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

[jpoon]

That's some stupid shit to say considering 95% of all console games aren't in 60fps. 60 Is nice and all but a crapload of my absolute favorite games are definitely not running more than 30 fps.

 

[NicolasMarinus]

It's funny how people seem to have no issue with downloading films at 700MB (which means quality is 4 times worse than a dvd), but are fanatical when it comes to game graphics.

 

[Awexsome]

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.

You do realise BF3 is going to be 64 players right?

Try 32 v 32 not so boringfests.

Yeah, 32 v 32. On the PC

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.

I don't see an issue with PC gamers getting the better deal for once. As much as I don't want to admit it. This console gen is on it's last legs. There's only so much you can do with 7 year old hardware.

a 2013-14 release for the next gen may be a necessity really. Even though I won't be getting them until like 2015+ lol.

That's a whole different topic of PC vs console.

CoD is looking like the better game on the platform relevant to my interests at this point. The PC gamers will get probably an even better game on their platform with BF3 and I'm really dreading when that happens because on this site? Not gonna be fun trying to get across to a lot of people that the PC is only 1/3 of the game.

It wouldn't only be a third of the game. It would be one complete game. With 2 worse versions available.

Honestly though, I think what the 360 n PS3 are getting is going to be great anyway. I haven't seen any gameplay from MW3. But I'm not expecting much of a changeup from their last 2 games really. They're fun and I enjoy playing them. But I'm looking forward to BF more.

Yeah, I'll probably end up getting both like I did with the Bad company and CoD series but I'm not counting it out yet.

Just when DICE has come out really wanting to be the guy who can put CoD in its place they should be able to flaunt some things over CoD in its home court, the consoles. I'll reserve judgement until they come out but I'm not really expecting much change from either series. CoD from its series and Battlefield from the Bad Company series except for the campaign (which is the biggest wild card IMO. Seeing if DICE will make a campaign like, not like, better, or worse than CoDs)

 

[Vigormortis]

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

In most cases, yes it can. However, the average player will hardly notice. Though, fluid movements do noticeably lose some of that fluidity at lower frame rates. Still, Activision claiming MW3 can run up to 60 frames means nothing if it's not constant. Frame drops are far more noticeable than low frame rates. I'd much rather have a stable, constant 30 to 40 frame count than one that fluctuates all over the place and sometimes[/b] hit's 60.

That said, it's been shown in rather extensive studies that the human eye and brain loses it's ability to distinguished frame rate differences at any rate above 120 frames or so. So, any attempt to push your hardware or remove features to allow your game to run at frame counts higher than that is an exercise in pointless futility. (and done solely for bragging rights)

Congrats InfinitySledge, you made a six year old engine run at 60FPS. You want a cookie?

I'm thinking more of a gentle hand on the shoulder and a disappointed look. If the best they can do is claim their game "supposedly" has a better frame rate, I'm pretty sure even Mr. Kotick is afraid of hearing a death knell for the franchise.

 

[Glademaster_v1legacy]

I was thinking of Hz not fps. Silly me.

Bet that mistake hertz.



Seriously though, are these guys still in juniors or something?
My game runs faster!
My game runs smoother!
My game's dad can beat up your game's dad!

Grow up before you bring California down on us again.

Yeah I used to play CoD 2 at about 20FPS when others had it at 200FPS when for CoD games all you need really is about 30 FPS. Although they are really just pandering to their apparent target audience with this. Even look at the trailer when they try to use 1337 which is kinda funny.

 

[5t3v0]

Congrats InfinitySledge, you made a six year old engine run at 60FPS. You want a cookie?

Try over 10... I think it uses the unreal engine or something...

 

[HeySeansOnline]

Next thing you know they'll be talking about how Modern Warfare 3 has Blast Processing.

 

[Victor Cross]

Didn't MW2 run at 60fps?

 

[gellert1984]

I can run Doom95 at a billion FPS! Therefore Doom95 pwns all!

 

[aashell13]

if this is your best selling point, the i'm pretty sure i'm not going to waste my money.
come back to me when you can promise a coherent narrative and an engaging singleplayer campaign.

 

[Jubbert]

Genesis does what Nintendon't.

BLAST PROCESSING.

 

[MarsProbe]

60fps? Really? I thought MW3s USP was that its singleplayer campaign featured a helicopter crash. As in, the helicopter your character is in crash lands. Seriously people, look it up if you don't believe me. Simply astounding! I can't wait to see what other unique elements they included in the singleplayer campaign.

 

[Frostbite3789]

Sounds like a certain someone working for Sledgehammer might be slightly butt-hurt and realize their product isn't all that great. Not namin' any names here.

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.

Yeah, the 6v6 borefests that CoD brings to the table are much better! And in what way is the focus of MW3 on the PC? Last I checked they didn't give a rats ass about the PC. Perhaps you meant BF3 is giving more focus to the PC.

