Battlefield 3 Vs Modern Warfare 3: How important is framerate for you?

If you are planning on picking up Modern Warfare 3 or Battlefield 3 this year, some interesting developments occured over the weekend, as EA DICE confirmed that Battlefield 3 will only run at 30 fps on console, half the framerate of MW3.
We imagine that this admission by EA DICE will be cause for concern for a lot of console owners looking to buy Battlefield 3, but should the framerate in a game really affect your overall purchase decision?

[Joule]

If it looks smooth at 30 FPS there is no reason to complain.

[TheDareDevil]

I just want good gameplay. Frame-rate is not really an issue, as 30 fps is good enough. I'm not going to not buy a game just because it runs on 30 fps, it just doesn't make sense.

[PhantomT1412]

you're right. If you only bought 60 FPS games on console you'd be only playing Call of Duty...

It's even one of its key-selling points for which they sacrifice the visual quality. Can't blame them for that even though I think they could have let go to 30 FPS at least for the single-player campaign where it's all about immersion and not competition (I also think 30 FPS gives more dramatic effect than the "too-fast" 60 FPS).

[evrfighter1]

In the console world your argument is unmatched hands down.

But some console gamers think they are pc gamers. I'm sure you see it. "used to be a pc gamer, now I play on consoles" well these are the fools imo who would buy a 60fps title over a 30.

I see a lot of people blaming the ps3 fanboys for this controversy. I dont think so. They get a free pass this time as I believe its the ex pc gamers. Most of them bought ps3's and most of them played bf2.

Simply put they want pc gaming for the price of a ps3.

[Tank_Commander_E6]

The more important feature is dedicated servers. What's the point of 60fps if you can't kill what's in front of you because of lag.

[RedDead]

Yeah 30FPS is fine, I would prefer those visuals @ 30 than Cod's @ 60

Not to mention... destroyable environment, vehicles, bigger map

[Dart89]

Yea i agree as long as BF3 is at a steady 30fps i'm good.

[theonlylolking]

I bet you praise RAGE's graphics when it looks worse than MW2

http://www.gamersyde.com/po...

I am all for 60fps but for this gen I want 30fps. Next gen I want 60fps games.

[StanLee]

Man some of you are straight up lying. I know when I play Call of Duty and try to play any other online multiplayer it's a huge readjustment because other games feel sluggish and an even greater challenge going from Halo Reach or BFBC2 back to Call of Duty; I have to lower my sensitivity to 1 or 2 because I feel like I'm playing on acid. Framerate is hugely important to how fluid a game feels, how the controller input responds. There is a reason people say Call of Duty feels the way it does, it's the framerate.

[Deputydon]

@theonlylolking

To be fair. Rage is an open world game. And it looks far better than say, FO3/NV. It's hard to tell if it'll be better graphically than Skyrim since the art style is obviously completely different. But for an open world game it looks fantastic.

MW2 sucks though. Long Live BC2!

[Clarence]

Well said. MW2 looked like crap and it had issues even at 60fps. MW3 will be the same.
BF3 will be amazing I'm sure of that.

[joydestroy]

it'll be 60FPS for us PC kids =P

[Da_Evil_Monkey]

No it won't, it will be whatever framerate your hardware and your graphics settings give you.

Stop acting like every PC gamer runs games at full settings 60FPS, some do, but your experience is based almost entirely on your hardware.

[joydestroy]

okay, let me rephrase for the mentally challenged... it CAN be 60FPS for us PC kids.

every PC gamer might not run games at full settings, but this one does!

[Hufandpuf]

I'll be playing on PC so it doesn't matter. I just need money to make one now.

[vortis]

For $200 you can grab a gaming rig off eBay that will play BF3 just fine.

Just saying...

[Deputydon]

MW2 - 60FPS. 75% Online Lag.
BC2 - 30 FPS. 10% Online Lag.

I'll take the second one.

I'd imagine it'll be about the same for MW3 and BF3.

[Kon]

30FPS is good. 30FPS with destruction vehicles and super graphics is even better.

[Jappy-k7]

yes but console version won't have that umm super graphics....

[shadowwizard]

If it's stable locked 30 FPS I'm good, if not, I will see if I'm gonna buy the game...

[STK026]

30 fps is fine for BF3 as it has a somewhat more tactical gameplay and a slower pace. However, for an arena-style game like CoD, 60 fps is a must. While I'd play Bf3 at 30, the same can't be said about CoD.

Two different gameplay styles, two different technical requirements.

[The Meerkat]

This.

[PhantomT1412]

While I agree to some extent, you never have too much frame-rate (except in films). Battlefield 3's single-player has a documentary style and I think 60 FPS would've gave it more "liveness" as most of the TV reports now are filmed with very smooth digital camera.

