60 FPS is Modern Warfare 3's "Competitive Edge"
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
I can tell the difference quite readily (I actually estimated my own TV's frame-delay/stutter to within 20 milliseconds), but I've been working with computers and rendering systems for a long long time now.MikailCaboose said:
It's more accurate to say that there is a range of "real life frame rates" because our brains employ "real world frame skipping" (we can't perceive or even think at the speed of visible light). Everything would appear blurry if our brain didn't skip all of that.
My father won a large, fancy TV last summer that had 120hz (translating into 120fps potential framerate). Wanting to test how much better/worse a quality TV is, I played a Blu-Ray of Iron Man 2, and then played the same scene with a regular DVD. The Blu-Ray showed a SIGNIFICANT increase in frame-rate and general smoothness quality compared to a regular DVD.
(even though standard theatrical cuts only play at 25fps, digital cuts taken from the Master Recording can have much higher frame rates; up to what the original camera recorded them at).
Good to see no ones that impressed by the boast, i always thought it was normal for games to run at about 60fps but again i am a PC gamer so maybe not. Theres not to much difference in 30-60fps anyway really since when i play APB if i hit an area thats been crammed full of cars and my fps drops to 30-40 i still don't notice any difference in the gameplay/quality, maybe it's just that game though as it's the only one where slow down can occur for me lol. Either way i'm not impressed considering PC's have been capable of well over 60fps in games for years (even if there limited to such and such fps there still capable of going higher), and considering consoles are all the same hardware through out the range (unlike a PC) you would think they'd be able to squeeze this out normally as they can program for that hardware where a PC requires directx to do it, but i guess everyones too busy squeezing all the Hd graphic horsepower out of it.
More players? Ha. Ha-ha-ha.
Last I heard Battlefield will still only have 12 v 12 borefests that always happened on Bad Company 2. As evil as Kotick is even a broken clock is right twice a day. Right now CoD is looking better than BF3 with how much focus and display is going into the PC version.
But on my laptop I'm lucky to break 10 FPS on more complex maps or busy servers in TF2. I'll stick with the probably more unbalanced, but actually fun CoD over BF on my 360.
Last I heard Battlefield will still only have 12 v 12 borefests that always happened on Bad Company 2. As evil as Kotick is even a broken clock is right twice a day. Right now CoD is looking better than BF3 with how much focus and display is going into the PC version.
But on my laptop I'm lucky to break 10 FPS on more complex maps or busy servers in TF2. I'll stick with the probably more unbalanced, but actually fun CoD over BF on my 360.
I got Crysis 2 and I'm happy with that in terms of First person shooters. It actually has a very good campaign
Thats honeslty the selling point? 60 fps thats it, the game looks the same and almost will play the same but now with 60fps that most people wont even notice, kinda sad that thats all they can come up with in order to make more money
Stupid question time: I heard that call of duty is sub HD and not real 1080p is it true or am I getting my news from a bad source?
And the human eye can only see 25 frames per second on a screen but if you play a game with a 60 or superior frame rate you will notice how smooth it is
And the human eye can only see 25 frames per second on a screen but if you play a game with a 60 or superior frame rate you will notice how smooth it is
yay for me.
They're basically bragging about one certain part of the game that will be barely noticeable, just because the fps is twice what others have. It's not something that will noticeably change the game.
After my disappointment in Black Ops, I already decided not to get MW3, at least not until it drops to half its price or something. But now this just pisses me off. Do they really think people are this stupid? I know some people are, but I don't imagine most of the gaming community is this stupid.
After my disappointment in Black Ops, I already decided not to get MW3, at least not until it drops to half its price or something. But now this just pisses me off. Do they really think people are this stupid? I know some people are, but I don't imagine most of the gaming community is this stupid.
BREAKING NEWS
Activision states that Modern Warfare 4 will dominate its competition through use of BLAST PROCESSING!!
Activision states that Modern Warfare 4 will dominate its competition through use of BLAST PROCESSING!!
Umm, real life is equivalent to 25 fps. There's no reason to go over 35 fps unless you simply want more work or bragging rights
Yeah, 32 v 32. On the PCAbandon4093 said:
On the PC the better game has been all but set in stone for a long time already.
I'm saying Kotick is actually right for once in calling BF3 a PC-centric game. I don't expect consoles to have a PC level kind of experience because that would be impossible. But until BF proves any different the console experience of it has been right out boring most of the time.
Can't speak for the majority, but yes, I notice a difference and I (to a degree) care. To me, there's a significantly noticeable difference in game flow between EA's shooters and Activision's shooters. It's not a deal breaker, per se, but it's noticeable enough for me to have set a preference based on that alone.Pingieking said: