60 FPS is Modern Warfare 3's "Competitive Edge"
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
Recommended Videos
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)!
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
