MW3 makers dig at Battlefield 3's 30FPS

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2011-06-29-mw3-makers-dig-at-battlefield-3s-30fps

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You can dress an engine up with whatever flashy name you like, said Sledgehammer Games founder Glen Schofield (co-developer of MW3). But, simply, Modern Warfare 3 runs at 60 frames per second.

"You can go out and name your engine and call it whatever you want. I've done that before - I've seen that trick," Schofield told AusGamers. "The bottom line is this game [MW3] will run at 60 frames a second. Not sure any of our competitors will.

"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 added. "60 is our competitive edge and you just don't throw that away."

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

They are kinda scraping out of the barrel now

[also it wont let me put that into a quote, damn you gamespot!]

It's like system wars. With professional developers.

Wow... that's sad. 90% of games are 30fps on the consoles. They are really trying to make their 2007 looking game sound better than a brand new engine with full destruction and physics...

That's because your game runs on the Quake 3 engine. Nothing to be proud of.

That's why their games have changed so little since COD4... it's only constant in MP, SP has a lot of framerate dips. Sorry but 30fps on consoles just allows developers to do a lot more. 60fps just becomes a shiny looking Xbox1 game.SaltyMeatballs

Well they have been making the same game every year for years so if they hadn't optimised it by now I'd be very surprised.

MW maps are smaller and less detailed. Besides, Tanks, trucks, planes, turrets are all playable in BF3, can MW do that?

LOL. I'm sure you can go back to Super Nintendo era games that were 60 FPS. I guess that is Super Nintendo's "competitive advantage" and that new engines are just a marketing trick.

That being said 60FPS is nicer, but they can't talk trash unless they actually improved their own engine *AND* pulled off 60 frames. Keep in mind that CoD runs at SUB-HD anyway and that's how it gets to 60FPS.

It's a fact that there are tens of thousands, maybe even millions of buyers who are in it partly for the smooth, tight contols, and 60 FPS. Pure feedback and lightning pace is attractive to a lot of people. Ask a COD player, they really dig the 60 FPS.

For the game to look at least as good as MW3 does at 60 FPS is impressive on consoles. They have good programmers, can't knock it for that. Of course, it they would be able to do much more graphically if they locked it at 30 FPS.

It's a fact that there are millions of buyers who are in it partly for the smooth, tight contols, and 60 FPS. Pure feedback and lightning pace is attractive to a lot of people.

TREAL_Since

I guess they play PC?

Yeah, Modern Warfare 3 runs at 60FPS because they're using an engine from 1998. Call of Duty has no more good people since West and Zampella left and took half the team with them.

It's a fact that there are millions of buyers who are in it partly for the smooth, tight contols, and 60 FPS. Pure feedback and lightning pace is attractive to a lot of people.

TREAL_Since

it's only at 60fps because of the outdated graphics and low sub HD resolution. so congratz activision :?

[QUOTE="TREAL_Since"]

It's a fact that there are millions of buyers who are in it partly for the smooth, tight contols, and 60 FPS. Pure feedback and lightning pace is attractive to a lot of people.

Mystic-G

Also, check out my edited post.

This is just a bad attempt at defending the usage of the same engine for the last 4-5 years. Running at 60fps doesn't mean it's going to be good. Especially when they know that the PC version of BF3 is going to take a major crap on MW3's cosole port.

Still using that modified Quake engine at sub-hd resolutions Mr Schofield?

[QUOTE="TREAL_Since"]

It's a fact that there are millions of buyers who are in it partly for the smooth, tight contols, and 60 FPS. Pure feedback and lightning pace is attractive to a lot of people.

Mystic-G

they probably don't know that it's actually 60fps, or even what a framerate is, but it'll still feel smoother to them I guess.

it's only at 60fps because of the outdated graphics and low sub HD resolution. so congratz activision :?

theuncharted34

[QUOTE="theuncharted34"]

it's only at 60fps because of the outdated graphics and low sub HD resolution. so congratz activision :?

TREAL_Since

it is true. the games run at 1024x600 res, and yes I understand it's not the same id tech 3 engine that COD started with, but still the graphics haven't changed at all since 2007. the games just look bad.

EDIT: that's how they achieve 60fps.

The jealousy by the MW3 devs is funny.

Even more funny is that the REAL MW devs aren't working there anymore and the current "leftover team" keeps recycling the same old engine.

This is just a bad attempt at defending the usage of the same engine for the last 4-5 years. Running at 60fps doesn't mean it's going to be good. Especially when they know that the PC version of BF3 is going to take a major crap on MW3's cosole port.

Zero_epyon

It's odd, one day the gaming community cares about graphics, the next day they don't. I say we wait until the features are revealed.

MW3 developers doesn't play anything below 60FPS.:P

[QUOTE="TREAL_Since"]

[QUOTE="theuncharted34"]

it's only at 60fps because of the outdated graphics and low sub HD resolution. so congratz activision :?

theuncharted34

it is true. the games run at 1024x600 res, and yes I understand it's not the same id tech 3 engine that COD started with, but still the graphics haven't changed at all since 2007. the games just look bad.

EDIT: that's how they achieve 60fps.

As far as better looking since 2007, I have to disagree. WHenever I see MW2, I see improvements over MW1. Same with Black Ops and World at War.

[QUOTE="Mystic-G"][QUOTE="TREAL_Since"]

It's a fact that there are millions of buyers who are in it partly for the smooth, tight contols, and 60 FPS. Pure feedback and lightning pace is attractive to a lot of people.

TREAL_Since

Also, check out my edited post.

