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

[Dys]

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?

Theoretically none. The human eye captures images at roughly 30 frames per second (hence why that's the standard for many TVs). Having a higher framerate does make it appear smoother, though it's generally accepted that there's no detectable difference above around 60fps, and of course, if the frame rate is not constant then it looks horrible.

Apparently they're using FPS to stand in for whatever other 'big number' you get (my car is better, it has more power/top speed etc). It's meaningless, and is indicative of them not having any actual selling points for call of duty anymore.

Also, obligatory "standard PCs were running games at constant 60fps years ago" comment.

 

[Frank_Sinatra_]

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

Last time I checked, no. Spotting the difference between 30 and 60 frames per second is hard, but if you watch closely you will see that the movements are a lot smoother.

Hey MW3? I'm pretty sure just having the 60fps and ripping off the Frostbite Engine isn't enough to bring loyal Battlefield players to you shoddy, boring, unbalanced, and other mean words side.

 

[Xannieros]

What that means to me is that either the game is very well optimized, or they scaled back the graphics.

However it seems that they're really aiming at the Console crowd. I'm a PC gamer and this means little to me unless they did scale back the graphics. I want my game to look pretty.

Games are tolerable at 24fps (Which is the bare minimum your eye can discern). Anything above that means when there's a high volume of movement or processing power needed you won't notice too much of a drop in FPS. (IE: Explosions/Particle effects, physics.)

 

[scar_47]

As the majority of people have stated theres no real difference between 30 or 60 fps stability matters a hell of a lot more, its bad when your touting features that no one cares about as your main selling point. I've been converted after I tried bad company 2 yes I still occasionally play a round of COD with a buddy but I much prefer what battlefield has to offer. A higher fps won't win anyone over both games will probably do exceptionally well but I don't see a lot of people on the fence at this point.

 

[RUINER ACTUAL]

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?

I play MW2 (60fps) and Bad Company 2 (30) often, and I don't think I've had an encounter where I've blamed the animations for slowing me down due to frame rate. I can easily tell the difference, but I've done work in animation and video, and played a lot of CoD4. Many people can't see the difference, and it doesn't effect gameplay enough to warrant this guy from Activision talking about it. He has no idea even why BF3 won't run at 60fps (on consoles):

DICE doesn't want to set your xbox on fire!

 

[gnarf]

awesome needed a something on here to post this.

sums it up pretty well.

 

[Pyroguekenesis]

I'm not getting CoD anyway, it's going to be the EXACT same thing... nothing even new besides plot... =_=; So obviously they can get "more" fps.. so yeah I am not even going to bother. CoD is only a torrent to me now, that's what it is to me.

 

[Saelune]

This guy sounds like alot of the people I hate on MW2.

 

[RuralGamer]

I dunno if anyone has mentioned this yet, but the lag would disagree that 60 FPS makes any difference... As a gamer in an awful internet connection, most games feature sufficient lag during peak times to render any such advantage unnoticeable. Besides, are they talking about 60 frames on the PC version or the console version because I've been playing 60 fps on FPSs for years on the PC and to be honest, I don't notice much (if any) of a difference when playing an FPS on a lower frame rate on a console.

 

[Monsterfurby]

Helloooo motion sickness, meet your pal imaginary key selling point!

 

[smartengine]

Yeah, I'm sure that the average 360 player will care...

 

[Griffolion]

60FPS isn't a thing to brag about, especially considering the incredibly lacklustre power of the consoles. It just means your game contains such basic coding and low res textures that the GPU inside the consoles can render 60 frames a second. 30FPS at 720 WITH destructible environments, full vehicular combat, better graphics, realistic sound is a much better testament to the console and games in general. Then again, i'll more than likely be playing BF3 on my PC at 1080 @ 60FPS anyway so this doesn't affect me .

 

[Megabobster]

Talking FPS is pretty much irrelevant. One, not all gamers have the same hardware. Two, almost anything can drastically reduce your FPS at random. Smoke grenades have a habit of doing this to me.

 

[Hellz_Barz]

60 frames per second you say? okay I'll be counting em.
But seriously if most Broadcasts are 25 to 30 and you can only really tell the difference between those when you play them at the same time, Who is actually gonna notice? The human eye can't actually pick this type of shit up.

 

[Treblaine]

Can somebody kindly take that controller of his and SHOVE IT DOWN HIS THROAT.

Does this douche not realize the human eye cannot see anything beyond around 30 FPS?

For gods sake, most movies are filmed at 28 FPS! Why the hell would we need 60!?

