60 FPS is Modern Warfare 3's "Competitive Edge"

Andy Chalk

One Flag, One Fleet, One Cat
Nov 12, 2002
60 FPS is Modern Warfare 3's "Competitive Edge"

Sledgehammer Games General Manager Glen Schofield says Modern Warfare 3's [http://www.amazon.com/Call-Duty-Modern-Warfare-Xbox-360/dp/B00503E8S2/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1309359879&sr=8-1] ability to run at 60 frames per second gives it a distinct edge over the competition because if you're not running at 60, you might as well not be running at all.

The war of petty zings between Activision and EA over the modern battlefield genre continued today in an Battlefield 3 [http://www.ausgamers.com/features/read/3079156] - or, more precisely, the anonymous "competition."

"We really re-vamped this engine. We put a whole new audio system in and it is as competitive as anybody out there," he said, responding to a question about the impressive Frostbite 2 engine powering Battlefield 3. "You can go out and name your engine and call it whatever you want, right. You know, I've done that before; I've seen that trick and the bottom line is, [Modern Warfare 3] will run at 60 frames a second. Not sure any of our competitors will."

Schofield's comments come off more than a little similar to remarks made by Activision CEO Bobby Kotick, who implied at E3 that Battlefield 3 is "just a PC title [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/110819-E3-Kotick-Casts-Doubts-on-Battlefield-3-Console-Cred]." Developer DICE confirmed earlier this month that the console versions of the game will run at 30 FPS with a 720p resolution but said it was a worthwhile trade-off for better overall gameplay.

"We think huge levels, lots of players, great effects, destruction, vehicles & varied gameplay are more important than 1080p," DICE Rendering Architect Johan Andersson said on Eurogamer [http://twitter.com/repi/status/82448339559399424]]. "How is that a shame? Name a single FPS game that runs at 1080p on any of the consoles? [We] would have to do huge gameplay cuts."

It's quite possible that I'm looking at this from the wrong angle but as a long-time PC gamer I'm used to tweaking various visual settings in a quest to find the sweet spot between smooth frame rates and eye-punching visuals, and it's my experience that frame rate ain't everything. More is better but if you can shave a little off the top in exchange for a few more explosions, a shower of bullet casings and blood spatter on the walls that lasts forever, and still keep things nice and smooth, I'd call it a worthwhile compromise. And I think that a slavish devotion to frame rate and resolution can ultimately be a bit counter-productive.

Still, that seems to be the peg upon which Schofield is hanging the Modern Warfare 3 hat. "Not sure I've seen any of our competitors on the console especially running at 60 frames a second and I'd be a little scared at this point - in June - if I was looking forward to a particular game that wasn't on the console and running at 60," he said. "And I think 60 is our competitive edge and you just don't throw that away."

Battlefield 3 comes out on October 25 for the PC, PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360. Modern Warfare 3 follows closely behind, arriving on November 8 for the same platforms.



For the Emperor!
Aug 15, 2008
I'm pretty sure my TV can support 100fps. Get back to me when you start making game engines of that quality.

I was thinking of Hz not fps. Silly me. But in a multiplayer game where the difference between life and death can be a few frames. 60 is definitely the better option. But how many people can actually notice the difference?

Easton Dark

New member
Jan 2, 2011
A constant 30-50fps is good enough for me Sledgehammer, and I bet most of your fans really don't care about it that much.


I plan to live forever.
Apr 10, 2010
Why would you even argue about FPS? :p

I'm going to buy and enjoy both, no matter what the FPS or Resolution is.
Feb 13, 2008
TimeLord said:
I was thinking of Hz not fps. Silly me.
Bet that mistake hertz.


Seriously though, are these guys still in juniors or something?
My game runs faster!
My game runs smoother!
My game's dad can beat up your game's dad!

Grow up before you bring California down on us again.


Want Skyrim. Want. Do want.
Nov 26, 2008
"Our game is better, get ours!"
"No, no, ours is, gets ours instead!"
EDIT: Dammit, Root, you stole my joke when I was writing it.


The Laughing Arsehole
Dec 29, 2009
Can the untrained human eye even tell the difference between 30fps and 60fps?


New member
Jan 25, 2011
I don't know why they need to jab at B3. MW3 has the name power to where they can shit in a box call it MW3 and it will break launch records...

Of course the underdog is going to be out ther hyping them up. Seems like its getting to EA. Its a wierd agruement too. Dice shows impressive visuals EA responds with a number that doesnt mean much. It sure they will both run smooth at launch.

This is like when people were fighting over the N64s 64 bit's vs ps's 32 bits.
I still don't know what those bits were in any case.


New member
Sep 19, 2009
If you want awesome frame rates, get a PC.
Consoles aren't powerful enough to push BF3 style graphics to 60 FPS. On another note, do most people even care? I know my friends do (but they're all primarily PC gamers), but do the majority of the population?


New member
Feb 11, 2009
I read this and as a PC-Gamer couldn't help but think 'what's so unique about that?"

This kinda thing make me wonder if these people have forgotten the PC altogether. From the way MW2 and COD:BLOPS run and play then I would guess that's a yes.


New member
Dec 1, 2009
Easton Dark said:
A constant 30-50fps is good enough for me Sledgehammer, and I bet most of your fans really don't care about it that much.
i think they're stupid enough to use it in an argument even though most of them don't know what the hell they're talking about.

it's the bit wars all over again.

otherwise known as "MINE'S BIGGER!"


New member
Mar 30, 2011
I feel like this argument is getting more and more pointless. Just give me the demo and I'll decide if it's worth my money and time or not.