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

[sean360h]

call of duty 4 ran at 30 and that was the best call of duty by far and if anything it increases lag (in multiplayer) because player location in game has to updated at least 60 times a second or it defeats the point of bragging about it
its the only honest reason i have to explain why black ops and mw2 lag much more than cod 4 halo and other fps games

 

[Ickorus]

That sopme epic bashing right there.


I wonder How EA will respond.

Probably something along the lines of "You see that annoying buiding over there where all the snipers are camping? Yeah, in our game you'd be abe to blow that up"

Im not getting another CoD game ever again due to Black Ops having a clusterfuck of bugs and issues on release with Treyarch being shitty about getting fixes out for the PC version and Activision being shitty with their customer support.

High FPS (Which is a crappy 'edge' by the way) is never going to make up for that crap and it's also a big "We don't care about you!" to PC gamers who already enjoy such framerates.

 

[daltonlaffs]

Are they seriously grasping for straws to the point of bringing frames per second into this?

News flash, anyone who thinks this matters at all: 60FPS WILL NOT HELP YOU ONLINE. Unless you and everyone you play with just happen to be within a mile of the server and on good wired connections, latency makes the FPS of an online shooter irrelevant, because lag and ping will be deciding factors, not the client-side FPS.

 

[mrF00bar]

But how many people can actually notice the difference?

I probably could, my PC is pretty old and most of my games run at 25-30 frames normally. I'm put off when I get 60fps, I'm used to jugging around spraying and praying lol.

 

[ArcossG]

He basically says: MW3 is a far better game because of something you cannot see or care about

 

[dillinger88]

I thought anything more than 25 was more than the eye can discern?

While true. You CAN detect smoothness in it. Ever been in a movie and seen a panning shot that looked like it was lurching? I see it all the time and it bugs me. Maybe I am just sensitive to it but whatever. You should ideally have the framerate up higher. James Cameran wants movies to move to 48fps (over 24). Im gaming 60 is the goal and anthing above becomes overkill. But you can definatly tell a difference. Well some people can. Plus at 60 if you do get a slowdown hiccup you have that much breathing room. If 30 drops then you will see it.

Bottom line. A solid 30 is fine, good deal no problem. 60 is great. Neither have much to do with how good a game looks.

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.

I can imagine its probably animated films or sections with heavy CG that you can see the stuttering. In a recorded film, the camera 'sees' everything for the length of time the shutter is open. So if the camera is panning, you get a natural motion blur in each frame. Hence why it looks smooth even at 24fps.

However with games and animation/CG you render a single image for every frame so you have to either use artificial motion blur or have higher fps to get the same smoothness. That's the original Crysis running a 30fps looks totally fine, it had incredible motion blur for that time.

So yeah, running a 60fps is great and all, but there are ways around it. I'm hoping my GTX570 will be able to give me 60fps on BF3 anyway .

I've never heard of an fps cap for the eye. It sounds a little strange that part of the human body acts so digitally. Do you have a source?

 

[ArcossG]

Forget about the FPS, why did he focus so much on the fact that they're giving the engine a name?

because Frostbite probably sounds better than whatever their engine is called and he wants to beat EA at "all" fronts

 

[shaboinkin]

I thought anything more than 25 was more than the eye can discern?

This computer monitor at this college I'm working at is capable of running at 120Hz. When I switched from 60Hz to 120Hz, I immediately saw the difference. It's quite easy to notice how smooth animations get when you bump up the hertz/fps

Take a look at this:
http://www.shinedraw.com/mathematics/flash-vs-silverlight-fps-meter-stress-test/

Add a lot of images on both of the windows, you should be able to tell the difference on which looks smoother.

 

[briunj04]

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

You gave me the inspiration to make this:

Please don't judge my Photoshop abilities off of this picture D:

 

[Kahunaburger]

You know what's better than 60fps? Having both teams using tactics/teamwork and playing the objective. Or you could just play TF2 and have both

 

[bombadilillo]

I thought anything more than 25 was more than the eye can discern?

