And as a PC gamer, I've been running CoD at 75fps for years. Good job the rest of the game looks interesting, because this is just sad.
60 FPS is Modern Warfare 3's "Competitive Edge"
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
Actually, it depends on whats being shownDarth Sea Bass said:
http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frames_can_humans_see.htm
As for the "competitive edge", it seems like MW3 is really scraping the barrel for good things to say at this point.
im just waiting for
"Now with saving AND loading!"
So? From what i've seen only PC Gamers really truly care about their frame rate and as a console gamer i couldn't give a damn.
Plus FPS as a selling point? Guess you were running out of marketing ideas huh guys?
Plus FPS as a selling point? Guess you were running out of marketing ideas huh guys?
Well PC gamers have known about the importance 60fps for about the past 2 decades.
It's pure deference to cinema and video that console games stick with 30fps, 60 is better.
PS: I played COD4 back in 2008 at 60fps, at 1080p resolution and with extra-high quality with 4x anti-aliasing.
PPS: Rage will apparently be 60fps on consoles.
It's pure deference to cinema and video that console games stick with 30fps, 60 is better.
PS: I played COD4 back in 2008 at 60fps, at 1080p resolution and with extra-high quality with 4x anti-aliasing.
PPS: Rage will apparently be 60fps on consoles.
And I'm going to buy and enjoy neither, no matter what the FPS or Resolution is. Maybe Activision should be focusing on gameplay, rather than letting your "competitive edge" be an unnoticeable graphics improvement.C95J said:Why would you even argue about FPS?
I'm going to buy and enjoy both, no matter what the FPS or Resolution is.
Oh hold on.. I wonder what this is due to?
I reckon the lads at activision's marketing have sat down and thought.. shit.. with BF3 having better graphics and better gameplay, we really have nothing to go for on this game, apart from "it's a new cod, buy it!"
Let's all be honest, while BF3 has very nice textures, lighting, etc etc.. it's fair to say on consoles, the frame rate does struggle.. you can see it in the trailers a bit.
This is the devs chance to enlighten all the little console kiddies about the concept of a frame rate.. I can just see it now, after the release of both games: all the little mw3 kiddies will arrogantly exclaim "I like mw3 more than bf3 because it has a higher frame rate" even though they aren't really sure what it means or what different frame rates look like, at a frail attempt to justify why they bought such a horrendous game (come on, it probably will be)
That's just my opinion anyway, I'm probably getting BF3 first, then maybe mw3 sometime down the line.. maybe..
EDIT: oh, pahaha only just read that last bit "[our game will run at 60fps]Not sure any of our competitors will." You are so predictable activision
I reckon the lads at activision's marketing have sat down and thought.. shit.. with BF3 having better graphics and better gameplay, we really have nothing to go for on this game, apart from "it's a new cod, buy it!"
Let's all be honest, while BF3 has very nice textures, lighting, etc etc.. it's fair to say on consoles, the frame rate does struggle.. you can see it in the trailers a bit.
This is the devs chance to enlighten all the little console kiddies about the concept of a frame rate.. I can just see it now, after the release of both games: all the little mw3 kiddies will arrogantly exclaim "I like mw3 more than bf3 because it has a higher frame rate" even though they aren't really sure what it means or what different frame rates look like, at a frail attempt to justify why they bought such a horrendous game (come on, it probably will be)
That's just my opinion anyway, I'm probably getting BF3 first, then maybe mw3 sometime down the line.. maybe..
EDIT: oh, pahaha only just read that last bit "[our game will run at 60fps]Not sure any of our competitors will." You are so predictable activision
Yeah, of course this is the CONSOLE fps. Keeping Black Ops' terribad port in mind, The PC port Activision shits out will run at 10 fps, if that.
Couldn't really care about the extra fps to be honest, unless the frame rate drops drastically low and your image jars!
I would rather have a game that will always run a steady 30-40 fps rather than one that claims to run at a smooth 60 fps but rarely keeps steady at that value!
I would rather have a game that will always run a steady 30-40 fps rather than one that claims to run at a smooth 60 fps but rarely keeps steady at that value!
We can most definitely tell the difference between 30 and 60 frames per secondOld Trailmix said:
http://www.boallen.com/fps-compare.html
(I'm not sure how good of a computer you have, but Note: "fps ok" means you're seeing the animations at the intended rate. If you see "fps too slow", it means your computer is slow, and isn't rendering the animations fast enough.)
Yes, obviously since I can only run ARMA 2 at 45 FPS (average), I shouldn't play it at all. Thank you for showing me the light, Infinity Ward(v2)(tm)!