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

[Treblaine]

Yeah because games are EXACTLY like movies, it doesn't matter how crappy they are to play, only if they look nice.

Just like a movie doesn't have to have good characters or storytelling jsut as long as it has the most Xtreeeeem CGI, like Transformers 2...

(/sarc)

Nail the gameplay THEN pump up the graphics! Right now only PC can do HD 60fps and good graphics.

Really? Of course gameplay is more important. I'm saying I'll take more bells and whistles over the difference between 30 and 60fps. And so will just about everyone.

60fps is an integral part of good gameplay for for any reasonably fast paced game.

OK, maybe and extremly slow paced third-person shooter only ever intetended to be played with a gamepad, maybe then 30fps is "adequate" but for any first person military shooter then 60fps is really important for smooth gameplay.

 

[mrdude2010]

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

no. anything over 24 is well beyond the human eye anyway

incorrect
We can most definitely tell the difference between 30 and 60 frames per second
http://www.boallen.com/fps-compare.html

In fact there is some research that has showed the human eye to see at above 220 frames per second

the only even vaguely comprehensible difference between 30 and 60 is that 30 looks blurrier

if i'm not screen synced on my pc all i can do is obsess over how slow something is running
lowest i can game at is 50 anything less looks like a poorly made anime with missing frames imo
and i hate cinema 24 fps whenever they pan around it makes me want to scream
i guess my brain is just impatient

'edit'
cod, and most shooters can die in a fire btw i like frame-rate not acti-turd.

fair enough, i'm not a big fan of the whole 24 thing, but i've never had a problem with 30... as soon as you get below 25 it bothers me though- i don't mind a little blur (unless it's a racing game) but for an FPS i really don't care too much about the difference between 30 and 60

and call of cashgrab can go die in a fire

 

[Jezzascmezza]

I think that half the people who play Call of Duty wouldn't even know that "FPS" can stand for two different things.

 

[Continuity]

Does this guy not realize that for PC gamers 60 fps is boderline unplayable? 120 fps or bust.

Yep, and 1080p is a minimum resolution that you would want to play at... not some impractical holy grail..

This just highlights once again how desperately in need we are of a new console generation, the current gen is simply in capable of the basic requirements of modern games, resulting in the games having to be brutally sawn down to "fit" the pathetic console hardware specs.

Roll on the new gen, and anyone who thinks we should stick to the current gen for any longer A) has their head up their ass and B) is a cheapskate who just doesn't want to shell out a few hundred bucks for a new system.

disclaimer: I don't own a console so as a PC gamer a new console gen would only mean good things for me ;-)

but for an FPS i really don't care too much about the difference between 30 and 60

High FPS makes a HUGE difference; at least on the PC anyway, on the PC if you're getting 30 FPS then its because your system is struggling to run the game, and you will get lag and inconsistent frame rate as a result... on the consoles its a bit different as the game will be designed to run at that FPS which make it much less of an issue.

Still, the benchmark of performance in an FPS is FPS... and there is a reason for that, it means smoother gun play and more accurate shooting.. essential for the quality of the gameplay experience in FPS.

Shining Tears beats all other action RPGs! Because it runs at 60 FPS!

AND IF YOU'RE NOT RUNNING AT 60 FPS, YOU MIGHT AS WELL NOT RUN AT ALL!

He was talking about FPS games (first person shooters), FPS (frames per second) is much much less important for other genre but for FPS (first person shooters) its critical.

the only even vaguely comprehensible difference between 30 and 60 is that 30 looks blurrier

I'm sorry but that simply is not true, i've been playing first person shooters since the genre was born and I can easily tell the difference between 30FPS,60FPS and 120FPS+... the difference is colossal in terms of how the game feels to play... if you're simply watching the screen you might not notice much but if you are playing the game its like the difference between running though water and running though air.

Personally I'd say the minimum playable level for a single player FPS is minimum 45FPS (thats minimum not average) and for competitive play i.e. online multiplayer minimum 60FPS... and if you're not getting these rates you just turn down graphics settings until you do get them... and if the game looks shit at the end of the process you know you need to upgrade something in your PC.

awesome needed a something on here to post this.

sums it up pretty well.