While true. You CAN detect smoothness in it. Ever been in a movie and seen a panning shot that looked like it was lurching? I see it all the time and it bugs me. Maybe I am just sensitive to it but whatever. You should ideally have the framerate up higher. James Cameran wants movies to move to 48fps (over 24). Im gaming 60 is the goal and anthing above becomes overkill. But you can definatly tell a difference. Well some people can. Plus at 60 if you do get a slowdown hiccup you have that much breathing room. If 30 drops then you will see it.

Bottom line. A solid 30 is fine, good deal no problem. 60 is great. Neither have much to do with how good a game looks.

I can imagine its probably animated films or sections with heavy CG that you can see the stuttering. In a recorded film, the camera 'sees' everything for the length of time the shutter is open. So if the camera is panning, you get a natural motion blur in each frame. Hence why it looks smooth even at 24fps.

However with games and animation/CG you render a single image for every frame so you have to either use artificial motion blur or have higher fps to get the same smoothness. That's the original Crysis running a 30fps looks totally fine, it had incredible motion blur for that time.

So yeah, running a 60fps is great and all, but there are ways around it. I'm hoping my GTX570 will be able to give me 60fps on BF3 anyway .

I've never heard of an fps cap for the eye. It sounds a little strange that part of the human body acts so digitally. Do you have a source?

No I see it more in live action actually. Its usually big panning shots. Like a helo shot flying by a mountain scene. Its sometimes happens on my 65" but ALWAYS happens in theaters, so I think screen size has something to do it this. I have never noticed it in an Anime.

 

[Wrath 228]

For me, the fact of the matter is that I have and always will like Battlefield better. I believe it has a much more rich and enjoyable experience. It feels a little more like a combat game and less like a sport with guns (which is how I view Call of Duty MP, a sporting event where people shoot each other). Multiplayer matches in Battlefield are more immersive, require more strategy and teamwork and to me are just plain more fun. Couple that with the fact that the destruction has been revamped to new heights, and I couldn't give a crap less about MW3.

Seriously. 60 FPS is the best they can come up with? Everyone just shut up and build your games. They're both popular brands, both are going to sell insanely well, that's a given. No need to insult each other like third graders.

 

[Weaver]

This is why I play on PC. As an aside, I hate when developers limit the framerate on PC due to a bad port of the game. At least the new Alice was an Unreal 3 game so I knew how to properly edit the configs, but god damn.

Regardless, I'm sure Battlefield 3 will be running at at least 60fps for me.

 

[Truly-A-Lie]

Is their best argument the frame rate? Really? This is so childish, and the fact that EA will probably try to counter is just as bad.
I'm more likely to buy a game that is advertised as "here's what's going on, here's why we think it's fun" rather "it's better than CoD/Battlefield", which is probably why the shooter I'm most looking forward to is Resistance 3. Which will be running at 30fps, and I don't care.

 

[ultimateownage]

It's just because they couldn't be arsed to make a nice, well optimised, engine. So they're sticking with their crap one.
EA has let up on the pointless 'war' thing they were trying to brew, but it seems Activision couldn't care less.

 

[Hugga_Bear]

Oh no, this is a truly brilliant selling point. I'm so glad that they showed us this before the game was released, I'll definitely get it on release now.

Seriously, it's pathetic. 60fps does nothing for a shooter, not when everyone else is running on the same speed. How about dedicated servers guys? No? Pretty sure connection will make more of a difference here.
Christ, they're like bloody schoolchildren.

 

[LightOfDarkness]

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

Yes.
It's like the difference between a generic TV and an HDTV I think.

 

[Sniper Team 4]

Um, the picture for this article? It's from Modern Warfare 3, right? Because I can't tell the difference between the two games, and I thought one of the trailers for Battlefield 3 involved a squad running around on a roof. That looks like what those two are doing.

 

[Dalisclock]

Nice to know, but doesn't answer the big question I have about the game. Is it going to be good? Will it be fun to play? Does it resolve the hanging plot threads from MW2(Among other thing, who the guy in the panic room was).

 

[Jimbo1212]

Haha, what a sad defence.

"Our game is better because it is graphically worse then other new games".........