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

[Pyro Paul]

Because obviously seeing Grenade spam at 60 frames per second is the key to survival.

i will say...
Blaming the Player for their game sucking...

thats a new kind of low.

 

[KLLR255]

Is that for just for pc though? because if it is, thats not special

 

[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.

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

And that's such a shame that COD doesn't support dedicated servers on consoles but until relatively recently almost no one did, CoD was still best on consoles. But like 60fps, this is taken as a given on PC.

And on the connection lag thing, that lag is different enough that it manifest itself in different ways due to software compensation.

See when you have a laggy connection to online your gun STILL fires instantly, your point of aim still moves almost instantly to input. The bullet still hit the enemy instantly... it's just the other player is not affected till the lag gets the message to the host and back again. This can do an amazing job of hiding lag and giving smooth gameplay.

The problem is hiding this lag causes GLITCHES!

COD is full of glitchy bullshit. Shot from behind cover, incredible knife lunges, running through point blank explosions, this is because they ARE NOT actually where they appear to be. If you quickly duck behind cover (on a significantly laggy connection) the player still sees you out of cover and if they shoot you the host will register hits even if - get this - the host still perceives you as being behind cover and impossible to shoot.

This is what I find so hard to explain to console gamers why they should want dedicated servers, to fight these glitches.

I have played like 120 hours of black ops multiplayer on PC - which uses dedicated servers I can usually get sub-50ms games. I've only ever seen the complaints common on PS3/360 Blops commentaries when my connection spikes (usually because of torrenting on the same computer).

MW3 BETTER have dedicated servers on PC if they want that release to do well at all, and if activision want their COD brand to survive then they need to invest in dedicated servers for MW3. I don't care how many peak players there are, it will do wonders for the series (not that that is necessarily a good thing).

 

[MASTACHIEFPWN]

I can run CS:S at over 70 FPS-
You can take that to the bank and shove it up your fat ass, activision.

Also- I'd rather play a game that looks amazing at 30FPS, than play a game that looks outdated and came out this year at 60FPS

 

[Retronana]

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

Trust me you can especially when frame-rate drops from 60 to 35 in something like just cause 2 when you enter a rainforest area. Generally it doesn't affect gameplay quality much but It annoys me when the flow of the game changes rapidly.

When it's consistently running at either 30 or 60 FPS then it doesn't matter massively.

 

[Shy_Guy]

Yeah! 60fps! And blurry textures! Crappy shadows and lighting! And don't forget the wonderful blockiness. Woo! Gooooooo CoD!

Seriously, 60fps can suck it. I'll take a steady 30 with better graphics and larger maps.

 

[TheDooD]

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!

I can so see an 360 the bursting into flames then a few hours we'll see "videogames causes fires tonight on fox news"

 

[aegix drakan_v1legacy]

Soo.....Their only real selling points are "THE SAME GAME AS LAST YEAR!" and "OMG 60 FRAMES PER SECOND!!!" ?

Look, not to knock on the sheer beauty of 60 frames per second (trust me, I've seen how good it can make a game look like), but.....if that's ALL They've got going for them, then I have even LESS interest than before. I mean...At least Black Ops had that exploding RC car killstreak that at least had me a tiny bit curious.

 

[FinalHeart95]

Really?
I want to curse Activision off so bad for making something so trivial seem important. Seriously, 60 FPS and whatever Battlefield 3's FPS is probably looks EXACTLY THE SAME. You might as well brag about how your browns are more brown.
I know which game I'm getting this winter. Hint, it's not Modern Warfare 3. Even if it ran at 80 FPS.

 

[Shy_Guy]

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.

They just copied the Halo 1 control scheme with minor adjustments. Why so much praise for a simple and fairly standard control scheme?

And did you actually play Killzone 2? The controls weren't laggy, and the delay in weapon aiming was intentional (though odd).

CoD does well enough with the controls and responsiveness, but it's not as special as you're trying to make it seem. Oh, and fps really doesn't have any effect on actual gameplay. Sorry, you're positively wrong there. Stop spouting nonsense as though it's fact.

Edit: To clarify, I can easily tell the difference between 30 and 60 fps. Not to mention drops in fps. But a game playing at a consistent 30fps is the same gameplay-wise as one running at 60fps. 60fps IS better as an experience is all.

 

[orangeapples]

Blast Processing.

That was Sega's competitive edge, and look at where that got them.