Maybe so, but if the boot was on the other foot and it was the consoles with the performance advantage i'm pretty sure we'd see the same behaviour from you guys... so don't be getting too judgemental eh?

 

[teisjm]

This leaves me wondering why movies don't seem wrong, even though they're made with 24/25 frames per second...

And as stated above, it's more often than not your ping, and not your engines FPS that gives the advantages in online combat.
And in this specific case, i lost all trust in activision to put out proper online shooters after MW2, even though i like the game, and the gameplay, and doesn't mind beeing tubed, the horrors of stupid IWnet picking people with 56 modems as hosts making lag an ever-present factor in every other match, makes the online part frustrating.

 

[Dragunai]

Thank you Sledgehammer for reinforcing my belief that Better graphics makes a better game... oh wait no that makes a shallow game which is pretty but stupid like most "Miss America" contestants but I'm sure the COD crowd wont notice between being 12 and making racist comments ingame for no apparent reason before saying I uber pwn and making youtube videos of how they camped for 6 hours then knifed some guy who was flash banged and AFK.

Go Dice!
Thank you Johan Andersson for saying exactly what I think gaming should be!
Fuck excessive visuals and over the top bloom / real world emphasis on a 1080p screen at the cost of game play.

It took me as long to complete Bad Company 2 as it did Black ops AND MW2 put together, literally. Due to the fact it focused more on game play and less on petty crap like that extra 10 fps that no one will notice once you're laying the boots into your enemies.

Frostbite Engine V2? So moar buildings to destroy in an even more visually awesome way?
Yes thanks.

24 v 24 games with proper classes like medics and assault, tanks rolling around as choppers fly over head while boats come in from the islands?
Yeah I'll take that too. Muchly appreciated.

What? 60fps while the combat is limited to at most 8v8, no destructible terrain and the same weapons and perks as the last 4 COD games?

LEAVE NOW!

 

[Singularly Datarific]

Soooo, the best reason why their game is better is because it runs at 60 fps?
Not for any other reason is this game going to shine better than its competitors?
When the best selling point is a graphical point, I don't think I want to see what the rest of the game that they rejected from advertising...

 

[Warped_Ghost]

Its like watching a console gamer make a PC elitist argument about a console based game against an obviously graphically superior PC game.
Its like watching a penguin tell a robin that it sucks because the robin can't fly.

 

[The_Blue_Rider]

I see their point and to me it actually does make a difference, after playing CoD most other first person shooters seem slow and choppy >.>

 

[omega_peaches]

Yeah! 60fps! And blurry textures! Crappy shadows and lighting! And don't forget the wonderful blockiness. Woo! Gooooooo CoD!

Seriously, 60fps can suck it. I'll take a steady 30 with better graphics and larger maps.

Yeah because games are EXACTLY like movies, it doesn't matter how crappy they are to play, only if they look nice.

Just like a movie doesn't have to have good characters or storytelling jsut as long as it has the most Xtreeeeem CGI, like Transformers 2...

(/sarc)

Nail the gameplay THEN pump up the graphics! Right now only PC can do HD 60fps and good graphics.

I'm pretty sure MW2 is a consistent 60 on consoles, this isn't always the case online because of lag though.

 

[Treblaine]

Yeah! 60fps! And blurry textures! Crappy shadows and lighting! And don't forget the wonderful blockiness. Woo! Gooooooo CoD!

Seriously, 60fps can suck it. I'll take a steady 30 with better graphics and larger maps.

Yeah because games are EXACTLY like movies, it doesn't matter how crappy they are to play, only if they look nice.

Just like a movie doesn't have to have good characters or storytelling jsut as long as it has the most Xtreeeeem CGI, like Transformers 2...

(/sarc)

Nail the gameplay THEN pump up the graphics! Right now only PC can do HD 60fps and good graphics.

I'm pretty sure MW2 is a consistent 60 on consoles, this isn't always the case online because of lag though.

yes, MW2 is a solid 60fps on 360 but at a cost, the graphics are fairly low fidelity and the game is rendered in only 1067x600p so only 70% of true HD of 720p (1280x720). But this is preferable, the game may be slightly blurrier but it plays much smoother.

the thing is I played MW2 on PC at 60fps but with a native resolution of 1920x1080. And after frame-rate, resolution adds SO MUCH to gameplay, especially in multiplayer when sniping without a scope. Also on PC I get extra model detail and shader effects.