[STK026]

To me, every game could benefit from 60 fps, mainly action, racing and sports game, but I know we can't expect every game to run at 60 on current consoles. If I only had a console to game on, I wouldn't mind BF3 running at 30, but I wouldn't bother playing a CoD without a 60 fps framerate. I know a lot of people on N4G don't like CoD, but I still think it offers a great fast paced twitch shooter experience, and most of it is due to its relatively stable 60 FPS.

I don't think BF3 on console running at 30 fps is a problem, as it will surely be a stable and solid 30 with beautiful graphics and awesome gameplay.

[godsinhisheaven]

As long as the framerate is steady at 30 fps, i'm fine with it.

[floetry101]

It's dependent entirely on how the game is played, both framerates suit their respective games well. Battlefield 3 will be a pleasure to play at 60fps on a PC though.

[DigitalAnalog]

That way, even if it does go "below" the standard rate, the experience would still be smooth. IMO, games that don't push tech or graphics should make it standard to have 60FPS to give the game a little more kick.

However, RAGE seems to be bringing the best of both worlds. This of course, would put enormous pressure to other devs (maybe even forced to use said engine to compete). So it would be interesting to see how this would turn out.

As for 30FPS, cinematic games like Uncharted wouldn't exactly have such a profound effect. However, unlike 60FPS, going below 30FPS would kill the immersive experience all together. According to EG, doing that is actually quite a challenge to most developers.

-End statement

[smithdown]

30FPS looks more cinematic, because film runs at 24FPS. 60FPS can look great in certain games (e.g. Burnout Paradise) but personally I think it can look a bit strange in other games and makes them seem more 'gamey'. I didn't much care for God of War 3 for that very reason (and the gameplay wasn't my cup of tea either).

The graininess you sometimes get with 30FPS is awesome for war games too!

[rickhunter89]

my entire life!!!

[ginsunuva]

Wtf is with these articles trying to start arguments? It's like they thought bf3 was definitely gonna be 60fps. And they ask if framerate will affect your decision between the two? Really!?

[BlitzAK]

Depends on the game, 30fps on CoD is a load of shit. Whilst for BF, it gives that Battlefield feeling.

[PhantomT1412]

Well it's more annoying to have swinging frame-rate than a "slow" 30 FPS. And that's the problem with PC gaming whereas console games when correctly developped have a stabilized frame-rate (capped to 30 by the devs).

With entry-quality PCs like mine, while you can get an average 30 FPS for ressource hungry games, it can drop to 20 or fly to 40-60 which is more annoying than having constant 30 frames. For example in Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood, I have an average frame-rate of 30 FPS often dropping to 20-25 fps and flying up to 60! ...when looking at the empty sky^^

Plus, you have to set it up yourself to get the best quality/performance ratio out of it (you can never trust "default" or "optimized" settings). Well, you can cap your frame-rate with v-sync to 60 FPS but what's the use of it if you can't even reach it?

Most of the entry-mid quality PC can have cutting edge graphics, but the performance doesn't always follow, and for that, you have to invest in a high-end rig... or pray that the game doesn't swing around in frame-rate.

[beast242tru]

it dosnt matter to me once the game is smooth plays nice then im good all the complaints are b.s why giv these devs all this trouble i dnt see other games getting bombarded like this

[Animal Mutha 76]

For me 30fps is ok as long as its stable but i'd prefer the smoother 60fps, but that is not really an option for most console games. Forza and COD manage it because they dont have so much environmental post processing as is becoming the norm on modern games.

To be honest I dont mind that COD is a little lacking in visual fidelity as it runs like the clappers on my xbox which is always a boom for that fast gameplay style which it does excel at. Hopefully on the next gen hardware they can keep COD at 60fps, up the framebuffer to full 1080p and add the DX11 style effects then it will really rock.

To those that say that say that 60fps doesn't matter I would suggest trying counterstrike (which I know is old but the gameplay is legendary even today) on any low/mid range pc. With everything maxed out I get over 180fps which is useless on any normal monitor with a refresh rate of 75hz or above but its still super silky fast. You def notice the smoothness of the game at 60+ fps. GT5 is another good example of smoooooth.

I accept for the most part that the majority of games on my xbox are not 60fps and that the internal render may only be just 720p. I'm cool with it - its 6 year old hardware! The point is that they still play great. I'm realistic enough to accept that this is the limitation of the hardware especially the video buffer on current consoles. For anyone to expect BF3 to be 60fps 1080p with all the effects on console is frankly laughable. The PS3 and Xbox could never oblige.

If they have Xbox BF3 at 30 and steady and still manage all/most of those effects then I'd say the devs have done a great job.

Enjoy it on whatever platform you have. If you are a performance snob and have to have the best then go PC. I might try both if my dual core and 9600GT can overclock a bit more.

[aaronobst]

Its not a big deal at all

[csreynolds]

On topic: I personally don't think Battlefield would 'feel' the same at 60fps. I like the 30fps pace; it gives it character, almost. But I have to ask: is frame rate a reason to/not to buy one game over another?

