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

[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.

 

[scnj]

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

 

[Corohan]

Implying that Battlefield 3 can't run 60 fps on the PC.

 

[draythefingerless]

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

In terms of computing, yes. But I honestly doubt it'd impede competitive play. After all, EVERYONE's running at 30 fps, not just you.

My thoughts exactly. Your game is still ugly activision! it dont matter if you run it at 30, that only matters in competitive play, and since everyone runs at 30 or 60, its pointless.

 

[Schmittler]

If you want awesome frame rates, get a PC.
Consoles aren't powerful enough to push BF3 style graphics to 60 FPS. On another note, do most people even care? I know my friends do (but they're all primarily PC gamers), but do the majority of the population?

Nope. I don't care a bit. This just seems silly. It's really a difference of opinions. I would take the destructible environments over more Frames.

I can't really tell the difference, except I hear the game feels a little slower paced, but this definitely isn't a deciding factor on a game, it's just fuel for fanboys.

 

[The Lost Big Boss]

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

 

[XDravond]

Thats why I'm a part of the happy glorious master race of PC-gamers..... 'cus I can really decide myself and don't need any big publisher tell me what resolution/fps/detail level I'm supposed to run. ;-P

But really the edge 60fps,.. I suspect most PC will have that "edge" if they wanted (how far down will the resolution go 800*600? ;-) I personally prefer a minimum 30fps and toping at 50-60 (as long as it doesn't dip under 30 if it does it really affects my "feel" for the game) but I really don't need 60 to play....

Network lag annoys me more (or crappy servers...)

 

[Worgen]

if your claiming that having a few more frames per second then your competitor is your edge then you are grasping for anything

as for the audio, I dont know how they revamped it, I mean Ive seen some video and the guns still sound like toys

 

[teh_Canape]

didn't Timesplitters 3 already did this, like YEARS ago? on the PS2/Gamecube/Xbox?

 

[Hristo Tzonkov]

You know what's funny...The game engine hasn't changed,the story will be shit,they'll have the same maps and modes,they'll likely charge you for an overgrown stat watching site.And it will still sell more than BF3 when DICE have pretty much said "these are our limitations to bringing a stable online and offline play,let's see how far we can push them".In a way MW3 will do the same except it will be a question of "how much shit can we shovel before they notice".

In online play I've ran as low as 10 fps and still have been competitive and those are the noticable staggers.At ~20 you can't even tell the game isn't running at optimum unless there's a smokescreen and 3 explosions.

 

[Cenequus]

Sure the normal gamer sees no difference above 60 fps,but playing on 30ish fps on a shooter is pretty brutal and choppy. But they talk about competitive scene and here they are far from optimal. Pro players play CS,Quake Live, Starcraft 2, League of Legends etc at above 110 fps so they can be sure the game keeps the pace with their reactions.

If your selling point to competitive scene is that your game can run at 60 fps you'll be laughed at and ignored.

 

[Chadling]

Ugh. There are a few types of gamers that I despise. One of them is the guy that goes onto internet forums shrieking to everyone who cares that their framerate has gone below 60 FPS.

 

[unacomn]

I can get Duke Nukem Forever to run on 100 f/s, that doesn't make it a better game.
30 f/s is more than enough for a smooth experience, even in multiplayer. Your ping counts a hell of a lot more than the difference between 30 an 60.
Besides, if it's over 25, you're not really registering the improvement as much as you do between 15 and 20.

 

[Braedan]

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...

didn't Timesplitters 3 already did this, like YEARS ago? on the PS2/Gamecube/Xbox?

The old systems were not able to do 1080p though, so they were running on half the resolution.

 

[Smooth Operator]

I guess when you're releasing CoD4 yet again your really run out of sales pitches.
"Ya others have good looking games with more features but our old engine runs smooth"

 

[Woodsey]

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

Maybe not see, but feel, certainly. Even so, I still think they're right in it being a worthwhile trade off. And the host advantage in CoD seems to be so appalling that the 60 fps is negated half the time anyway.

And yeah, if you're competitive edge is solely your frame rate (an offshoot of their donkeys-years-old engine most likely) then you've got issues.

 

[ReservoirAngel]

Well... how 'bout that... *wanders off*

Seriously, does framerate even make that much difference? Unless the framerate is chugging to game-disrupting levels I don't think its an understatement to say that I don't give a fuck if your game runs 60fps or only 30-ish!

My untrained eye can't tell the difference, to be perfectly honest. And even if it could differentiate between the two framerates, I doubt I would be able to bring myself to care about said difference in any way.

Of course this is just me. Some people do notice and obsess about these things. I have a brother who regularly complains about the irritating framerate of console games while to me they appear to be running perfectly smoothly.

Of course he is also an elitist smug PC gaming shit-for-brains with a superiority complex, so he might just be complaining about stuff he knows I won't notice just to try and get to me or to make himself feel better over spending several thousand pounds on a gaming rig just so he can play a combination of games also available on console, and the Witcher 2.

Sorry, got off-topic there. Point is: framerate specifics barely matter, and these two companies are childish pricks.

 

[Servantes]

I think everyone has asked this but I was aware most people can only see 30FPS maybe slightly higher, so whats the point of 60FPS? not like things are going to be much difference.

Just going to be CoD:BO 2 as far as Ive seen.

Also the location, 2 words: Crysis 2

 

[Easton Dark]

A constant 30-50fps is good enough for me Sledgehammer, and I bet most of your fans really don't care about it that much.

i think they're stupid enough to use it in an argument even though most of them don't know what the hell they're talking about.

it's the bit wars all over again.

otherwise known as "MINE'S BIGGER!"

Oh god. I have Battlefield and CoD fanboy friends. The conversations... *dread*