# Modern Warfare 3 vs. Battlefield 3 60 FPS

This topic is 2948 days old which is more than the 365 day threshold we allow for new replies. Please post a new topic.

## Recommended Posts

Hello!

There seems to be a lot of hype surrounding Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 and Battlefield 3 which will be coming out soon. Both games look phenomenal, however Modern Warfare 3 is able to run at 60 FPS on consoles whereas Battlefield 3 is limited to 30 FPS.

What is the reasoning behind this difference in frame rate between the two games? Is it related to the underlying technology/engine? Is there more optimization in one compared to the other.

Just curious about the technical aspects of these two games!

##### Share on other sites
Unless you have both groups of code before you to compare, we'd just be guessing at why one is faster than the other. However, to go ahead and guess anyway... I'd guess it's related to how the games are very different from each other (aside from having guns and shooting people). Battlefield is known for having hugely wide-open levels where up to 64 players can battle in tanks and fighter jets as well as on foot. This results in the player having to be able to see very far, which means more content is visible at once which means slower frame-rate.
Modern Warefare 3 players battle on foot in closed in urban areas... the farthest you'll be able to see is down a street two or three blocks. They are two different games, and so have different needs to accommodate their different gameplay (read: jets require huge levels).

30 FPS is perfectly playable, so it's not a big deal. Battlefield 3 will let you battle in jets, tanks, and on foot, on teams of 24 vs 24 or even 32 vs 32 (at least on PC) in wide open sanddunes and rocky terrain that require teamwork to even get from one location to another (oh crap, my jeep driver just left with the jeep and left me at base) and longer rounds. Modern Warefare 3 will enable you to battle on foot in more beautifully rendered urban areas, on teams of 12 vs 12 or maybe 16 vs 16, with better physics and graphics and shorter more intense rounds. Different games catering to different tastes, and thus different needs from the hardware...

The only thing the games have in common are: modern setting, military combat, bajillion dollar development budgets, well-known IP, and that they are being released at the same time and thus competing with each other for the same general audience.
The two games will play very differently from one another, if you sit down and play them both for two hours each. If you haven't played either series before, and don't know which to buy, then go for Modern Warfare; it's less likely you'll hate it, since it's more generalized then Battlefield 3 which I feel will be very 'love or hate' for most people as it's not like the other FPSs they are used to.

Personally, I'm not buying either. I'm not a huge multiplayer FPS fan, though I do play casually on occasion. I'll end up picking up Modern Warfare 3 in mid-2012 during a Steam sale for $15 and no higher. #### Share this post ##### Link to post ##### Share on other sites BF3 is much more complex and dynamic, while the CoD games are based on an ancient engine (Quake3 engine). #### Share this post ##### Link to post ##### Share on other sites Unless you have both groups of code before you to compare, we'd just be guessing at why one is faster than the other. However, to go ahead and guess anyway... I'd guess it's related to how the games are very different from each other (aside from having guns and shooting people). Battlefield is known for having hugely wide-open levels where up to 64 players can battle in tanks and fighter jets as well as on foot. This results in the player having to be able to see very far, which means more content is visible at once which means slower frame-rate. Modern Warefare 3 players battle on foot in closed in urban areas... the farthest you'll be able to see is down a street two or three blocks. They are two different games, and so have different needs to accommodate their different gameplay (read: jets require huge levels). 30 FPS is perfectly playable, so it's not a big deal. Battlefield 3 will let you battle in jets, tanks, and on foot, on teams of 24 vs 24 or even 32 vs 32 (at least on PC) in wide open sanddunes and rocky terrain that require teamwork to even get from one location to another (oh crap, my jeep driver just left with the jeep and left me at base) and longer rounds. Modern Warefare 3 will enable you to battle on foot in more beautifully rendered urban areas, on teams of 12 vs 12 or maybe 16 vs 16, with better physics and graphics and shorter more intense rounds. Different games catering to different tastes, and thus different needs from the hardware... The only thing the games have in common are: modern setting, military combat, bajillion dollar development budgets, well-known IP, and that they are being released at the same time and thus competing with each other for the same general audience. The two games will play very differently from one another, if you sit down and play them both for two hours each. If you haven't played either series before, and don't know which to buy, then go for Modern Warfare; it's less likely you'll hate it, since it's more generalized then Battlefield 3 which I feel will be very 'love or hate' for most people as it's not like the other FPSs they are used to. Personally, I'm not buying either. I'm not a huge multiplayer FPS fan, though I do play casually on occasion. I'll end up picking up Modern Warfare 3 in mid-2012 during a Steam sale for$15 and no higher.

