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

[Covarr]

As I see it, framerate doesn't matter as much on a console version of a FPS game. The dual-analog controller is already hurting the player's response time more than running at 30fps would. For a platformer or puzzle game, I could see the need for a high framerate, or for the PC version of a shooter, but not for a console shooter.

Not to mention, all of your opponents will have the disadvantage, so at least in multiplayer it's still fairly even grounds.

P.S. Thanks

 

[StriderShinryu]

What really matters is consistency. Either 30 or 60 can work, though the smoothness guaranteed by 60 is generally better for competitive play. Going above 60 is, as far as I'm aware, pretty much pointless unless you just like to look at big numbers on your fps meter.

 

[MiracleOfSound]

do you really think that an average 12 year old cod fanboy even knows what a fps is?

The average 12 year old fanboy knows that COD feels more responsive and fluid than other console shooters to control, which is all down to 60FPS.

 

[EvilestDeath]

Wouldn't it be a slap in both of the game devs faces if everyone could stand together and boycott both games for the studios acting like kids? Like if they both got beat in sales by something like...FEAR 3 or something that's really bad instead. I can't think of a bad game that we all know will be or has been released this year...wait, Duke Nukem Forever That would show them. (FEAR 3 is not a bad game, it would just be unexpected)

 

[qeinar]

doesn't really matter, gonna run 'em both at over 100 fps on my computer. : p

 

[Sentient6]

Hey guise, we have shitty single-player, same exact gameplay we had since '04, we're recycling the multiplayer from our older games, our graphics are inferior and we charge extra money for lame extras that are offered for free in virtually every other MP game. But we run at 60 FPS. We're totally the best.

 

[qeinar]

What really matters is consistency. Either 30 or 60 can work, though the smoothness guaranteed by 60 is generally better for competitive play. Going above 60 is, as far as I'm aware, pretty much pointless unless you just like to look at big numbers on your fps meter.

actually on cod you can jump a slight bit longer the more fps you have. so on cod for having 250 is gives you a slight edge. and also it plays more smothly. ^^

 

[Sneaklemming]

There isn't a noticeable difference between 60fps and 30fps, and even if you somehow can tell, it's not a big deal.

 

[Deadlock Radium]

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

I've heard that some people can distinguish differences up to 40 FPS, so some might. But then again, I don't think that that's teenagers interested in FPS games, though I'm not denying it.

I just think it's silly that they try to keep the FPS so high instead of shaving off a little of those precious frames to compromise with gameplay and 'splosions.
[SUB]I like 'splosions very much :3[/SUB]

 

[UbarElite]

I admit, it is nice to see a game developer more concerned with frame rate than graphics. Here's hoping they don't cut too many gameplay corners to do it.

 

[auronvi]

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

This... what are they so proud of? Their games all LOOK 6 years old and people keep buying it.

I just looked at Activision's website. I don't see a game on there that I would call "visually impressive."

 

[Gasaraki]

Then the PC gamers laughed at the console devs' petty FPS squabbles and went back to playing games at 100fps on huge-ass monitors. And all was right in the world.

 

[JET1971]

You can tell the differance between 30 fps to 60 fps to 120 fps. you dont just see the frames, but you also see the missing frames. your brain filters out the missing ones making smooth movement, the more fps the less your brain has to do to make you see smooth movement because the changes from frame 1 to frame 2 are smaller. your brain can ignores those missing details much easier. and yes that can be the differance between having a better game or not... if ofcourse your criteria for "better game" happens to be smoother animation and particle affects. But that would be a niche market who makes that the criteria for "better game". so thus the majority of players wont notice or care as long as the game is fun.

EA's counter to this is definatly a selling point.

"We think huge levels, lots of players, great effects, destruction, vehicles & varied gameplay are more important than 1080p," DICE Rendering Architect Johan Andersson said on Twitter [via Eurogamer]. "How is that a shame? Name a single FPS game that runs at 1080p on any of the consoles? [We] would have to do huge gameplay cuts."

most importantly the last 8 words...

[We] would have to do huge gameplay cuts."

Thats what makes a better game. they are not dumbing the game down for the sake of fps, As a gamer I would rather have all the gameplay elements that can be added into BF3 from BF2/2142 and BFBC2 that is possible rather than "oh look its another CODMW with a name change and different gimmicks".

 

[KLLR255]

Bravo Infinity Ward -.-
think you just moved from the top of my "November To *buy* List" to the very bottom..... Right behind Saints Row 3. See where the whole unnecessary and weak boost's of your game get you?

 

[Alloflifedecays]

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.

 

[A Werewolf]

I thought anything more than 25 was more than the eye can discern?

Actually, it depends on whats being shown

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!"

 

[The Wykydtron]

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?

 

[Treblaine]

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.

 

[Willsor]

Oh please. I have been getting 50-60fps on bad company 2 (pc) for months. and that has GOOD graphics, unlike the mw series

 

[Treblaine]

doesn't really matter, gonna run 'em both at over 100 fps on my computer. : p

Maybe that's why COD always ranks so high on consoles yet meh on PC as on console it is unique with 60fps but on PC everyone aims for 60fps with every game.