Battlefield 3 PS3, X360 to support half PC frame rate

Sunday, 19th June 2011 23:37 GMT By Brenna Hillier

DICE has confirmed both console versions of Battlefield 3 will run at half the frame rate of the PC offering.

Answering fan questions on Twitter, DICE’s Johan Andersson said the developer favours 30 fps for consoles.

“We always do 30 fps on consoles, [it's] not possible to fit in vehicles, [effects], scale and all players otherwise”.

The PC version is said to run at 60 fps.

The rendering architect also confirmed both console versions will run at a resolution of 720, as opposed to the PC’s full HD of 1080p.

When this raised ire among followers, Andersson pointed out that a large number of console games run at 720 anyway.

“Dude, 99.9 [percent] of PS3 and Xbox 360 games are 720p. And a lot of them, including MW2 [are] way lower than that”, he claimed.

“We think huge levels, lots of players, great [effects], destruction, vehicles & varied gameplay is more important than 1080p,” he added.

If only DICE had more power at its disposal than the PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360 offer, eh?

“Yes we want the Gen4 consoles to come out sooner rather than later, we’re ready!” Andersson commented.

Thanks, Battlefield 3 Blog.



  1. Lounds

    KZ3 runs at 30fps that looks nice and plays nice, plus720p. PC version all depends on the system anyways, my current system can only play BC2 is high/medium, so im gonna need a new pc (res 1080p).

    #1 3 years ago
  2. Lounds

    2012 DICE “WIIU can run BF3 in 1080p”

    #2 3 years ago
  3. IL DUCE

    Yeah and then it will take them 6 years into the console cycle to put out another main entry to the Battlefield series…

    #3 3 years ago
  4. Talkar

    @That doesn’t really matter to me. I would rather a developer took their time to create an amazing game, such as StarCraft or The Witcher, instead of rushing games just for the money, such as CoD or Need for Speed.
    Hell, i still play BF1942 because it is so awesome! And yes my pc can handle more demanding games, got 3D Vision running on a intel quad core and a GTX 480 from nvidia.

    #4 3 years ago
  5. xino

    what is pissing me off is how they are using the PC version as the selling tool.

    we’ll see if the sales for console backfires on them:/

    #5 3 years ago
  6. NeoSquall

    “Yes we want the Gen4 consoles to come out sooner rather than later, we’re ready!” Andersson commented.

    WTF? Are they waiting for this generation?

    #6 3 years ago
  7. dtyk

    and what pisses me off is that people like you don’t understand that PC as the main platform raises the quality for all platforms.

    #7 3 years ago
  8. deadstoned

    @5 A lot of games use PC footage in their trailers for better visuals. DICE is just be more open and honest in that regard. Plus us PC players appreciate the extra love. Most things born on the PC go multiplatform, like our once sacred Crysis and many others. Its like Xbox losing Halo or Gears.

    But still the console versions will be some of the best looking games out there right now, with crazy destruction and vehicle warfare to boot ^^ .

    #8 3 years ago
  9. Gama_888

    “We think huge levels, lots of players, great [effects], destruction, vehicles & varied gameplay is more important than 1080p,” he added.

    AGREED 100% :)

    @6, yeh i picked up on that too, they must be basing this on Playstation numbering :)

    #9 3 years ago
  10. freedoms_stain

    @5, I’d say DICE have been pretty straight up about what footage is what.

    #10 3 years ago
  11. DSB

    @4 To be fair, that was an entirely different time for DICE. They made what I consider one of the best rally games of all time, and Battlefield 2 was completely unique, and sadly it still is.

    They certainly weren’t taking their time back then, though. They were absolutely massproducing those games, as well as selling expansion packs for far more than they were really worth. I had to wait to buy them back then because I only had my allowance.

    Things always look a bit prettier in hindsight.

    They stole the show back then, but since BF2142 I haven’t seen anything coming from DICE that was above average.

    #11 3 years ago
  12. Moonwalker1982

    Wish they would just say something about the 360 version. Rumours keep going around about how that version is far from being ‘ready’ to be shown to the public, and i just don’t understand that..if thats true. Guess wel’ll have to wait.

    #12 3 years ago
  13. Talkar

    Well, back then it took a lot less to develop a game, so talking about development time back then, as if it was a game being developed now is plain wrong x) But i will agree on that BF2142 was really bad (except maybe for the Titan mode, that was kindda fun).

