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

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NEXT
 

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

image

Sledgehammer Games General Manager Glen Schofield says Modern Warfare 3's ability to run at 60 frames per second gives it a distinct edge over the competition because if you're not running at 60, you might as well not be running at all.

The war of petty zings between Activision and EA over the modern battlefield genre continued today in an AusGamers interview with Glen Schofield, formerly of EA's Visceral Games and who now heads Activision's Sledgehammer Games studio. Sledgehammer is currently assisting Infinity Ward in the development of Modern Warfare 3, which naturally means that Schofield was obligated to take a potshot or two at the looming Battlefield 3 - or, more precisely, the anonymous "competition."

"We really re-vamped this engine. We put a whole new audio system in and it is as competitive as anybody out there," he said, responding to a question about the impressive Frostbite 2 engine powering Battlefield 3. "You can go out and name your engine and call it whatever you want, right. You know, I've done that before; I've seen that trick and the bottom line is, [Modern Warfare 3] will run at 60 frames a second. Not sure any of our competitors will."

Schofield's comments come off more than a little similar to remarks made by Activision CEO Bobby Kotick, who implied at E3 that Battlefield 3 is "just a PC title." Developer DICE confirmed earlier this month that the console versions of the game will run at 30 FPS with a 720p resolution but said it was a worthwhile trade-off for better overall gameplay.

"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."

It's quite possible that I'm looking at this from the wrong angle but as a long-time PC gamer I'm used to tweaking various visual settings in a quest to find the sweet spot between smooth frame rates and eye-punching visuals, and it's my experience that frame rate ain't everything. More is better but if you can shave a little off the top in exchange for a few more explosions, a shower of bullet casings and blood spatter on the walls that lasts forever, and still keep things nice and smooth, I'd call it a worthwhile compromise. And I think that a slavish devotion to frame rate and resolution can ultimately be a bit counter-productive.

Still, that seems to be the peg upon which Schofield is hanging the Modern Warfare 3 hat. "Not sure I've seen any of our competitors on the console especially running at 60 frames a second and I'd be a little scared at this point - in June - if I was looking forward to a particular game that wasn't on the console and running at 60," he said. "And I think 60 is our competitive edge and you just don't throw that away."

Battlefield 3 comes out on October 25 for the PC, PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360. Modern Warfare 3 follows closely behind, arriving on November 8 for the same platforms.

Permalink

I'm pretty sure my TV can support 100fps. Get back to me when you start making game engines of that quality.

I was thinking of Hz not fps. Silly me. But in a multiplayer game where the difference between life and death can be a few frames. 60 is definitely the better option. But how many people can actually notice the difference?

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.

Why would you even argue about FPS? :P

I'm going to buy and enjoy both, no matter what the FPS or Resolution is.

TimeLord:

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.

"Our game is better, get ours!"
"No, no, ours is, gets ours instead!"
"Nuh-uh!"
"Uh-huh!"
EDIT: Dammit, Root, you stole my joke when I was writing it.

That sopme epic bashing right there.

I wonder How EA will respond.

I'm running TF2 at twice that framerate. Problem activison?

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

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

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

I don't know why they need to jab at B3. MW3 has the name power to where they can shit in a box call it MW3 and it will break launch records...

Of course the underdog is going to be out ther hyping them up. Seems like its getting to EA. Its a wierd agruement too. Dice shows impressive visuals EA responds with a number that doesnt mean much. It sure they will both run smooth at launch.

This is like when people were fighting over the N64s 64 bit's vs ps's 32 bits.
I still don't know what those bits were in any case.

hazabaza1:

EDIT: Dammit, Root, you stole my joke when I was writing it.

image
But of course! ;)

Excuse me while I go back to the land of things that matter...

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?

I read this and as a PC-Gamer couldn't help but think 'what's so unique about that?"

This kinda thing make me wonder if these people have forgotten the PC altogether. From the way MW2 and COD:BLOPS run and play then I would guess that's a yes.

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!"

I feel like this argument is getting more and more pointless. Just give me the demo and I'll decide if it's worth my money and time or not.

Zhukov:
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.

While 60 frames is nice, it isn't necessary for this style of game. 30 frames works well enough.

Darth Sea Bass:
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.

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

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

poiumty:

Zhukov:
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.

Pingieking:
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.

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

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...)

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

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

So it's just a bunch of techno-wanking, then?

The_root_of_all_evil:

TimeLord:

I was thinking of Hz not fps. Silly me.

Bet that mistake hertz.

Why has such a pun culture grown up here?

Not that I haven't done some of that myself.

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.

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.

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.

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.

scnj:
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...

teh_Canape:
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.

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here