Off topic: I love the way everyone's eating up these comparison artilces about MW3 and Battlefield 3. People should realise that one's a fast-paced, arcade twitch shooter and the other's a deliberately slower, more simulated and authentic experience...

It's like trying to compare athletes from two different sports. Why don't we just appreciate both for the qualities they offer, hmmm? Or does EVERYTHING have to be a competition ALL the time?

[floetry101]

It's inevitable that the two will be compared and Battlefield will frequently come out on top in the internet stakes.

Call of Duty is my console shooter of choice. I like the framerate, I like the response time and racking up the kills is a good time, regardless of what most might say.

Battlefield is good on console, but it's outstanding on PC. Having played Bad Company 2 on both PS3 and PC, I'd definitely stick with PC as a preference. 30fps does add a "filmic" quality to the game, but there is nothing like dropping into a dedicated server on PC and razing buildings to the ground at a blistering 60 frames.

[TXIDarkAvenger]

No

When I buy games, I don't see what framerate they run at so there's no reason to do that for BF3/MW3. But eh, if its running a smooth 30fps than that could just be as good as a not so smooth 60fps.

[manchesterman22]

hmmm

BF3 720p 30FPS

OR MW3 60FPS Sub HD like the rest of them

i know which i prefer

[leogets]

what a pointless article. battlefield is the superior game even at 30 fps

[Theyellowflash30]

Framerate is very important to me. I would take a lower graphics if it will boost up the framerate.

[no_more_trolling]

go play pac man at 120 frames

[ILikeTurtles]

* A smooth 30fps is way better than an unsteady 60fps.
cod jumps around between 40,30,50 all the time on the consoles.

* (bf3) 720p with MLAA vs uscaled 576p (cod)

* (bf3) destructable environments vs FMJ (cod)...

I could go on and on...

(Btw I'm only talking about the console versions since I'm playing bad company 2 at a higher framerate than 60 on my pc)

[PhantomT1412]

According to Digital Foundry, Modern Warfare 3 will be the smoothest CoD since the fourth, rarely dropping the frame-rate during the sub-marine level:
http://www.eurogamer.net/ar...

Still, I had enough of fast-paced shooter since Call of Duty 4 and W@W that I've played the shit out so I'll stick to BF3 and I'll play on PC anyway...

[TheDareDevil]

MW3 is going to be locked at 60 fps for consoles. The Graphics do look better and there seems to be some partial destruction in MW3.
BF3 has photo-realistic graphics and full-scale destruction at 30fps, but we don't know if it's going to be locked at 30 fps or not.
If it's not locked at 30 fps, there might be frame-rate dips during large battles.

[ILikeTurtles]

Lol it's the same engine and animations as MW2.
they said "it'll be locked at 60fps" before black ops and mw2 came out also, and yet they both drop below 30fps sometimes on both the ps3 and 360.

* Bf3 is locked @ 30fps on the consoles, while pc gamers can play it in up to 120fps or more.
Dice can optimise like pros and bf3 won't have any serious "dips" on the consoles.

[CodCom]

Modern Warfare 3 will be locked at a MINIMUM of 60fps, so according to Robert Bowling, you shouldn't be seeing it go below 60fps.

Anyway, 30fps is fine and I wouldn't have any problems with it. But having slightly worse graphics and being able to run at 60fps, I'd much rather pick that option.

[Venjense]

I'd take BF3 destruction and team based MP over COD any day.

[OC_MurphysLaw]

30 fps sec is fine for a shooter assuming one thing...it stays at 30fps. If the game dips down when action gets heavy then that will be a major issue. Having a game running at 60fps gives you a lot of room for small dips that will not be noticeable to a player. At 30fps a 10 frame dip to 20fps will absolutely get noticed.

[Ju]

So, I have a question here. Does the PC version actually play differently than the console version? Serious question. Is the turn speed different, aiming, etc. (usually it is due to the fact PCs use a mouse). But if not, the frame rate is completely irrelevant how fast the game plays - if input lag is completely decoupled from the refresh rate. UT3 plays CoD fast @ 30fps. While other games play faster or slower for a reason. CoD is an Arcade style shooter and requires fast response (which IMO happens to synched with the refresh rate; most game do, though). Otherwise updating states per frame doesn't help if you can't process events fast enough; no matter what the refresh rate is and especially on a PC where you can assume a variety of different performance targets due to different machines.

[moaradin]

Well since I am on a PC and I can get 60 FPS and beyond, I'm happy.

[blink3020]

I'm picking up both so I really could care less.

[The Official]

I don't care about the framerate. I just want Battlefield to be in hi-res. I hate lo-res games with framedrop.. *cough ubisoft cough*. Cod peforms nice in hi res... Battlefield should have the same thing cause it looks great.