    #13 3 years ago

    Dear DICE/EA,

    720p@30fps =/= 1080p+@60fps+.

    Please stop pretending otherwise.



    #14 3 years ago
  15. darksied

    @14 …

    What are you even talking about? Please stop pretending … what? They have been clear from the beginning that they’re showing PC footage, so obviously they’re showing footage of a game running and looking better than it will on a console. How exactly does that mean they are trying to pass off their footage of the game as console footage? You comment makes no sense. If you’re a console player who was thinking of getting BF3 but was tricked by the footage that they have said MULTIPLE TIMES is PC, and now you hate them for it, then good; stay AWAY from the game; it’ll be better off for it.

    #15 3 years ago
  16. TD_Monstrous69

    U know what, I appreciate DICE for their honesty on this issue. Though I’m a little bummed the game doesn’t look as great on consoles as it does on the PC (had a feeling it’d be too good to be true), the game still looks great on the PS3 none the less, which is what I’ll be buying it for innitially. I do plan on building a gaming PC within the year (gotta find another job first, and buy all the components and software), and this will be the first game I pick up for it once I get my rig up and running (or at least one of the first, seeing as how some sites do have bundles with games when you buy certain graphics cards).

    #16 3 years ago
  17. ultramega

    “The rendering architect also confirmed both console versions will run at a resolution of 720, as opposed to the PC’s full HD of 1080p.”

    PC’s are capable of higher than 1080p, by the way. But I’m just nitpicking :P

    #17 3 years ago
  18. Erthazus

    Who gives a shit?

    PS3 version already supports like Direct X9 effects and absolutely horrible shadows, lightning, textures, Almost no AA, disgusting filters, No grass.

    PS3 version judging by Fallon just got a standard engine capabilities and playing Battlefield on PS3 is pure hipocricy if you are a hardcore gamer. Still it looks better then 90% of shooters on PS3 including MW3, but thats because Battlefield 3 have just a better engine. Everything else just sucks ass.

    PS3 and 360 are done. I’m playing on them just for the exclusives and next year i don’t know if exclusives will be worth to keep consoles.

    Also, i’m not going to play Battlefield 3 with 60 fps and 1080p. I’m going to play much higher then that and i mean much, much higher then that.

    #18 3 years ago
  19. HighWindXIX

    Someone please correct me if I am wrong, but aren’t the consoles incapable of running real 1080p? At best don’t they just take 720p and upscale essentially? So that even when it says “1080p” on the back of the box, its a bit of a lie…

    Either way, anyone who thought the consoles would match PC are stupid.

    #19 3 years ago
  20. Gekidami

    ^ You are indeed wrong. Not many, but some console games do run in full 1080p.

    #20 3 years ago
  21. Erthazus

    @19, casual little PSN, XBL titles are capable of 1080p :D

    I’m interested to see if Wii U is capable of 1080p with Battlefield 3.
    Judging by Radeon R700 series with 4.1 shader model, i think it can.

    #21 3 years ago
  22. Schindet Nemo


    Both Xbox360 and PS3 ARE capable of running 1080p games but they are a pain in the ass for programmers to make. Most devs go the lazy way and upscale a 1024×768 game to 720p. At least they’ll run smoothly that way.

    AFAIK Wipeout HD and GT5 Prologue run on native 1920×1080.

    #22 3 years ago
  23. roubignolo

    Rage is running @60fps on consoles

    #23 3 years ago
  24. YoungZer0

    @18: Lol, we’re talking about the console version but you just had to go ahead and complain about the PS3 again, god, you’re so predictable.

    #24 3 years ago
  25. Erthazus

    It’s a thread about PC and console version so go away. Also, no complain. I speak about PS3 version because it is the only version that was showed on Fallon show and it was not impressive at all. Go figure, genius.

    #25 3 years ago
  26. Espers

    PS3 is CAPABLE OF RUNNING GAMES IN 1080p, No problem. I played Final Fantasy XIII in 1080p and this game has LOADS of EFFECTS !!!
    So please don’t blame your laziness on Consoles.

    #26 3 years ago
  27. StolenGlory


    You’re not serious right? Sticking your display res at 1080p, does not force every game you play to run at 1080p.

    Final Fantasy XIII runs at 720p on PS3.

    #27 3 years ago
  28. YoungZer0

    @26: It’s not that easy, if you have to show of alot of stuff, you have to go down with the p. Battlefield 3 is one of the victims in this case. Having said that, yes i do think they are lazy.

