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

[HeySeansOnline]

Next thing you know they'll be talking about how Modern Warfare 3 has Blast Processing.

 

[Victor Cross]

Didn't MW2 run at 60fps?

 

[gellert1984]

I can run Doom95 at a billion FPS! Therefore Doom95 pwns all!

 

[aashell13]

if this is your best selling point, the i'm pretty sure i'm not going to waste my money.
come back to me when you can promise a coherent narrative and an engaging singleplayer campaign.

 

[Jubbert]

Genesis does what Nintendon't.

BLAST PROCESSING.

 

[MarsProbe]

60fps? Really? I thought MW3s USP was that its singleplayer campaign featured a helicopter crash. As in, the helicopter your character is in crash lands. Seriously people, look it up if you don't believe me. Simply astounding! I can't wait to see what other unique elements they included in the singleplayer campaign.

 

[Frostbite3789]

Sounds like a certain someone working for Sledgehammer might be slightly butt-hurt and realize their product isn't all that great. Not namin' any names here.

More players? Ha. Ha-ha-ha.

Last I heard Battlefield will still only have 12 v 12 borefests that always happened on Bad Company 2. As evil as Kotick is even a broken clock is right twice a day. Right now CoD is looking better than BF3 with how much focus and display is going into the PC version.

But on my laptop I'm lucky to break 10 FPS on more complex maps or busy servers in TF2. I'll stick with the probably more unbalanced, but actually fun CoD over BF on my 360.

Yeah, the 6v6 borefests that CoD brings to the table are much better! And in what way is the focus of MW3 on the PC? Last I checked they didn't give a rats ass about the PC. Perhaps you meant BF3 is giving more focus to the PC.

And how is CoD actually fun? It's the same arena battle over and over again. No variance. It's why I got bored after prestiging in MW2 once and never touched it again, I'd already been doing that exact same thing in MW.

 

[Karilas]

So, their only argument is that their FPS has more FPS? It's like having an RPG with many RPGs.

*clap*
*clap*
*clap*

Bravo!

 

[Karilas]

It's funny how people seem to have no issue with downloading films at 700MB (which means quality is 4 times worse than a dvd), but are fanatical when it comes to game graphics.

Not entirely accurate, a 700meg xvid is more often than not indistinguishable from it's 3gig MPEG2 counterpart. The beauty of decent compression algorithms, eh?

 

[elvor0]

Huh? I'm assuming this is on consoles cause MW games will never run at 60 fps on any PC

You what? People can get Crysis 2 to run at 60 fps, I'm pretty sure it can handle MW games.

Can the untrained human eye even tell the difference between 30fps and 60fps?

In most cases, yes it can. However, the average player will hardly notice. Though, fluid movements do noticeably lose some of that fluidity at lower frame rates. Still, Activision claiming MW3 can run up to 60 frames means nothing if it's not constant. Frame drops are far more noticeable than low frame rates. I'd much rather have a stable, constant 30 to 40 frame count than one that fluctuates all over the place and sometimes[/b] hit's 60.

To play devil's advocate on this thread, and actually defend Sledgehammer/nu-Infinity Ward (because God knows someone has to), the developers repeatedly claimed during their E3 interview that they've put a lot of work into making sure the engine runs at a constant 60fps, even during the most hectic action sequences. Considering all the craziness they showed in their demo, that's not a bad achievement in itself. I honestly believe that Battlefield 3, with all it's high-end graphics and destructo-madness, is going to stutter at least a little on the doddery old 360/PS3 architecture.

OT: As for all the bitching between the two games: I honestly can't understand it. Sure, Battlefield 3 may have destructible scenery (like practically every shooter out there) and purty graphics, but honestly, both games are pretty much the same. I watched a gameplay demo of BF3, and it looked like not much more than a slightly shinier CoD. Not that that's a bad thing, but gamers who lambast Modern Warfare 3 while at the same time extolling how awesome Battlefield 3 is going to be... well, that strikes me as ever so slightly short-sighted and hypocritical. At the end of the day, both games are first-person shooters that revolve around western Special Forces soldiers iron-sighting terrorists (and Ruskies in MW3's case) across various exotic locales. The basic premises are so similar that to slag off one while hyping up the other looks, to me, incredibly short-sighted. But ah well...

Similar theatres of war, gameplay wise they're very different, I'm sure you've played both, and PC gamers tend to prefer (myself included) Battlefield, it's a lot more like being in a proper battle (or as much as you can in a game), wheras CoD is just a really fast paced shooting gallery. Plus BF3 has the destructable environments, which is great in creating a proper immersive environment, if someone fires a mortar shell at a building, it SHOULD have a gaping whole in the side of it, as well as the Squad System, Commanders, Vehicles and a decent class system that makes people work as a team. CoD you could quite easily paint with Halo skins and it would play pretty similar (not exactly, but you get the idea).

Lets be honest here, people are NOT buying MW3 or BF3 for the campaign, I'll be playing it, but the multiplayer is going to be the focus (which BF3 should just be anyway), where BF is leaps and bounds ahead of MW, even comparing MW2 to Battlefield 2. I mean MW 1 2 and Blops are pretty much the same game with a few tweaks that could've been added as DLC.

Saying that, there's nothing wrong with MW gameplay, it's very solid and polished, it's just at this point they really should be making innovations or new gameplay additions that actually matter (not bloody wager games), after three games almost nothings changed.

 

[Brinnmilo]

Having run an awful computer for the last 8 years I am used to appalling FPS (and high blood pressure). Although my computer would burst into flames if either of these games came within 100m of it, I would still take BF3 over ME3 because I couldn't give a damn that ME3 runs at 60FPS. If I had a thousand plastic bottles of air stored in my basement I could brag about it and say 'it's better than your one or two bottles' but ultimately I would just look like I'm trying to compensate for something *nudge nudge, wink wink activision*

 

[Vault boy Eddie]

You can get away with 60 frames per second when you haven't changed your game engine since Call of Duty 3.

 

[Alden Hou]

the human eye detects frames at 21 FPS, any higher and its a trivial matter, Activision knows Battlefield is making a comeback and they want to smear as much crap on it as possible so that they can continue to rot our minds with repetitive twitch based games, which aren't even innovative. After call of duty 4 they have been carbon copies of each other. BTW: activision is releasing another DLC for BLOPS, which means you will have to pay a total of $105(60+15+15+15) american plus tax for content that was supposed to be in the game anyways.

 

[blackdwarf]

can't your brain only process 24 images a second? so the difference between 30 frames and 60 frames is almost non-existent.

 

[Celtic_Kerr]

Can the untrained human eye even tell the difference between 30fps and 60fps?

Well you know all that fntastic HD coming out? I got a 1280p, 120 htz, HD TV. When I first watched it, the picture was so smooth that it didn't look realistic. The human eye is used to blur and compensates for it. Intense lack of blur can actually fuck with your eye.

Answer: You may nee to play a bit to get used to the smoothness...

 

[NightHawk21]

They can leave it at 30 i don't care. I would much rather they fix the annoying lag everyone seems to experience.