hell out. The fact is the best version of this game will be the PC version, no need to act like a brat and get all pissy at me over it!

        Thumb up 4 Thumb down 10

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>