    #28 3 years ago
  29. Hunam

    My PC is only going to run it at 20FPS anyway :P

    As for the 1080P thing, yeah, almost nothing runs at 1080p. Uncharted runs at 720P would you call ND lazy?

    #29 3 years ago
  30. RandomTiger

    @26 Consoles can run full 1080p but often developers choose not to because the extra processing and memory use could be put to what they consider better use with effects or other visual improvements, there’s always going to be a three way pull between framerates (and vsync) and resolution and the amount of visual content.

    Personally I prefer a game to never drop below 30fps (which many games seem to these days) and to have no tearing than be 1080p. I think the importance of 1080p is overstated this gen.

    #30 3 years ago
  31. Erthazus

    @26, It’s called UPSCALLING.

    Final Fantasy XIII runs 720p on PS3 only and btw it’s very smooth 720p.

    On topic:

    Same goes to Uncharted 2 for example. I like when devs like Naughty dog say straight: 720p and good looking game and you get the best out of it.

    But noooo… developers like Ubisoft write 1080p on their package when Ass Creed looks like shit and run horrible even with 720p on the PS3 or 360.

    #31 3 years ago
  32. mojo

    “AFAIK Wipeout HD and GT5 Prologue run on native 1920×1080.”
    Wipeout utilizes a technique developed by studio liverpool called dynamic resolution. With normal load the gamne runs in 1920*1080 but with more action onscreen the res can be dynamicaly reduced to fit the payload.
    GT5 Prologue runs in 1280*1080 ingame and 1440*1080 in replays.
    GT5 the same afaik.
    Sacred 2 runs in 1920*1080

    often PSN games run in 1080

    #32 3 years ago
  33. DrDamn

    Couple of points. Yes both consoles can run at 1080p natively but it does place a lot of restrictions on the developers – the sweet spot for this generation of consoles is 720p. Wipeout does one of the best jobs of doing 1080p but will dynamically switch down a little when needed – it’s really not noticeable. GT5 I think does some dynamic switching too, and only some elements of the game are full 1080p. I think GT5 is a great example of a game compromising to reach 1080p too – sometimes it looks beautiful but at other times the lack of texture quality can make it look very bland.

    Devs supporting 1080p through upscaling and putting it on the box. Bit double edged – the console upscaling rather than just letting your TV do it can generally produce a better result so this is a good thing to know. It would be good if they gave an indication of how they were achieving 1080p – though it is generally safe to assume upscaling unless you know different.

    I like the way it’s stated PC’s are doing 1080p at 60fps – because all PC’s are going to achieve that aren’t they? They aren’t restricted by processors, GPUs etc. Every single one of them will support 1080p at 60fps. It’s a given.

    Final point. I originally saw this reported as a BF3/MW3 comparison point. Which is actually more of a story no? PC’s support higher resolution and framerate shocker! Hold the front page. The comparison of BF3/MW3 on consoles is a bit more interesting as MW3 will run at 60fps (for the most part). It will achieve this with upscaling to 720p and a very, very basic physics engine in comparison though. Swings and roundabouts – the physics/vehicles is part of what makes the BF series for me, no doubt the higher responsiveness and framerate is what makes the CoD series for someone like G1GA though – which is all fair enough :)

    #33 3 years ago
  34. noherczeg

    I’m pissed about the comments here.

    As DrDamn wrote it above me:

    You console players have playeg your games 98% at 720p (maybe upscaled) ALL THE TIME before. It’s not a new thing. It’s not DICE’s fault that they can’t push the hardware more.

    The OP is wrong and missleading: Not all of the PCs can run this game at high settings in 1080p. Why? Loot into the box of your maschine plz, get the brainz etc. The only thing for sure is, that there will be PC-s wich can run this game at 1080p+ (notice the plus sign…) at 60+ FPS (dat plus sign again, shocking).

    With a better hardware you can achieve better graphics than consoles, this can’t be news to anyone except if one lives under a rock or some sort…

    So what’s the news about this whole Console vs PC thing? NOTHING.

    Get it for the platform you prefer the most and thats all.

    #34 3 years ago
  35. DSB

    @13 Do you honestly believe that? :P 6 years ago it wasn’t uncommon for developers to take 2 or indeed more years.

