Battlefield 3 and Modern Warfare 3 are two of the most popular upcoming FPS’ that will go head-to-head this holiday season. Each one of them has their advantages and disadvantages, mainly on the technical side, where Battlefield 3 runs at 30 FPS and its competitor Modern Warfare 3 runs at 60 FPS.
One would think 60 FPS is superior but Karl-Magnus from DICE had something interesting to say in an interview with Ausgamers.
He believes the issue of frame rate on consoles is being blown out of proportion and there is nothing bad about a game running at 30 FPS. “our games have been running at 30 FPS since we started doing console games. There’s nothing “bad” about this.” he said.
He obiviously acknowledges the fact that 60 FPS is an unique selling point but also mentions that there is a lot more you can do with 30 FPS and Battlefield 3 is technically superior than Modern Warfare 3.
“I believe that they want to create an experience that are more twitchy, and it’s faster and these kind of things. 30 FPS works really well for us. I believe this matter is completely blown out of proportion. If you look at the frame-rate, a lot of games do run at 30 FPS and [for] shooters from console, it works very well. The tempo of Battlefield 3 is slightly lower so it works really well for us,” Magnus explained.
He also said that running at 30 FPS on consoles gives Battlefield 3 the unique advantage in-game that makes the gameplay more immersive for the players. “It also comes with the fact that our games have large open environments; we have tonnes of vehicles; we have more players; we have all-out destruction in the environment.”
Some people prefer 30 FPS, some prefer the responsive 60 FPS. What’s your poison? Tell us in the comments section below.
Also do check out the full interview at Ausgamers because it is simply awesome.
