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

[teh_Canape]

didn't Timesplitters 3 already did this, like YEARS ago? on the PS2/Gamecube/Xbox?

The old systems were not able to do 1080p though, so they were running on half the resolution.

oh yeah, forgot about resolution

anyways, what's the difference? the older games ran pretty smoothly already

 

[imnot]

Wait wait wait, does anyone give a shit about 60 fps?
And this is coming from someone who spent an entire day making a 30 fps stop motion, so if I know a thing about fps's its that 60 wont make any diffrence.

 

[teebeeohh]

from the makers of "my dad can beat up your dad" comes an epic tale of two developers who made games in similar scenarios with multiplayer focus but rather different philosophies for the whole thing(and thus different requirement for the engine) in "a tale of two studios that couldn't keep their dicks in their pants"
in supporting roles: publisher.
As extras: the gaming press

 

[NinjaDeathSlap]

How I will lol if EA's rebuttal in this ongoing mud-slinging match is, "Yeah, well, I ran at 60fps in your mum last night!"

 

[Kevlar Eater]

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

Yes. Then again, it matters little when your ping is four digits long.

 

[scnj]

So, their only argument is that their FPS has more FPS? It's like having an RPG with many RPGs.

I think you misunderstand the acronyms...

First Person Shooter/Frames Per Second, Role Playing Game/Rocket Propelled Grenades.

It wasn't meant to be taken seriously, just silly wordplay. Or acronym play.

 

[Not G. Ivingname]

Wow, 60 whole frames a second? That is the same as Mario Kart Wii! What a great and notable selling point.

 

[geizr]

From my own experience, 30 fps is sufficient for competitive play, and 60-65 fps is the rough limit of human reflex and manual precision(essentially, you can't react and control things any better beyond this point). At roughly 85 fps, you are at the limit of the human visual system; any fps higher than this is indistinguishable.

Tweaking game engines up to and even beyond these thresholds is a waste of effort. Once the engine is capable of sustaining 30-50 fps at medium to highest graphical detail settings on common hardware, any additional effort is best put toward content and gameplay.

At least, this is my opinion.

 

[Irridium]

Oh wow, 60 FPS. on 720p. Impressive.

Well, it would be impressive if I wasn't already running Counter Strike Source at 150 FPS at 1080p for... 5 years now? I think it's been 5 years.

And besides, frames don't matter that much(so long as the game itself is playable), ping matters a hell of a lot more. And Call of Duty ain't exactly the best in that regard.

 

[Braedan]

didn't Timesplitters 3 already did this, like YEARS ago? on the PS2/Gamecube/Xbox?

The old systems were not able to do 1080p though, so they were running on half the resolution.

oh yeah, forgot about resolution

anyways, what's the difference? the older games ran pretty smoothly already

The increase from 30 to 60 is quite noticable, but it doesn't make the game better, only smoother. If we were going from 15 to 30 there would be a HUGE difference.
Don't get me wrong, I love my fps's, but I'm not going to buy a game based on that number. Higher fps means lower graphical quality (or smaller areas and less things on screen, which is what it seems we have here.).

 

[A Pious Cultist]

Implying that Battlefield 3 can't run 60 fps on the PC.

Activision has proven, like Ubisoft, that it doesnt really give a shit about making good PC versions. So I doubt they consider this a factor in their argument.

 

[teh_Canape]

The increase from 30 to 60 is quite noticable, but it doesn't make the game better, only smoother. If we were going from 15 to 30 there would be a HUGE difference.
Don't get me wrong, I love my fps's, but I'm not going to buy a game based on that number. Higher fps means lower graphical quality (or smaller areas and less things on screen, which is what it seems we have here.).

to be fair, the only "experience" I've had with FPS rate was mostly with Ninja Blade on my PC, having it locked at 30 FPS, but then removing the lock and running around 50 fps

but that's all I know, I mean, I haven't actually compared games with "fixed" fps rate

 

[Scabadus]

I agree that money's nice as much as the next person, but is it really worth chasing down the idiots who will turn down an online shooter that runs at less that 60FPS on a console? Really? That's the kind of customer that Infinnity Ward wants?

 

[teh_Canape]

So, their only argument is that their FPS has more FPS? It's like having an RPG with many RPGs.

I think you misunderstand the acronyms...

First Person Shooter/Frames Per Second, Role Playing Game/Rocket Propelled Grenades.

It wasn't meant to be taken seriously, just silly wordplay. Or acronym play.

that's it?

and here I was, trying to find the Xzibit joke hidden within

 

[theriddlen]

So "bullshit" is MW3's competitive edge? Well, that's what i expected from Kotick.

Movies are 24FPS, and that doesn't make them bad.
Games need about 30FPS to run brilliantly - difference between 30 FPS and more than 30FPS is practically unnoticeable.

 

[briunj04]

In fighting games, 60 FPS is expected. Ironically in FPS games, it's consider above the standard...
Weird

 

[mitchell271]

this is honestly a little pathetic. "ooh, we can run at 60fps! BF3 can't! therefore we win!" Most people just don't care. It'd be different if this was a tournament-level fighting game where knowing exactly which frame the enemy is vulnerable is almost necessary, but it isn't. It's an FPS and it won't make a difference.

Grow up Activision.

 

[Elijah Ball]

it does look better. I couldn't explain what is different, but 60 does genuinely look better thn 30.