    @34 Roughly 40% are going to be able to run it with the recommended hardware according to the Steam hardware survey.

    I think it’s far worse that they’re only capable of 24 players. That has to mean really small maps and very limited vehicles. Assuming that you need a gunner and a driver for each vehicle, that puts you down a third of your total players, as soon as you put two vehicles on the map.

    #35 3 years ago
  36. bluffbluff03

    Doesn´t Call Of Duty run at 60fps on consoles?

    #36 3 years ago
  37. StolenGlory

    It sure does.

    Running with it’s sub-HD 1024×600 framebuffer I might add.

    #37 3 years ago
  38. mojo

    yes it does. and it deserves massive credit for that.
    far to less games do so.

    like DSB, the single most concerning thing about bf3 on consoles is the utterly poor playercount.
    DICE, pls, dumb down the graphics, cut out textures at all if needed, whatever, but pls dont cripple console versions with such a disappointing playercount. stickman characters with no animation whatsoever? Cool with me if there are 64 players on the field.
    Playercount + vehicle combat is the signature feature of BF. How can one be cool with it getting thrown away?

    #38 3 years ago
  39. Erthazus

    Of course 60 fps (in reality it’s much lower) with it’s super fantastic engine that is capable of 1024×600 that is barely can manage to show direct x9 effects with almost zero physics engine at all.

    #39 3 years ago
  40. mojo

    erth, its a mp game.
    mp games dont need grafics.
    they never did and never will.

    #40 3 years ago
  41. Maximum Payne

    Just look at RAGE people 60 frames,open world and great graphic MW2 engine it nothing to brag about.

    #41 3 years ago
  42. StolenGlory


    Nobody brags about the MW2 engine because it serves a very singular purpose; it provides a near constant 60fps gameplay experience which is essential for the sort of twitch based run ‘n’ gun that the franchise is loved for.

    #42 3 years ago
  43. Erthazus

    @40, it’s a FPS game. FPS always need good graphics since Wolfenstein 3D. FPS always pushed the hardware and graphics. thats a fact and it’s always going to be like that.

    Also, good multiplayer shooter or any game need great visuals and great physics technology.

    Battlefield 3 shows that. Without great physics engine you can suck ass with no vehicles (each vehicle have have it’s own physics code), destruction, stuff physics and etc.
    With just a FIFA model physics gameplay is very dynamic.

    @42, with just crappy textures in it. There are a lot of stuff that is not next gen, they don’t even support direct X10 or 11, physX.
    Game still looks great, but they put a lot of time to make it look decent in the console world with it’s Megatexture thing.

    Real Next gen as Carmack said will be Doom 4.

    #43 3 years ago
  44. YoungZer0

    “Also, good multiplayer shooter or any game need great visuals and great physics technology.”

    Erm, no. The best Multiplayer Shooters still look like shit and are played as hell.

    #44 3 years ago
  45. DSB

    Herp derp indeed.

    You can make any bullshit rule regarding tech or framerates you want, but ultimately an FPS is really only meant to be fun, just like any other game.

    The notion that fun can be measured in pixels or advanced physics models is just braindead.

    #45 3 years ago
  46. Maximum Payne

    @43 I still don’t like how in BF3 you can’t slide or strafe running considering how you always run if BF games :(

    #46 3 years ago
  47. Erthazus

    @46, i think you can slide now.

    @44, Best multiplayer shooters like Battlefield 1942, Battlefield 2 looked absolutely fantastic for it’s time and pushed the hardware forward.

    Unreal Tournament 1, 2004 pushed the hardware to death.

    Quake 2,3 pushed the hardware and technology to death with each of their engines.

    Operation Flashpoint 1|Arma 1-2 are not masterpieces but they always required next gen hardware for their multiplayer component.

    Counter-strike|source didn’t pushed the hardware and while Counter Strike until 1.6 looked very bad, CS:Source pushed the Source engine to it’s limits with physics engine. It looked absolutely gorgeous at it’s time + source run very well on Geforce MX 440

    Sorry. Multiplayer masterpieces pushed the hardware to it’s limits a lot of times and it will be always like that.
    It’s a spiritual trend. It’s a tradition.

    #47 3 years ago
  48. OrbitMonkey

    Well as a console gamer I could give a fuck. It’s not like i’m gonna be playing this, beating myself up, cuz it doesn’t look as good as the high end pc version I don’t own.

