60 FPS is Modern Warfare 3's "Competitive Edge"
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
The only place that this 60fps arguement would be truly valid is music games. Because seriously, if your not running at 60, you shouldn't be running it at all (60fps basically = the perfect sweet spot for music games)
Also this is not a selling point unless you are on a mobile device (PewPew for iOS and Android really does come to mind as they used the same point to sell the game to people, expect it makes sense on a phone)
Also this is not a selling point unless you are on a mobile device (PewPew for iOS and Android really does come to mind as they used the same point to sell the game to people, expect it makes sense on a phone)
That's not logic. That's like saying:Vibhor said:
"If Blu-ray is better than DVD? So Transformers 2 on Blu-ray is better than Casablanca on DVD..."
(1) 60fps has absolutely no bearing on storyline or audio.Selvec said:
(2) it does mean lower graphics, this is a GOOD thing, it means the art budget is much lower and actually makes it easier to craft a good story... whether they actually bother making a good story
(3) CoD is the ONLY shooter running at 60fps, the only other games running at 60fps are sports or racing games.
You think you're insulting CoD, you're also insulting Counterstrike.Dragunai said:
That's why I think CoD and BF3 are just too different to be competitors, 8v8 and 24v24 in such different environments with different spawn systems.
BF3 is very much a class shooter but COD really isn't, even though it has a "create-a-class" it is really nothing more than a glorified weapon selection screen with perks in the same vein as equipment (armour = juggernaut, gas-mask, etc). I don't think fans of one will necessarily be fans of the other.
BF3 may appeal to some COD fans, but you can't say "if you liked COD then you'll love BF3" it's looking to be a good game but it is not looking like the be the same kind of game as COD. It seems to be much more that we all WANT someone to stand up and compete with COD, and BF3 happens to be the closest competition.
Now the much rumoured Counterstrike 2, THAT would be a COD competitor.
Shouldn't they worry about making their game good and fun instead of FPS and stuff like that ?
No. Silly me
No. Silly me
WOW. 60FPS is nothing most competition players were running configs in CoD4 to optimise their FPS from at least 125 FPS and this would be for medium end to low end computers that were on the same level as the console. Also there were FPS caps on some servers to prevent people having stupidly high FPS's on competitive mode owning everyone because if i remember correctly it gave people advantages in some areas
Great jorb Glenn, you come off as a douchebag once again. I may of loved Dead Space, but I'm not about to cut you any slack because of it.
So let's see, your main selling point is "oh look, it's 60fps! They're only 30fps," now? While not mentioning the fact how you achieve that, but down rezing the game and jamming it through the frame buffer to upscale it and get your precious fps? You can't even try to sell it on the merits of gameplay elements you think you'll be better at? All this tells me is you are geniuely quaking in your boots that Battlefield 3 poses a real threat.
The mere fact Sledgehammer is having to work on MW3 tells me more than enough information on how things are gonna pan out.
So let's see, your main selling point is "oh look, it's 60fps! They're only 30fps," now? While not mentioning the fact how you achieve that, but down rezing the game and jamming it through the frame buffer to upscale it and get your precious fps? You can't even try to sell it on the merits of gameplay elements you think you'll be better at? All this tells me is you are geniuely quaking in your boots that Battlefield 3 poses a real threat.
The mere fact Sledgehammer is having to work on MW3 tells me more than enough information on how things are gonna pan out.
The human eye can't see the difference between 60 FPS and 200 FPS. Most monitor's refresh rate is 60. There's no difference between 60 and 500, so no, 60 isn't low at all.zombiekiller1907 said:
It's a weak 'edge' considering Activision has been running their games off a modified Doom 3 engine since...forever. And let's be honest with their yearly releases they're not going to ever make a new engine and they're gonna burn it out like Guitar Hero.
Because clearly the Escapist is the most intellectual site around and such riff-raff shouldn't be allowed, eh wot wot. (This is towards some of the people that actually go aggressive against such puns, not the person quoted)Fronzel said:
On topic, I pretty much agree with what Root and Hazabaza have said.
hmmm...
Pro gamers for any game always strive for 60 fps for that competitive edge. There aren't any exceptions.
In Starcraft, CSS, and many more games, they turn their graphics down for the smoothest gameplay for that competitive edge, so I'm not sure exactly why everyone's opposing this view, if not just out of hate for the CoD series.
Not that I actually like CoD that much, but I'm just being honest.
Pro gamers for any game always strive for 60 fps for that competitive edge. There aren't any exceptions.
In Starcraft, CSS, and many more games, they turn their graphics down for the smoothest gameplay for that competitive edge, so I'm not sure exactly why everyone's opposing this view, if not just out of hate for the CoD series.
Not that I actually like CoD that much, but I'm just being honest.
"You can go out and name your engine and call it whatever you want, right. You know, I've done that before; I've seen that trick and the bottom line is, [Modern Warfare 3] will run at 60 frames a second. Not sure any of our competitors will."
BF3 Beta runs at 60fps for me, so that pretty much invalidates their whole sales pitch for me at least.
BF3 Beta runs at 60fps for me, so that pretty much invalidates their whole sales pitch for me at least.
