Far Cry 3 performance on PS3

Not unusual. Here's the relevant paragraph from the Digital Foundry write-up: According to them, both console versions average right around 25fps. And since they let frames tear below 30, it'll be tearing quite a bit. But again, that's not unusual for most multiplatform titles.

We're long overdue for the next Xbox and Playstation. If it doesn't happen next year, I might try gaming on PC for a change. These consoles have to go; they're ****ing dinosaurs.

So nobody remembers the first year of the 360 and the first two years of the PS3 when every game ran like crap? You want to bring that back with a new console generation? Pff! Short memories around here.

It's pretty simple. The Far Cry 3 devs chose prettier lighting over stable frame rates on the consoles. It is the wrong choice. SSAO has no place being implemented on this hardware, Far Cry 3 uses it, hence crap frame rates. SSAO lighting is a hog, and dropping that single feature would bring this game right back in to the stable 30fps with occasional 25-29fps tearing that we have become accustomed to on these consoles.

Nothing about a new generation has ever, or will ever fix that. Devs make some pretty dumb choices sometimes. New console hardware won't fix dumb.

Devs need to work within the constraints of the console. I rented FC3 and the frame-rate is below acceptable in my opinion, yet it's getting all these 9/10 reviews. Guess it doesn't bother other people.

Seriously Markcus?

I dunno man, I play the game and I don't notice anything different than any other game I play.

You guys have some serious super-human perception.

Here's a video of some PS3 gameplay: http://youtu.be/9iswIBEEHNU

Are you seriously telling me that this is unplayable?

yeah, that video looks good to me, but there's really not much going on, what happens when you have a lot of action going on at once? Does it glitch up?

Sub-30 framerates is the norm on consoles. Very few console games retain a constant 30fps. Most hover in the mid-20s. And even fewer can hit consistently higher. As even Digital Foundry makes clear in their analysis, the "cap at 30 and tear beneath" approach is pretty much the norm for console games these days. If that bothers you, you'd probably be better served with a faster platform.

It's all about perspective. One of the highest rated games of last generation had one of the worst framerates (Shadow of the Colossus). Hell, many of the highest rated games of 2012 have some ugly framerate issues on console (Assassin's Creed 3, Mass Effect 3, Max Payne 3, etc.). Console development has always been about balancing performance and flash. I don't think that's going away anytime soon.
Edited by confidenceman - 12/10/12 at 1:36pm

I have put a good 10+ hours into the game on the 360 and have noticed some tearing and slower framerates.....but nothing game-breaking whatsoever. I have been in some heated firefights with explosions and 10-15 enemies on screen and enjoyed every second of it. Ya, it's no COD 60 FPS game, but still very playable and very enjoyable in my opinion. This is a topic that really has no right or wrong answer. Some people cant stand screen tearing and sub 30 FPS, while others aren't really bothered by it if they are having a blast while it happens.

Yep, pretty much this.

This game seemed to be lower than most to me and it's not just me talking-you can read the DF article where they said it's sub 25fps most of the time: http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-far-cry-3-face-off

Funny thing is the same site gave it a 10/10. Performance should be part of the score in my opinion.

If you read the DF article (and I cited it two posts above yours), you'll notice that they say the framerate is no different from pretty much all other multiplatform games on consoles. It's really not unusual. You may just be noticing it more for some reason.

And IIRC Far Cry 2's console performance was much worse (not to mention that the FOV was incredibly narrow). The framerate was worse. The pop-in was worse. Etc. Far Cry 3 just doesn't have that "wow" factor because most developers have long since hit the visual ceiling for the current gen. In terms of framerate, it's no better or worse than most of what's out there.

confidence seems to be reading a different article than the rest of us. Yes, DF says "in short, it's the standard "lock at 30, tear beneath" set-up common to many console titles." That looks to be where you stopped reading. Following that statement of the standard ideal follows:

"Our footage starts off at an unprecedented low during the cut-scene with Vaas, for which we record a remarkably sluggish 15FPS on PS3"

"Even so, travelling around the islands by either foot or car still gives us wavering readings on both consoles, mostly circulating around the 25FPS point."

"However, the regular, high levels of tearing prove to be the greater issue here."

"Rather than being subtly marginalised to the top of each console's output, each frame is constantly under threat of being torn directly through the middle when the hardware is stressed. This becomes a major blemish on both PS3 and 360"

"Far Cry 3 operates at the same circa 25FPS as before, and with the same onslaught of full screen tearing"

"On-rails set pieces bring both consoles down to the greatest extent in our footage, and a shoot-out from the back of a rolling car causes both the 360 and PS3 to drop to little over 20FPS."

"Alas, abundant full-screen tearing does much to curtail the look of an otherwise gorgeously designed game on console platforms, for which both PS3 and 360 are guilty to equal degrees. Frame-rate is also a big drag too, and we'd hoped for better than the 20-30FPS fluctuations we're getting from both platforms during gunplay - though 360 fares slightly better here overall."