    #48 3 years ago
  49. Lounds

    CS.16 & CSS are most played MP games on Steam

    #49 3 years ago
  50. DrDamn

    “The notion that fun can be measured in pixels or advanced physics models is just braindead.”

    Agreed on pixels but a decent physics model does add to the fun in the BF series. So many of my BF “moments” are down to the possibilities that the physics engine provides. I accept there is diminishing returns in terms of amount more they put in to how much more you can get out though.

    I’d say the BF physics engine is more advanced than CoD (much more so), and that provides the fun I’m after. Not having such a good physics engine means there are limits to the CoD gameplay – but it’s a trade off for a smoother frame rate. So it’s a particular type of fun more advanced physics is adding – not a flat out, is definitely more fun – depends what you are looking for.

    #50 3 years ago
  51. YoungZer0

    @47: That was not my point. UT for example looks like shit by todays standards, i know it was the shit back then when it came to graphics, but not today. But people still play it. Why? Because it’s fun. Why do you rather play Battlefield 2 instead of Battlefield Bad Company 2?

    #51 3 years ago
  52. DSB

    @50 Oh I agree. I wasn’t saying that physics couldn’t be part of the fun, if it’s done properly then it’s definitely great. I’d still say it’s more about the application than the actual technology, though. I fail to see how it plays a big part in a “realistic” military shooter like BC2.

    I don’t recall using gravity or crushing anyone with falling debris. Aside from the scripted buildings falling down on top of them and what not.

    @51 He’s leaving out the fact that none of the games he mentions are made with licensed tech (although with BF1942 it depends on the perspective). It’s all done by developers who are looking to sell engines, as much as the games they make, so of course they have a direct obligation to make sure that they show off everything they can do.

    There are plenty of shooters out there that ran on licensed tech, rather than proprietary, and are still great fun for everyone. Deus Ex, CoD, Medal of Honor, Counter-Strike, Soldier of Fortune, Kingpin, Enemy Territory, America’s Army, Clive Barker’s Undying etc.

    I recently started playing BF2 again. It’s still an awesome game.

    #52 3 years ago
  53. mojo

    “@40, it’s a FPS game. FPS always need good graphics since Wolfenstein 3D. FPS always pushed the hardware and graphics. thats a fact and it’s always going to be like that.”

    did i say the opposite?
    yes, shooters always tend to have best graphics in gaming.
    Still, they dont need them. At least MP Games dont. SP is completly different affair.
    but in an mp the last and realy the very very last thing, im concerend about is the graphic.
    its the very last thing that contributes to a fun mp battle.

    and for the record: physics arent graphics.

    #53 3 years ago
  54. Erthazus

    @51, for todays standard it still looks great. It’s not current gen or next gen, but great visuals are not just: Hey guys, lets put a maximum polygons in there and it will look great.

    Obviously not.

    If you are going to do it right, game can look after 10-20 years great. Engine is obviously a tool, but you can create a really great looking game that can still look good after so many years.

    Unreal 2004 is a great game and looks decent even today. Sure it’s not powered by direct X11, physX and other 2011 stuff, but it looks good for what it is because game has it’s artistic soul.

    I like Battlefield 2 and Bad Company 2. They are both great. Battlefield 2 is obviously better, but even visually you look at it and really don’t care much about visuals these days, because you GOT in the past that next generation feel with BF2. Time to move on and Battlefield 3 will deliver a current|next gen stuff.

    #54 3 years ago
  55. Erthazus

    @mojo, “and for the record: physics arent graphics.”

    It’s a technology and thats important.

    “but in an mp the last and realy the very very last thing, im concerend about is the graphic.
    its the very last thing that contributes to a fun mp battle.”

    Just try to play multiplayer game with crappy graphics (really crappy) and you will regret it.

    Graphics for the MP game is VERY important. Just a simple example:

    STALKER vs Call Of Duty multiplayer:

    STALKER – enemy models look so damn bad that you can’t recognize who is in your team and who is your enemy.

    Call Of duty – you can recognize every enemy. Lightning and everything else is done right to reflect it so you can recognise the target you want.

    also, when you make movies for youtube or somethinbg, i want to say that visuals are important as hell.

    #55 3 years ago
  56. The Evil Pope

    20/06/11, 6:57 am

    U know what, I appreciate DICE for their honesty on this issue. Though I’m a little bummed the game doesn’t look as great on consoles as it does on the PC (had a feeling it’d be too good to be true), the game still looks great on the PS3 none the less, which is what I’ll be buying it for innitially.

