At any other game ever 30fps has been a constant smooth motion. 25 fps is 'natural movement' in terms of the human eye (200 fps for pidgeons).
60 FPS is Modern Warfare 3's "Competitive Edge"
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
MW has tons of (if you ask me, repetitive and dumb but that's not the argument) "60-fps" moments, like long pans and slow-mo sequences which need to look smoothe. BF doesn't, so they don't need it. MW is like the Zack Snyder film of the consoles, and BF is like all the other movies that are equally as good. It's really just a visual style choice.
I still don't get how people say this. I can very very easily discern between 30 and 60 FPS. In fact if I boot up a game and it's running at 30FPS I can immediately tell (like the new alice, or Red Alert 3). Perhaps i have some sort of super human eyeballs.ZombieGenesis said:
That's because while 25fps is constant movement, a variation in frames can and will show.AC10 said:
For example, movies in the cinema actually move MUCH slower than DVD images do. You can actually see the difference when you're watching them.
60 fps however is well beyond the point where it can be recognised (not to say it isn't different, but the eyes can't register the difference). I forget the number but it was less than 50.
Looked around a bit online and its called "Pan strobbing" or something to that affect. There actual formulas for what lense/foocus you are using and how fast you can pan. It is made worse the better visuals you have. So SD you never notice it, HD you start to see it. I find its worse in movie theaters as well.dillinger88 said:
In any case I have very good vision and I think I am overly sensitive to it.
Erm, yeah.
SO 60 frames per second is going to make your game better than Battlefield 3 ?
Instead of adding more modes to your game, improving the servers, adding more variety into the gameplay, possibly upgrading the engine and the physics, you're just going to make it the smoothest ?
Nice advertising move.
SO 60 frames per second is going to make your game better than Battlefield 3 ?
Instead of adding more modes to your game, improving the servers, adding more variety into the gameplay, possibly upgrading the engine and the physics, you're just going to make it the smoothest ?
Nice advertising move.
Good for you Sledgehammer, you made an engine you've been using since 2007 run at 60fps. What I actually care about is the gameplay, given my eyes are barely even capable of detecting the difference between 30 and 60fps.
Just because the FPS is higher, that does not mean MW3 will be better than BF3, I'm looking forward to BF3 because of the new engine (which makes me drool) with destructible environments and physics, wheras MW3 will still be running the same engine with little to improve the gameplay beyond a few new perks and tweaks, but I've always preferred the multiplayer of BF3, because of its large scale battles and vehicles, along with actual innovation.
I mean seriously, make some game changing decisions and some innovation this time round and I'd be more than happy to play the damn thing, but as it stands, I already have Black Ops, which was pretty much a reskin of MW2 and see no reason to buy MW3 at all. These are games remember, where they key element is GAMEPLAY, not FPS, which no one here even cares about, you should be pushing the gameplay elements of MW3, not some poxy fps increase.
Plus I have extremely good eyesight, so it's not like its just MY eyes that can't really tell the difference in FPS
Just because the FPS is higher, that does not mean MW3 will be better than BF3, I'm looking forward to BF3 because of the new engine (which makes me drool) with destructible environments and physics, wheras MW3 will still be running the same engine with little to improve the gameplay beyond a few new perks and tweaks, but I've always preferred the multiplayer of BF3, because of its large scale battles and vehicles, along with actual innovation.
I mean seriously, make some game changing decisions and some innovation this time round and I'd be more than happy to play the damn thing, but as it stands, I already have Black Ops, which was pretty much a reskin of MW2 and see no reason to buy MW3 at all. These are games remember, where they key element is GAMEPLAY, not FPS, which no one here even cares about, you should be pushing the gameplay elements of MW3, not some poxy fps increase.
Not really, TV and HDTV are a noticeable increase because the picture is sharper and displayed better, in comparison a generic TV picture is blurry. I know I can't really tell the difference between 30 fps and 60, because I've been playing games with a variation between the two for years. Not that I'm having a go at you, I'm just sayingLightOfDarkness said:
Plus I have extremely good eyesight, so it's not like its just MY eyes that can't really tell the difference in FPS
Graphics are not as important as gameplay. Excellent graphics make for neato screenshots but gameplay is what gives a game life.
So impressive! I mean, what FPS has had 60FPS before this?
...Oh, right. EVERY PC FPS MADE IN THE LAST 12 YEARS.
I can make Quake-fucking-2 do this at a an higher resolution than most TVs with OpenGL.
Oh wells. I suppose that since gameplay has already devolved into this highly-profitable bland porridge the Publishers are going to start pimping framerates as the next big graphical achievement.
...Oh, right. EVERY PC FPS MADE IN THE LAST 12 YEARS.
I can make Quake-fucking-2 do this at a an higher resolution than most TVs with OpenGL.
Oh wells. I suppose that since gameplay has already devolved into this highly-profitable bland porridge the Publishers are going to start pimping framerates as the next big graphical achievement.
You know, they also promised 60FPS in CoD4. Which they delivered - but at 640p instead of the promised 720p on the Xbox.
It's also kinda funny how they completely forget to talk about the PC version. That buggy piece-of-shit BlOps did sell undeserved millions on Steam, y'know.
It's also kinda funny how they completely forget to talk about the PC version. That buggy piece-of-shit BlOps did sell undeserved millions on Steam, y'know.
Eh. To be honest, I would have to agree with the Battlefield guy if you made me pick a side. There are more important things than 60FPS at 1080p. Last time I checked, you need a damn big TV to even notice 1080p, so for most people 720p on a console is just fine. And 30FPS is fine too, plenty of games run at that. What's more important is a consistent frame rate. A smooth 30FPS is better than 60FPS that keeps dropping when things get busy on screen. You guys making MW3 better hope you aren't shooting yourselves in the foot here.
My thoughts exactly.The_root_of_all_evil said:
And the reason why MW3 might run at 60fps in stead of BF3's 30fps? Well, i haven't heard a single soul ranting about how amazing MW3 looks like. Rehash, same-old same-old, nothing new, etc. On the other hand almost every site, magazine, tv show related to games has in some form commented on (if only) the amazing visual experience of BF3 so far.
Now, the race is far from over, but yelling from the back to the guy in front is easier, if only because the one up front has the crane his neck to even see the others.
PS: I doesn't really matter at all. MW3 will still sell a stupid amount of games and make an even more stupid amount of money, and Activision will be gearing up to make MW4 for 2013. And yes it will suck, and yes it will again make us sick, and yes it will again be a (monetary) succes. But i don't care, i'll be playing Battlefield this fall/winter! XD
Now, the race is far from over, but yelling from the back to the guy in front is easier, if only because the one up front has the crane his neck to even see the others.
PS: I doesn't really matter at all. MW3 will still sell a stupid amount of games and make an even more stupid amount of money, and Activision will be gearing up to make MW4 for 2013. And yes it will suck, and yes it will again make us sick, and yes it will again be a (monetary) succes. But i don't care, i'll be playing Battlefield this fall/winter! XD