How about before you make violent threats of gagging people you EDUCATE YOURSELF ON WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT!

Film is at 24 frames per second initially due to the limitations of film a equipment and later as a matter of convention. Most importantly FILMS ARE COMPLETELY DIFFERENT FROM VIDEO GAMES!

In film the camera is at a very fixed perspective, if it pans too quickly you DO get the stuttering. 24-30 fps IS ONLY acceptable in games where the camera is rock solid fixed like a Resident Evil 1-3 type game, not a first person shooter.

But even with a fixed camera having a higher framerate matters for target tracking, you may not be able to immediately and consciously see it, but 2x as many frames per second really does improve your target tracking ability. It's something you can't "see" but you can FEEL when you actually interact with the environment.

I have played a lot of PC games and I can instantly tell the difference. See I was playing Crysis at 60fps and FRAPS (screen capture program) kept turning on and cutting the frame-rate down to 30fps. There was no icon to indicate it had turned on but I INSTANTLY knew when it turned on just from the change in framerate, the game "felt" completely different.

After years of playing PC games always aiming for 60-75 frames pers second I can instantly tell a game that is of lower framerate and I really can't stand it. It is not smooth, it is not precise, it is ineffective.

And it doesn't even top out at 60fps. The competitive PC gamers prefer to play at 75 to 100fps with noticeable improvement in performance, it's just many monitors can only support up to 60fps. The legendary John Carmack has fought tooth and nail for RAGE to be 60fps on the consoles.

It is an asinine and ignorant fallacy to say "if 24-30 fps is good enough for movies/TV then it's good enough for games".

Anyway, 24fps isn't even good enough for movies, cinephiles go on endlessly complaining about "the judders" and blame shit like 3:2 pulldown when it is actually inherent to filming with such a low frame-rate. The BBC has been campaigning for a while now

Just look at this Java demonstration of the differences:

http://realtimecollisiondetection.net/tmp/applets/Sixty/Sixty.html

TLR
But a competent FPS still won't make MW3 a good game.
If you want a REAL experience, get Battlefield 3 but GET IT ON PC and play it at 60fps!

 

[Treblaine]

Yeah, I'm sure that the average 360 player will care...

They don't have to SEE the framerate. They just have to feel it.

COD may be a trashy franchise but it has done something REALLY well which is focus on the absolute best controls you can get on a console.

The 60fps you can't see - that's the point. You can't see something which is supposed to appear fluid and continuous, it REALLY does matter in fast paced shooters.

COD devs have also focused intently on very tight controls with almost zero "dead zone" in the analogue sticks and gone to extraordinary lengths to reduce input lag. Remember all the fuss about Killzone 2's laggy controls? It looked nice but it played like you were controlling a rusty old gun turret, it just was not responsive enough.

Players can't describe what they are seeing, they just know when games do it wrong they play worse but with video games the control interface is so integrated if the game's input lags, stutters and is imprecise then the player actually cannot percieve if it is the game or THEMSELVES that is failing.

Poor controls give the illusion your reaction time / competence is failing because you are tired or psyched out.

I've seen this myself in the extensive tweaking I have done with PC games and console games alike.

 

[Frostbite3789]

Yeah, I'm sure that the average 360 player will care...

They don't have to SEE the framerate. They just have to feel it.

COD may be a trashy franchise but it has done something REALLY well which is focus on the absolute best controls you can get on a console.

The 60fps you can't see - that's the point. You can't see something which is supposed to appear fluid and continuous, it REALLY does matter in fast paced shooters.

COD devs have also focused intently on very tight controls with almost zero "dead zone" in the analogue sticks and gone to extraordinary lengths to reduce input lag. Remember all the fuss about Killzone 2's laggy controls? It looked nice but it played like you were controlling a rusty old gun turret, it just was not responsive enough.

Players can't describe what they are seeing, they just know when games do it wrong they play worse but with video games the control interface is so integrated if the game's input lags, stutters and is imprecise then the player actually cannot percieve if it is the game or THEMSELVES that is failing.

Poor controls give the illusion your reaction time / competence is failing because you are tired or psyched out.

I've seen this myself in the extensive tweaking I have done with PC games and console games alike.

Yeah, too bad it'll be completely negated by the amount of lag that occurs in an average console CoD game.

 

[EightGaugeHippo]

It doesnt matter to me if it runs at 60fps or half that.
If the game is crap, it's not going to do any good.

So far, Battlefield 3 looks alot more impressive visually.
And has signs of visual and gameplay improvement in the engine since BFBC2.

MW3 just looks like MW2 with new meshes.