In short, this game runs poorly on the 360, and like a dog on the PS3. Yes, the standard lately has very much been "30fps vsync with 25-29fps tearing", but quality games have held pretty well to that 30fps vsync with minimal framerate drops and tearing localized to the top of the screen where it isn't as glaring. This title sustains it's 20-25fps, tear-filled gameplay for extended periods of time and rarely hits the 30fps vsync target. It's a difference of percentages and those percentages stack up. This game is 80% slow, tearing mess with 20% 30fps vsync. The standard is 80% 30fps vsync with 20% tearing. There is a pretty large difference there, and it effects the user experience.

confidence, you can hand-wave the framerate issues and say they don't bother you. That's fine. What isn't fine is claiming that this game's performance is in line with it's contemporaries when it so obviously isn't.

We need new hardware. This is really getting ridiculous. These consoles can't even run the latest games on low settings at 30 FPS anymore. AC3 goes from playing like a dream to utter crap because the frame rate dips to, oh, I don't know, four whenever the action picks up. Gaming on a PC -- as much as I dread even the idea of it, it's looking like the only option at this point. Sony and Microsoft have completely dropped the ball this time around.

I'm gonna bump my own post from above and ask again, "Are you seriously telling me that this game is unplayable?" What part of this would cause you to stop and say, "Man! This sucks!"

Maybe I'm just dumb, or not observant, or... heck I don't know. But I'm happy I'm that way cause I'd rather play the game and enjoy it, rather than get caught up in frame rates, and interpolation, v-syncs and blah blah blah. I play it, it looks great.

You may think that 10-15 enemies and a lot of explosions would chug the frame rate to hell, but that's not true. I never had any problems with frame rate for the entire first island and clearing out all of the second island. The problems arose when getting into the destruction of hoyt's ****. It got particularly horrible when I was tasked to man the mounted turret with sam driving the car out of the oil stores we had just destroyed. I began getting about a frame a second and i couldn't get it to rise past that until i restarted my ps3. You could say that my ps3 may have overheated, but my room is like a freezer right now. I was unhappy with the entire last 3 hours of the game anyway, because i decided to fix all the radio towers before touching any outposts, which i cleared before touching the story (horrible by the way, without the enemy infested sandbox to relax in after a terrible checkpoint filled story mission, the duality of ****** endings is even more annoying.) If anyone hasn't finnished the game by the way, don't join citra. I didn't, thankfully, and i looked it up to see if i chose wisely, and I did.

I just bought this game used from game stop online. It came with no cover or manual. Does anyone know where I can print out the box cover art? The game stop cover is crap. Thanks.

yeah I did already try a google search. None of the images I see contain a printable version of the original cover/spine/back page for the ps3.

YES!!! Platinumed Far Cry 3!!!

Hardest part was getting the right Co-Op Maps to come up, and finally got the last two needed ones the other night.

First game I've ever TRIED to Platinum and worked towards it and accomplished it! Yes! Great, great, great, game.

Will do another play-through a little later, but for now it's time for Sleeping Dogs, finishing up Assassin's Creed 3, Mass Effect 3 and finishing up Kingdoms of Amalur and SKyrim. Good stuff.

Congratulations on your first platinum! I rarely attempt to get platinums, so I know how satisfying it can be to find a game that's both a lot of fun and whose platinum trophy isn't too onerous. Last night I got one for Dishonored, and I recently got one for Sleeping Dogs, but it had been about a year since I'd previously got one.

oh I don't need super human perception

it tears really really bad on my ps3, I don't know how these software dev's can get away with releasing this crap.

sure it looks good and is a very big game but jeeze

this reminds me of fallout, dishonored, dead island & skyrim etc

hopefully they sort it out with a update, im on v1.03
Edited by Owen James - 1/24/13 at 10:50pm

...or pretty much any other major multiplatform release. I think folks are just noticing it more in recent games like FC3 because we're all growing impatient with sub-30 fps and tearing. But it's been pretty much the status quo for the past couple of years with major multiplatform titles. And unlike games like Fallout 3, Fallout NV, and Skyrim (and more recently Assassin's Creed 3), Far Cry 3 isn't plagued by bugs. It just has some small issues with performance.
I can't think of a single console release where tearing and/or framerate have been improved through an update. Not saying it hasn't happened before. Just that it's so rare and insignificant that I can't think of an example off the top of my head. I wouldn't hold your breath. They knew their performance targets throughout development. Presumably they hit exactly what they were shooting for, so there's nothing for them to "sort out."
Edited by confidenceman - 1/25/13 at 7:44am

The original Bioshock is the only game I can think of that added the ability to unlock the frame rate with a patch. This came at the expense of visible tearing, but the game ran a lot closer to 60fps. It did look nice and was very smooth, though.

I'm anxious to check out Far Cry 3. The Amazon deal a few days ago made it an easy purchase decision.