But I really think the key to COD's continued success is that the controls are about as good as you can get on consoles. And that matters for a 20-million strong online community.

 

[Vibhor]

Wait, if a game runs faster its better right?
LOGIC!
Well to refute this game logic, I would answer that Magic Carpet runs at 90FPS on the standard setting. Thus according to activision logic, it is better than any call of duty ever made.

 

[zombiekiller1907]

wait, isn't 6o fps still kinda slow for a pc? or am i in another room again? is this thread for consoles or pc? because i'm a pc-only gamer. I'm so confused!

 

[Druyn]

This is childish, if you really want to sell a game, just say if you liked this then you'll enjoy that...

People don't quite know how to sell to our generation yet.

 

[GideonB]

The only place that this 60fps arguement would be truly valid is music games. Because seriously, if your not running at 60, you shouldn't be running it at all (60fps basically = the perfect sweet spot for music games)

Also this is not a selling point unless you are on a mobile device (PewPew for iOS and Android really does come to mind as they used the same point to sell the game to people, expect it makes sense on a phone)

 

[Treblaine]

Wait, if a game runs faster its better right?
LOGIC!
Well to refute this game logic, I would answer that Magic Carpet runs at 90FPS on the standard setting. Thus according to activision logic, it is better than any call of duty ever made.

That's not logic. That's like saying:

"If Blu-ray is better than DVD? So Transformers 2 on Blu-ray is better than Casablanca on DVD..."

Ah ha. So that extra power thrown into COD: MW 3 could have been put towards better visuals, longer story line, and greater variety of audio sounds. But instead they used it to push the limited to 60 FPS. Which is really a waste of time when everyone else is also running at 60 FPS.

(1) 60fps has absolutely no bearing on storyline or audio.
(2) it does mean lower graphics, this is a GOOD thing, it means the art budget is much lower and actually makes it easier to craft a good story... whether they actually bother making a good story
(3) CoD is the ONLY shooter running at 60fps, the only other games running at 60fps are sports or racing games.

What? 60fps while the combat is limited to at most 8v8, no destructible terrain and the same weapons and perks as the last 4 COD games?

LEAVE NOW!

You think you're insulting CoD, you're also insulting Counterstrike.

That's why I think CoD and BF3 are just too different to be competitors, 8v8 and 24v24 in such different environments with different spawn systems.

BF3 is very much a class shooter but COD really isn't, even though it has a "create-a-class" it is really nothing more than a glorified weapon selection screen with perks in the same vein as equipment (armour = juggernaut, gas-mask, etc). I don't think fans of one will necessarily be fans of the other.

BF3 may appeal to some COD fans, but you can't say "if you liked COD then you'll love BF3" it's looking to be a good game but it is not looking like the be the same kind of game as COD. It seems to be much more that we all WANT someone to stand up and compete with COD, and BF3 happens to be the closest competition.

Now the much rumoured Counterstrike 2, THAT would be a COD competitor.

 

[Oilerfan92]

Shouldn't they worry about making their game good and fun instead of FPS and stuff like that ?

No. Silly me

 

[Bobbity]

CoD's competitive edge is that it has CoD in the title. That's all it needs, and it can sell millions. A higher framerate is fluff, really.

 

[hawkeye52]

WOW. 60FPS is nothing most competition players were running configs in CoD4 to optimise their FPS from at least 125 FPS and this would be for medium end to low end computers that were on the same level as the console. Also there were FPS caps on some servers to prevent people having stupidly high FPS's on competitive mode owning everyone because if i remember correctly it gave people advantages in some areas

 

[Jennacide]

Great jorb Glenn, you come off as a douchebag once again. I may of loved Dead Space, but I'm not about to cut you any slack because of it.

So let's see, your main selling point is "oh look, it's 60fps! They're only 30fps," now? While not mentioning the fact how you achieve that, but down rezing the game and jamming it through the frame buffer to upscale it and get your precious fps? You can't even try to sell it on the merits of gameplay elements you think you'll be better at? All this tells me is you are geniuely quaking in your boots that Battlefield 3 poses a real threat.

The mere fact Sledgehammer is having to work on MW3 tells me more than enough information on how things are gonna pan out.