    What did you expect? The PC version is always going to be better than the console version. Period.

    Console gamers don’t understand the PC platform. It’s not fucking for them and never will be. Fact.

    If they did understand the PC platform then they wouldn’t be saying shit like, oh you need a £2000 PC, you need to update your GPU every year, there’s no games on the PC, etc. All of which is nonsense.

    Console minions should stick to consoles. It’s a simple box for simple people.

    #56 3 years ago
  57. StolenGlory

    @56 – I agree with pretty much everything you said until I got to the end of your post:

    “Console minions should stick to consoles. It’s a simple box for simple people.”

    Generalise much?

    #57 3 years ago
  58. mojo

    “Just try to play multiplayer game with crappy graphics (really crappy) and you will regret it.”

    thats exactly my point
    i dont regret it.
    idc for graphics in a multiplayer game.

    ive played cs1.6 and css (purposely on lowest graphical settings – although my rig could do far better) long enough to be sure about that.

    #58 3 years ago
  59. DrDamn

    “I fail to see how it plays a big part in a “realistic” military shooter like BC2.”

    Physics is a huge part of the vehicles and how they interact with the environment. I’ve watched a jeep take a jump over some tank wreakage, nose dive on landing and do a 720 roll in the air before coming down an some unsuspecting victim. I’ve crested a hill in BF1943 to see the fuselage of a fighter plane come barrelling towards me and over my head. I’ve been happily capturing a flag in BF2MC safely in my tank whilst some git has parachuted down from a chopper above, chucked C4 at me as he fell, blown me up before landing and taking it back for his team. I take great joy in plying the front of the zippiest vehicle with C4 then charging round as a mobile tank buster, targeting then jumping out just before impact and triggering the C4.

    All these fun moments were made possible and enhanced by a great physic engines.

    #59 3 years ago
  60. noherczeg

    Physics and the graphics are an essential part in BF3. “They” have purposes. It’s not a cool thing because its shiny, and so on. I’ll try to show it with some examples:

    - Fog, and lights: We had stupid and bad fog an dlights in other games, but in BF3 There’s lotsa, and it defines the gameplay style. If you’re in a desert, defines where to go, where’s a safe spot etc..

    - Lights: If I can recall correctly suppressing fire has a “blinding” effect too, or some sort of thing. Tactics anyone?

    - Physics: The enemy is behind a wall. You can’t shoot trough it with your AR, so what do you do? Well: throw a grenade and blast the wall to smitereens -> kill bad man. Switch to your CG and do the same. Or: You need covert because you’re overruned by the enemy forces, what do you do? You shoot at anerby wall corner, or anything wich seems ok for the purpose of MAKING COVER. profit.

    There are other things, but i don’t want to post anything bigger here. To sum things up a bit:

    The main reason why I simphatize with DICE on the graphics topic is, because they are using the advantages of it, and solely because the game looks prettier than any other to this date.

    #60 3 years ago
  61. DSB

    @59 Fair enough, I didn’t consider that. I was thinking about collapsing structures, or making building materials topple over whoever’s taking cover behind them. To be fair, you don’t need a great physics engine simply do to suspension and weight in terms of vehicles, but I’m sure Frostbite 2 would support a lot more than that in any case.

    I agree that C4′ing vehicles was some of the most fun you could have in the original BF2, but it seems to me like the original Frostbite engine didn’t support very many structures, so sadly you had no cover in the form of alleyways etc. That made sneaking up on vehicles a lot less amusing.

    @60 Particle effects played no part in the gameplay in BC2, beyond obscuring the destruction.

    I also don’t recall ever being suppressed in BC2, or succesfully suppressing anyone. Life means nothing in a game where you just respawn, ergo suppression is useless.

    The destruction in BC2 is obviously limited, and the buildings clearly don’t respond to physics. They take a predetermined ammount of damage before collapsing in a standard animation, largely obscured by particle effects.

    #61 3 years ago
  62. noherczeg

    #61 By the Suppressing thing I meant BF3, not the previous ones :)

    #62 3 years ago
  63. DSB

    @62 Ah, well I haven’t played that one ;)

    #63 3 years ago
  64. ExxonValdez

    What was the frame rate on Bad Company 2? It should be just as good as that maybe even better.

    #64 3 years ago

Comments are now closed on this article.