So theyre making a statement to appease graphics whores, when every graphics whore knows its stupid.
Activision didnt think this through
Activision didnt think this through
60 FPS is Modern Warfare 3's "Competitive Edge"
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
A studio releasing game after game with more technological enhancement differences between them then anything else is admirable, from a technological standpoint, but if that's all they have to sell it on they're not doing the industry any favorable justice.
60fps is an integral part of good gameplay for for any reasonably fast paced game.Shy_Guy said:
OK, maybe and extremly slow paced third-person shooter only ever intetended to be played with a gamepad, maybe then 30fps is "adequate" but for any first person military shooter then 60fps is really important for smooth gameplay.
fair enough, i'm not a big fan of the whole 24 thing, but i've never had a problem with 30... as soon as you get below 25 it bothers me though- i don't mind a little blur (unless it's a racing game) but for an FPS i really don't care too much about the difference between 30 and 60The Lugz said:
and call of cashgrab can go die in a fire
I think that half the people who play Call of Duty wouldn't even know that "FPS" can stand for two different things.
Yep, and 1080p is a minimum resolution that you would want to play at... not some impractical holy grail..animehermit said:
This just highlights once again how desperately in need we are of a new console generation, the current gen is simply in capable of the basic requirements of modern games, resulting in the games having to be brutally sawn down to "fit" the pathetic console hardware specs.
Roll on the new gen, and anyone who thinks we should stick to the current gen for any longer A) has their head up their ass and B) is a cheapskate who just doesn't want to shell out a few hundred bucks for a new system.
disclaimer: I don't own a console so as a PC gamer a new console gen would only mean good things for me ;-)
High FPS makes a HUGE difference; at least on the PC anyway, on the PC if you're getting 30 FPS then its because your system is struggling to run the game, and you will get lag and inconsistent frame rate as a result... on the consoles its a bit different as the game will be designed to run at that FPS which make it much less of an issue.mrdude2010 said:
Still, the benchmark of performance in an FPS is FPS... and there is a reason for that, it means smoother gun play and more accurate shooting.. essential for the quality of the gameplay experience in FPS.
He was talking about FPS games (first person shooters), FPS (frames per second) is much much less important for other genre but for FPS (first person shooters) its critical.Kysafen said:
I'm sorry but that simply is not true, i've been playing first person shooters since the genre was born and I can easily tell the difference between 30FPS,60FPS and 120FPS+... the difference is colossal in terms of how the game feels to play... if you're simply watching the screen you might not notice much but if you are playing the game its like the difference between running though water and running though air.mrdude2010 said:
Personally I'd say the minimum playable level for a single player FPS is minimum 45FPS (thats minimum not average) and for competitive play i.e. online multiplayer minimum 60FPS... and if you're not getting these rates you just turn down graphics settings until you do get them... and if the game looks shit at the end of the process you know you need to upgrade something in your PC.
Maybe so, but if the boot was on the other foot and it was the consoles with the performance advantage i'm pretty sure we'd see the same behaviour from you guys... so don't be getting too judgemental eh?gnarf said:
This leaves me wondering why movies don't seem wrong, even though they're made with 24/25 frames per second...
And as stated above, it's more often than not your ping, and not your engines FPS that gives the advantages in online combat.
And in this specific case, i lost all trust in activision to put out proper online shooters after MW2, even though i like the game, and the gameplay, and doesn't mind beeing tubed, the horrors of stupid IWnet picking people with 56 modems as hosts making lag an ever-present factor in every other match, makes the online part frustrating.
And as stated above, it's more often than not your ping, and not your engines FPS that gives the advantages in online combat.
And in this specific case, i lost all trust in activision to put out proper online shooters after MW2, even though i like the game, and the gameplay, and doesn't mind beeing tubed, the horrors of stupid IWnet picking people with 56 modems as hosts making lag an ever-present factor in every other match, makes the online part frustrating.
Thank you Sledgehammer for reinforcing my belief that Better graphics makes a better game... oh wait no that makes a shallow game which is pretty but stupid like most "Miss America" contestants but I'm sure the COD crowd wont notice between being 12 and making racist comments ingame for no apparent reason before saying I uber pwn and making youtube videos of how they camped for 6 hours then knifed some guy who was flash banged and AFK.
Go Dice!
Thank you Johan Andersson for saying exactly what I think gaming should be!
Fuck excessive visuals and over the top bloom / real world emphasis on a 1080p screen at the cost of game play.
It took me as long to complete Bad Company 2 as it did Black ops AND MW2 put together, literally. Due to the fact it focused more on game play and less on petty crap like that extra 10 fps that no one will notice once you're laying the boots into your enemies.
Frostbite Engine V2? So moar buildings to destroy in an even more visually awesome way?
Yes thanks.
24 v 24 games with proper classes like medics and assault, tanks rolling around as choppers fly over head while boats come in from the islands?
Yeah I'll take that too. Muchly appreciated.
What? 60fps while the combat is limited to at most 8v8, no destructible terrain and the same weapons and perks as the last 4 COD games?
LEAVE NOW!
Go Dice!
Thank you Johan Andersson for saying exactly what I think gaming should be!
Fuck excessive visuals and over the top bloom / real world emphasis on a 1080p screen at the cost of game play.
It took me as long to complete Bad Company 2 as it did Black ops AND MW2 put together, literally. Due to the fact it focused more on game play and less on petty crap like that extra 10 fps that no one will notice once you're laying the boots into your enemies.
Frostbite Engine V2? So moar buildings to destroy in an even more visually awesome way?
Yes thanks.
24 v 24 games with proper classes like medics and assault, tanks rolling around as choppers fly over head while boats come in from the islands?
Yeah I'll take that too. Muchly appreciated.
What? 60fps while the combat is limited to at most 8v8, no destructible terrain and the same weapons and perks as the last 4 COD games?
LEAVE NOW!
Soooo, the best reason why their game is better is because it runs at 60 fps?
Not for any other reason is this game going to shine better than its competitors?
When the best selling point is a graphical point, I don't think I want to see what the rest of the game that they rejected from advertising...
Not for any other reason is this game going to shine better than its competitors?
When the best selling point is a graphical point, I don't think I want to see what the rest of the game that they rejected from advertising...
Its like watching a console gamer make a PC elitist argument about a console based game against an obviously graphically superior PC game.
Its like watching a penguin tell a robin that it sucks because the robin can't fly.
Its like watching a penguin tell a robin that it sucks because the robin can't fly.
I see their point and to me it actually does make a difference, after playing CoD most other first person shooters seem slow and choppy >.>
I'm pretty sure MW2 is a consistent 60 on consoles, this isn't always the case online because of lag though.Treblaine said:
yes, MW2 is a solid 60fps on 360 but at a cost, the graphics are fairly low fidelity and the game is rendered in only 1067x600p so only 70% of true HD of 720p (1280x720). But this is preferable, the game may be slightly blurrier but it plays much smoother.omega_peaches said:
the thing is I played MW2 on PC at 60fps but with a native resolution of 1920x1080. And after frame-rate, resolution adds SO MUCH to gameplay, especially in multiplayer when sniping without a scope. Also on PC I get extra model detail and shader effects.
But I really think the key to COD's continued success is that the controls are about as good as you can get on consoles. And that matters for a 20-million strong online community.
wait, isn't 6o fps still kinda slow for a pc? or am i in another room again? is this thread for consoles or pc? because i'm a pc-only gamer. I'm so confused!