60 FPS is Modern Warfare 3's "Competitive Edge"
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
I thought you might've been one of those people that think PCs aint very powerful.
Yo dawg we heard you like FPS's so we put FPS's in your FPS's so you can FPS when you FPS.teh_Canape said:
I got lost somewhere writing this...
I think they're both gonna be great games. I don't why we have to single one out as "Shit" when it clearly isn't.
I'll be playing both, and I'll thoroughly enjoy both.
I'll be playing both, and I'll thoroughly enjoy both.
Translation: "Our dick is bigger, see its bigger, buy our game because our dick is the biggest!"
Honestly so long as its above 24 FPS and thus a moving picture smoothness is really just a matter of dick waving. We could run it at PS1 low poly mode and have it go at 180 FPS but nobody wants that. People want it to be pretty. This is just asinine. Why don't we talk about something that really matters like how gameplay differentiates your games.
Honestly so long as its above 24 FPS and thus a moving picture smoothness is really just a matter of dick waving. We could run it at PS1 low poly mode and have it go at 180 FPS but nobody wants that. People want it to be pretty. This is just asinine. Why don't we talk about something that really matters like how gameplay differentiates your games.
I can run my own game, get the red square to the blue dot (but dodge the pink triangle), at much higher frames per second, therefore by MW3s stadards, mine has the best gameplay and overall experience. GTRSTTBD(BDTPT) in stores now only $70, and for only $30 dollars more, get an exclusive hat for the red square.
MW3 will probably be really bad if that's all they can muster to defend against BF3. As long as your FPS is greater than DNF's (one) you should be good.
I've heard lesser games getting slammed for putting all their eggs in the 'stunning graphics' basket. Better graphics and better sound, talking about issues that are become more and more irrelevant with current gen graphics. If it doesn't look stunning, you might as well not try, considering the budgets and technology these developers have. They're not even talking about aspects of the game that makes CoD attractive, the multiplayer, if I were in charge of the CoD advertising, I would toss talking about the graphics out the window and focus on the damn multiplayer!
Johan Andersson said it rather well;
"We think huge levels, lots of players, great effects, destruction, vehicles & varied gameplay are more important than 1080p,"
THAT is what the Battlefield players want to know is still there, that's what they want to hear more about. CoD players want to hear about the Multiplayer, even if it is identical to the last three incarnations, they want to hear about that.
Johan Andersson said it rather well;
"We think huge levels, lots of players, great effects, destruction, vehicles & varied gameplay are more important than 1080p,"
THAT is what the Battlefield players want to know is still there, that's what they want to hear more about. CoD players want to hear about the Multiplayer, even if it is identical to the last three incarnations, they want to hear about that.
lets be fair, they need something to have as a selling point, i mean saying that a game has got the same gameplay, same guns, same bad story writing and same bad community as the last 2 games with which is shares its name is hardly a good selling point ^^
I looked at both games for consoles from a content perspective and then at the specs at which they are delivered.
Battlefield 3 is supposed to have vehicles, destroyable buildings, aircraft that are a viable way to kill people(???), and the same(or higher) level of weapon customization as MW3. These are additions/alterations that they made public a long time ago.
CoD: Modern Warfare 3, is just the sequal to Modern Warefare 2. I haven't found any magnificent changes to the game. Before you say or think anything I spent 45minutes searching for valid additions that they made. Yes they copy-pasted the money/points system from Black Ops, they cloned Halo's career tracking system, and added a survival mode ie. the pre-existing zombie mode with gun wielding zombies.
Specs time: B3 plays at 30 or so Fps at 720p with all of its cars, tanks, planes, and, helicopters and destroyable buildings and shit. The developers also possess the capability to patch in updates that boost its Fps above 30.
MW3 runs at 60 or so Fps at likely less than 720p and has blah to hook you with beyond "We are selling you MW3 the successor to MW2". It is rather hard to apply a graphical update or upgrade without rereleasing the game.
Battlefield 3 > Modern Warfare 3 at this point.
That is all.
Battlefield 3 is supposed to have vehicles, destroyable buildings, aircraft that are a viable way to kill people(???), and the same(or higher) level of weapon customization as MW3. These are additions/alterations that they made public a long time ago.
CoD: Modern Warfare 3, is just the sequal to Modern Warefare 2. I haven't found any magnificent changes to the game. Before you say or think anything I spent 45minutes searching for valid additions that they made. Yes they copy-pasted the money/points system from Black Ops, they cloned Halo's career tracking system, and added a survival mode ie. the pre-existing zombie mode with gun wielding zombies.
Specs time: B3 plays at 30 or so Fps at 720p with all of its cars, tanks, planes, and, helicopters and destroyable buildings and shit. The developers also possess the capability to patch in updates that boost its Fps above 30.
MW3 runs at 60 or so Fps at likely less than 720p and has blah to hook you with beyond "We are selling you MW3 the successor to MW2". It is rather hard to apply a graphical update or upgrade without rereleasing the game.
Battlefield 3 > Modern Warfare 3 at this point.
That is all.
Most of the frat boy Codders don't even know what FPS stands for, let alone what it means for their experience. They care that they are 50-1 and get a nuke every 25 kills. Their selling point is that their game is an action movie.Easton Dark said:
Human vision only operates at about 24 frames per second so the rest is gravy. In BF a few frames doesn't matter as much because the gameplay is normally a bit less reaction based than CoD. Because the games play differently, it won't matter.
It's kind of funny because the human eye can't tell the difference past a frame rate of 40. It's all BS anyway. The fact that they won't even invest in dedicated servers will make it so the Host of the game will always win, no matter the frame rate.
Now if you want to play that sort of nit-picky game, Sledgehammer, Then make it so you say "at least our game doesn't blind you with mini-snow/sand storms."
Now if you want to play that sort of nit-picky game, Sledgehammer, Then make it so you say "at least our game doesn't blind you with mini-snow/sand storms."
Framerate doesn't matter if your net coding is as bad as your last 3 titles. Fix the host lag issue or develop the game around those problems, don't just push for advancement in an irrelevant area that was achieved by modern PC games years ago.
I dont realy care about graphics anymore, Call of Duty Lacks gameplay and has always used its visuals to sell, srsly look at the modernwarfare 3 e3 demo, those visuals were like WOW, and then when he entered the sub i lost intrest coz it was very much CoD4
oh well soon CoD will go the way of guitar hero
oh well soon CoD will go the way of guitar hero