 

[]DustArma[]

To those who still think that the human eye can't see more than 30 FPS
http://www.boallen.com/fps-compare.html

And, try using a CRT screen running at 60Hz after using a LCD screen, you'll notice the difference straight away.

 

[Treblaine]

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.

They just copied the Halo 1 control scheme with minor adjustments. Why so much praise for a simple and fairly standard control scheme?

And did you actually play Killzone 2? The controls weren't laggy, and the delay in weapon aiming was intentional (though odd).

CoD does well enough with the controls and responsiveness, but it's not as special as you're trying to make it seem. Oh, and fps really doesn't have any effect on actual gameplay. Sorry, you're positively wrong there. Stop spouting nonsense as though it's fact.

Edit: To clarify, I can easily tell the difference between 30 and 60 fps. Not to mention drops in fps. But a game playing at a consistent 30fps is the same gameplay-wise as one running at 60fps. 60fps IS better as an experience is all.

Do you understand what I mean by "tight controls" what it means to have an analogue stick with no "dead-zone". The dead-zone is the small angles of the controls stick that developers will have not interpret any input. This makes the camera easier to control for those who are pretty clumsy at gaming but those who really want to push the limits (of gamepads) controllability.

Yes I played Killzone 2 and I did not appreciate the lag which MOST CERTAINLY was NOT intentionally put in the game, the technicians at Digital Foundry (Eurogamer) know all about input lag. The reason Killzone 2 is able to have such good graphics to spite having relatively poor hardware compared to PC is it takes multiple cycles to render each frame. The problem is NOTHING in the game world can change faster than 0.25 seconds, the input to the controller arrives instantly but the game can't display it as it goes through such a long rendering pathway. Halo does this as well, but to a lesser extent.

But I think the take-home message from CoD is important is they are a company that has defied decades of practice by NOT FOCUSING ON GRAPHICS. That used to be an long industry joke of developers making pretty but boring games. CoD developers' focus on controls has been I think pivotal to their success.

The problem for all the contenders is you can't show off all the little features like that in marketing, it doesn't translate to print or film without getting overly technical.

You have to get the game IN GAMERS HANDS then they will love it. I'm thinking some free-2-play model or as initially a downloadable titles but a subscription to use dedicated servers.

Or, they could just play on PC at 60fps for all their games and stop being such console-gamers.

 

[Treblaine]

Blast Processing.

That was Sega's competitive edge, and look at where that got them.

Nope. That was 100% marketing bullshit with precisely zero technological basis.

The only possible justification was in comparison to the NES! Yes, that's all the advantage the Genesis had, it was a generation ahead of NES but in short order SNES was released and dominated Genesis in every way.

That was the conceit of the "blast processing" marketing campaign, it was comparing two different generations before the concept of "console generation" was really widely known by most gamers.

The recognition of 60fps as an ideal framerate is not a corporate concoction, it started amongst the PC gaming enthusiasts and hobbyists almost 2 decades ago. It has always been corporate who de-emphasised 60fps as it doubled the frame-buffer that meant lower the graphics but in TV adverts and even flash-video you cannot see the difference... all you see is the hit to graphical detail.

 

[Hazzaslagga]

As long as the Fps doesn't drop much below 30 during high action gameplay there should be no problem.

 

[Treblaine]

Yeah! 60fps! And blurry textures! Crappy shadows and lighting! And don't forget the wonderful blockiness. Woo! Gooooooo CoD!

Seriously, 60fps can suck it. I'll take a steady 30 with better graphics and larger maps.

Yeah because games are EXACTLY like movies, it doesn't matter how crappy they are to play, only if they look nice.

Just like a movie doesn't have to have good characters or storytelling jsut as long as it has the most Xtreeeeem CGI, like Transformers 2...

(/sarc)

Nail the gameplay THEN pump up the graphics! Right now only PC can do HD 60fps and good graphics.

 

[Shy_Guy]

Yeah because games are EXACTLY like movies, it doesn't matter how crappy they are to play, only if they look nice.

Just like a movie doesn't have to have good characters or storytelling jsut as long as it has the most Xtreeeeem CGI, like Transformers 2...

(/sarc)

Nail the gameplay THEN pump up the graphics! Right now only PC can do HD 60fps and good graphics.

Really? Of course gameplay is more important. I'm saying I'll take more bells and whistles over the difference between 30 and 60fps. And so will just about everyone.