Most people can't perceive more than 32-35 frames per second. That just how our eyes and brain work, so basically above that it's just pointless. If you want to fight over something, fight over whom can provider constant under 150ms latency for every player on the servers.
60 FPS is Modern Warfare 3's "Competitive Edge"
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
Six? Call of Duty uses a modified Quake 3 engine. Yeah, id only started selling it 6 years ago, but it's actually been around since the turn of the Century.The Lost Big Boss said:
Oh, this is hilarious. Two games that are exactly the same and of are the exact same quality (shitty generic modern FPS) are arguing over which one is better. Cute.
So what? Frame rate is not everything. If you have at least 30 frames per second, that is fine. The game will still be playable and look pretty. Better yet wait 3 day, till November 11, and get Skyrim.
True, but ill give them "some" credit. Some. Not much. Like two pats on the shoulder with a lowered head of disappointment.SilentHunter7 said:
I'm now getting suspicious that MW3 is desperate in trying to seem like it isn't just a cash-grab to fanboys. I mean FPS is their competitive edge? That's even worse than when people thought graphics made the best games.I've played a bunch of shooters and that were perfectly good without such a high framerate so IW are really gonna have to do better than that to beat Battlefield 3. (But IMO Battlefield is the superior shooter franchise anyway.)
Soon I'm going to have to come up with an insult for the neutral guys who are probably raving about skyrim unless they quit their shit.Drago-Morph said:
"'Kyle Brogan · Top Commenter · Operations Command - Head Council [=C=] at Valor Company, Inc.
"Mr. Kotick, they've got destructible environments, vehicles, and all kinds of crazy things going on. We're making a carbon-copy of the same game we've made annually for the past five years. What exactly do you want us to brag about?"
"Well, our framerate is faster."
"Okay. We'll run with that." '"
I love this guy.
Anyways, it will run at 60 fr/s, it will look almost as orgasmic as Duke Nukem's single player.
It will have great resolution, but still look like shit. Not because it is a ctrl-c, ctrl-v game that IGN will take to dinner, eat out, fuck it ('cause hey, there the sluts right?), then eat it up, and after being consipated for 5 weeks still give glorifying praise, but because their graphics are terrible.
Battlefield 3 looked so good. On YouTube. On 360p. That it had the ability to make me orgasm faster than rusty spoons (Salad Fingers for the 2 of you that haven't seen it yet).
Even on 1080p MW3 still looked terrible. It was on the lines of BLOPS mixed with television static and Fable: The Lost Chapters.
"Mr. Kotick, they've got destructible environments, vehicles, and all kinds of crazy things going on. We're making a carbon-copy of the same game we've made annually for the past five years. What exactly do you want us to brag about?"
"Well, our framerate is faster."
"Okay. We'll run with that." '"
I love this guy.
Anyways, it will run at 60 fr/s, it will look almost as orgasmic as Duke Nukem's single player.
It will have great resolution, but still look like shit. Not because it is a ctrl-c, ctrl-v game that IGN will take to dinner, eat out, fuck it ('cause hey, there the sluts right?), then eat it up, and after being consipated for 5 weeks still give glorifying praise, but because their graphics are terrible.
Battlefield 3 looked so good. On YouTube. On 360p. That it had the ability to make me orgasm faster than rusty spoons (Salad Fingers for the 2 of you that haven't seen it yet).
Even on 1080p MW3 still looked terrible. It was on the lines of BLOPS mixed with television static and Fable: The Lost Chapters.
Seriously, could we just agree to stop making things shinier and concentrate on the "game" part of the game?
The best part of this one is that BF3 actually looks nicer as well.Mimsofthedawg said:
Falls right about in line with what MW3 is. The same thin they've always done.thefreeman0001 said:
Actually it does. I talked to Activision and they said if you run the game at 60 frames per second it fills in the plot holes in the single player campaign. It also varies the game play, and adds in new textures.Brombaq said:
In multiplayer it will add in vehicles and true to life destructible environments, as well as be able to support more players.
the only even vaguely comprehensible difference between 30 and 60 is that 30 looks blurrierWillsor said:
The way they go on about frame rates and "mines bigger" doesn't suprise me coming from two big corps. I just wish they could use less bark and actually have more bite.Azaraxzealot said:
On a side note how long did the bit wars last for? i forget.
if i'm not screen synced on my pc all i can do is obsess over how slow something is runningmrdude2010 said:
lowest i can game at is 50 anything less looks like a poorly made anime with missing frames imo
and i hate cinema 24 fps whenever they pan around it makes me want to scream
i guess my brain is just impatient
'edit'
cod, and most shooters can die in a fire btw i like frame-rate not acti-turd.
DICE is producing some of the best looking destruction and vehicle combat to date with their new engine, while making it look as good as possible.
CryTek is making some of the best, if not the best improvements and modifications to graphics and scalability to date.
Ubisoft is making....well....Ubisoft stuff. Bungie's doing....something....Bungie-ish.
And your big trump card is a 6-year old engine being able to run at 60FPS on 5-year old hardware?
I think its time to call it quits Infinity-Hammer.
CryTek is making some of the best, if not the best improvements and modifications to graphics and scalability to date.
Ubisoft is making....well....Ubisoft stuff. Bungie's doing....something....Bungie-ish.
And your big trump card is a 6-year old engine being able to run at 60FPS on 5-year old hardware?
I think its time to call it quits Infinity-Hammer.