And how is CoD actually fun? It's the same arena battle over and over again. No variance. It's why I got bored after prestiging in MW2 once and never touched it again, I'd already been doing that exact same thing in MW.

 

[Karilas]

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

*clap*
*clap*
*clap*

Bravo!

 

[Karilas]

It's funny how people seem to have no issue with downloading films at 700MB (which means quality is 4 times worse than a dvd), but are fanatical when it comes to game graphics.

Not entirely accurate, a 700meg xvid is more often than not indistinguishable from it's 3gig MPEG2 counterpart. The beauty of decent compression algorithms, eh?

 

[elvor0]

Huh? I'm assuming this is on consoles cause MW games will never run at 60 fps on any PC

You what? People can get Crysis 2 to run at 60 fps, I'm pretty sure it can handle MW games.

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

In most cases, yes it can. However, the average player will hardly notice. Though, fluid movements do noticeably lose some of that fluidity at lower frame rates. Still, Activision claiming MW3 can run up to 60 frames means nothing if it's not constant. Frame drops are far more noticeable than low frame rates. I'd much rather have a stable, constant 30 to 40 frame count than one that fluctuates all over the place and sometimes[/b] hit's 60.

To play devil's advocate on this thread, and actually defend Sledgehammer/nu-Infinity Ward (because God knows someone has to), the developers repeatedly claimed during their E3 interview that they've put a lot of work into making sure the engine runs at a constant 60fps, even during the most hectic action sequences. Considering all the craziness they showed in their demo, that's not a bad achievement in itself. I honestly believe that Battlefield 3, with all it's high-end graphics and destructo-madness, is going to stutter at least a little on the doddery old 360/PS3 architecture.

OT: As for all the bitching between the two games: I honestly can't understand it. Sure, Battlefield 3 may have destructible scenery (like practically every shooter out there) and purty graphics, but honestly, both games are pretty much the same. I watched a gameplay demo of BF3, and it looked like not much more than a slightly shinier CoD. Not that that's a bad thing, but gamers who lambast Modern Warfare 3 while at the same time extolling how awesome Battlefield 3 is going to be... well, that strikes me as ever so slightly short-sighted and hypocritical. At the end of the day, both games are first-person shooters that revolve around western Special Forces soldiers iron-sighting terrorists (and Ruskies in MW3's case) across various exotic locales. The basic premises are so similar that to slag off one while hyping up the other looks, to me, incredibly short-sighted. But ah well...

Similar theatres of war, gameplay wise they're very different, I'm sure you've played both, and PC gamers tend to prefer (myself included) Battlefield, it's a lot more like being in a proper battle (or as much as you can in a game), wheras CoD is just a really fast paced shooting gallery. Plus BF3 has the destructable environments, which is great in creating a proper immersive environment, if someone fires a mortar shell at a building, it SHOULD have a gaping whole in the side of it, as well as the Squad System, Commanders, Vehicles and a decent class system that makes people work as a team. CoD you could quite easily paint with Halo skins and it would play pretty similar (not exactly, but you get the idea).

Lets be honest here, people are NOT buying MW3 or BF3 for the campaign, I'll be playing it, but the multiplayer is going to be the focus (which BF3 should just be anyway), where BF is leaps and bounds ahead of MW, even comparing MW2 to Battlefield 2. I mean MW 1 2 and Blops are pretty much the same game with a few tweaks that could've been added as DLC.

Saying that, there's nothing wrong with MW gameplay, it's very solid and polished, it's just at this point they really should be making innovations or new gameplay additions that actually matter (not bloody wager games), after three games almost nothings changed.

 

[Brinnmilo]

Having run an awful computer for the last 8 years I am used to appalling FPS (and high blood pressure). Although my computer would burst into flames if either of these games came within 100m of it, I would still take BF3 over ME3 because I couldn't give a damn that ME3 runs at 60FPS. If I had a thousand plastic bottles of air stored in my basement I could brag about it and say 'it's better than your one or two bottles' but ultimately I would just look like I'm trying to compensate for something *nudge nudge, wink wink activision*

 

[Vault boy Eddie]

You can get away with 60 frames per second when you haven't changed your game engine since Call of Duty 3.

 

[Alden Hou]

the human eye detects frames at 21 FPS, any higher and its a trivial matter, Activision knows Battlefield is making a comeback and they want to smear as much crap on it as possible so that they can continue to rot our minds with repetitive twitch based games, which aren't even innovative. After call of duty 4 they have been carbon copies of each other. BTW: activision is releasing another DLC for BLOPS, which means you will have to pay a total of $105(60+15+15+15) american plus tax for content that was supposed to be in the game anyways.

 

[blackdwarf]

can't your brain only process 24 images a second? so the difference between 30 frames and 60 frames is almost non-existent.