Dude, you have this so wrong it HURTS.

BF3 PC: 64 players
BF3 Console: 24 players
MW3: 16 players

"MW3 ... with better physics and graphics," HAHAHAHA don't think so.

##### Share on other sites

Dude, you have this so wrong it HURTS.

BF3 PC: 64 players
BF3 Console: 24 players
MW3: 16 players

"MW3 ... with better physics and graphics," HAHAHAHA don't think so.

Well, I am just making educated guesses, but I'd be really surprised if Battlefield 3 has (much) larger maps, higher player count, AND better graphics and physics while letting players crash jets into tanks.

##### Share on other sites
Alrighty, now then you asked a very general question. Both games on PC will have varying FPS's. It just depends on your hardware, however on console, which has some seriously outdated hardware, will have struggle with the best version of BF3, so that is why they toned the graphics down as well as the amount of players. MW3 is made for consoles, then ported over to PC.

##### Share on other sites
Right. On the PC, the performance can be 60 frames or better, depending on your hardware.

As far as graphics differences to consider, you have a few key basic areas to look at:

animation
models
textures
effects

Overall, I'd say BF3 wins out here based on the previews of the game I have seen. Both games have very good animation, but I think BF3 will be better. I think the models and effects will be much better in BF3 over MW3. I think MW3 may have more texture detail than BF3, since the environments are small and focused.

For physics, there is a lot to consider. You have a much broader scope in BF3. Physics controls so much of the game. Vehicle physics (jets, helicopters, tanks, smaller ground vehicles, boats), destruction physics (buildings, environment), bullet physics (material penetration, trajectory, etc), environment interaction. It looks like you might be able to get knocked down and interact with the environment in interesting ways just by moving through it (hopping up on ledges with a good animation, sliding possibly, i'm not sure). That's kind of a hybrid of good animation and good physics.

MW3 has material penetration physics, but no vehicles and very limited environment interaction and destruction. Basically limited to exploding barrels. The single player will have a lot of cool preanimated destruction, but that doesn't really have any bearing on gameplay or multiplayer. MW3 is really just a refinement of call of duty 4. The game hasn't seen any significant changes since 2007. It's more of the same, and call of duty 4 was amazing and years ahead of it's time, so that's not necessarily a bad thing, but BF3 is new.

Basically MW3 is stable and refined. It's based on the same engine and game that they released in late 2007, which itself is based on quake 3 from 1999 (with extremely heavy modification, so that doesn't really mean much). They've been able to focus on refining that experience that they deliver, and focus on performance and little game play tweaks, but no major changes to the game itself. A lot of the ticket features for MW3 actually exist outside the context of the game. Clans and community features and paid subscriptions for extra content, and stuff like that. You might see slight improvements to the graphics, and a new set of guns, and some new models, but the game is the same.

BF3 is something totally new. The engine is custom and new, and supports physics and animation and destruction on a level that previously did not exist in multiplayer games. The experience is not going to be refined as in MW3, but it will certainly be new and push the FPS genre forward.

----

more important than all of this is the fact that they are very different games. MW3 is all about killstreaks, going rambo / solo. You're generally on a team, but you usually won't notice. Your focus is going to be on getting kills and pulling off hero stuff, all at a super fast pace. You move extremely quickly and most weapons are extremely accurate. Grenades and explosives have a huge blast radius and are used for their lethality and are often tossed at extremely long ranges towards enemy spawn points to maximize kills. Most of the fighting is set up in corridor situations with 2-3 entrances. The main game mode is team death match, where each team tries to get as many kills as possible, although a large number of game types exist (death match, capture the flag, plant the bomb, king of the hill, etc).

BF3 is all about teamwork and denial of area. There is a huge emphasis on using vehicles to gain ground and deny the enemy the ability to move forward. Your foot speed is relatively slow, you usually move in groups of at least 4, and you can spawn on your squad (group of 4). There are classes, each has a special focus, and most squads benefit from having a mix of classes so they can move forward and handle a variety of situations. Grenades are used mostly for denial of area, building clearing, forcing an enemy to move out of cover. Grenades and explosives can be lethal, but only over a small radius. Explosives are geared towards anti-vehicle weapons. Engagements typically occur between points of cover (buildings, rocks, hills, etc) in relatively open areas.

• ### Game Developer Survey

We are looking for qualified game developers to participate in a 10-minute online survey. Qualified participants will be offered a \$15 incentive for your time and insights. Click here to start!

• 11
• 15
• 21
• 26
• 11