Battlefield 3: Up to Date Info
So gamers, as “D-Day” slowly looms before us, more and more information about EA and DICE’s new FPS “Battlefield 3” is being leaked out on a daily basis. Ever since we all got a glimpse of actual game footage two months ago, more and more first person fans are coming out of the wood-works. Even during the E3 Conference two weeks ago, Activision’s head honcho and Mr. Curious, Bobby Kotick, was turned away by reps from EA when he asked to get a look at the competition. My opinion of this is due to the fact that their yearly “cash cow” “Call of Duty” is only 60% finished and was probably trying to see what new innovations he can bring to light to the developers at Sledgehammer and the remnants of Infinity Ward to give them an edge. From what I’ve seen of “Modern Warfare 3,” they are going to need that desperately. I have to admit, when I first watched the video I thought to myself, “Holy crap! I’ve never seen such clarity in the environment. It actually looks like I’m standing right behind the gun.” But alas, when I heard said footage was of PC game play, my heart dropped a little. Would I have to shell out an arm and a leg to build a rig with the right specs to run this game, or will it look the same for the console import? On Thursday, June 16, 2011, DICE and EA decided to put all the rumors to rest by unveiling actual game play footage from the Playstation 3 on “Late Night with Jimmy Fallon.”
Even more news was released stating that DICE chose to run “Battlefield 3” at 30 FPS. Well, when asked why they were not going to run it at 60 FPS, Dice’s Johan Andersson replied, “No, we always do 30 FPS on consoles, not possible to fit in vehicles, fx, scale and all players otherwise.” This suits me just fine, because game after game DICE has done what they felt was right to bring us a superior product that holds longevity in replay value. If you take away the vehicles, destruction 2.0 and large maps what do you have? “Call of Duty.” And I for damn sure don’t want that for $60+.