From every person I've ever talked to who prefers CoD over BC2 it has nothing to do with the shooting controls or feel of the game. They have all always prefered the faster paced gameplay that CoD has over BC2. They like really short matches with tons of action and kills while getting rewarded. This is the same reason why they like it over Halo as well, it's just faster pace. They also love killing things really fast, they hate having to put more than 1-2 bullets into something to kill it.

I've never once heard a casual gamer complain about framerate unless it was really dropping badly (when they are playing something on the PC). Most people can't tell the difference and simpley don't care.

It's all about the gameplay why people prefer CoD. CoD has modern graphics and very tight and quick gameplay that people can't get enough of.

[QUOTE="theuncharted34"]

[QUOTE="TREAL_Since"]That's not true. The engine's backbone is outdated, but there are MANY enhancements that have been made by their programers. They can drop the FPS to 30 and provide more impressive graphical upgrades. Surely, it won't look as good as KZ3 and BF3 though.

TREAL_Since

it is true. the games run at 1024x600 res, and yes I understand it's not the same id tech 3 engine that COD started with, but still the graphics haven't changed at all since 2007. the games just look bad.

EDIT: that's how they achieve 60fps.

As far as better looking since 2007, I have to disagree. WHenever I see MW2, I see improvements over MW1. Same with Black Ops and World at War.

oh. well then no. that wouldn't make sense if I said that :P

as far as improvements, I really haven't seen any to speak of. they added a lot of *shiny* when MW2 came out :P

[QUOTE="TREAL_Since"]

[QUOTE="Mystic-G"] Why do I get the feeling most people who buy CoD have zero awareness about the framerate? Wasdie

Also, check out my edited post.

From every person I've ever talked to who prefers CoD over BC2 it has nothing to do with the shooting controls or feel of the game. They have all always prefered the faster paced gameplay that CoD has over BC2. They like really short matches with tons of action and kills while getting rewarded. This is the same reason why they like it over Halo as well, it's just faster pace. They also love killing things really fast, they hate having to put more than 1-2 bullets into something to kill it.

I've never once heard a casual gamer complain about framerate unless it was really dropping badly (when they are playing something on the PC). Most people can't tell the difference and simpley don't care.

It's all about the gameplay why people prefer CoD. CoD has modern graphics and very tight and quick gameplay that people can't get enough of.

You ever consider that gameplay as fast paced as COD may not be partly due to high FPS?

[QUOTE="Zero_epyon"]

This is just a bad attempt at defending the usage of the same engine for the last 4-5 years. Running at 60fps doesn't mean it's going to be good. Especially when they know that the PC version of BF3 is going to take a major crap on MW3's cosole port.

TREAL_Since

It's odd, one day the gaming community cares about graphics, the next day they don't. I say we wait until the features are revealed.

[QUOTE="TREAL_Since"]

[QUOTE="theuncharted34"]

it is true. the games run at 1024x600 res, and yes I understand it's not the same id tech 3 engine that COD started with, but still the graphics haven't changed at all since 2007. the games just look bad.

EDIT: that's how they achieve 60fps.

theuncharted34

As far as better looking since 2007, I have to disagree. WHenever I see MW2, I see improvements over MW1. Same with Black Ops and World at War.

oh. well then no. that wouldn't make sense if I said that :P

as far as improvements, I really haven't seen any to speak of. they added a lot of *shiny* when MW2 came out :P

[QUOTE="theuncharted34"]

[QUOTE="TREAL_Since"]I thought you were implying that the engine is not capable of running at 30 FPS, due to the fact taht it is old. If that isn't the case, then I was mistaken.

As far as better looking since 2007, I have to disagree. WHenever I see MW2, I see improvements over MW1. Same with Black Ops and World at War.

TREAL_Since

oh. well then no. that wouldn't make sense if I said that :P

as far as improvements, I really haven't seen any to speak of. they added a lot of *shiny* when MW2 came out :P

well, I haven't exactly compared the COD games, it just seems like they look exactly the same for the most part. (but with more shine for the latest ones :P )

I'll take your word for it that there have been *some* improvements though.

[QUOTE="TREAL_Since"]

[QUOTE="Zero_epyon"]

This is just a bad attempt at defending the usage of the same engine for the last 4-5 years. Running at 60fps doesn't mean it's going to be good. Especially when they know that the PC version of BF3 is going to take a major crap on MW3's cosole port.

SaltyMeatballs

It's odd, one day the gaming community cares about graphics, the next day they don't. I say we wait until the features are revealed.

Bungie was smart with their engine enhancements. It isn't entirely new, but it's vastly improved upon. Saved them time and money from creating a brand new engine (very expensive). I'm just stating that Infinity Ward should be able to do the same if they wanted to. But, that is not the case.

One thing that I will criticize Activision for is the fact that they have NOT created a brand new engine. The fact that they are praising it's 60 FPS bothers me none. They want to maximize profits and release within a 2 year window. IW alone with their limited staff could not pull that off, that's why I won't give them any flak just yet. It would be nice to see Activision create a new team to develope a new engine for future COD games. A next gen engine, built from the ground up to maintain 60 FPS would be interesting. They have the money...

[QUOTE="Zero_epyon"]

This is just a bad attempt at defending the usage of the same engine for the last 4-5 years. Running at 60fps doesn't mean it's going to be good. Especially when they know that the PC version of BF3 is going to take a major crap on MW3's cosole port.

TREAL_Since

It's odd, one day the gaming community cares about graphics, the next day they don't. I say we wait until the features are revealed.

I need vehicles and real-time destruction in my sandbox wargames or I'm not interested.

MW is boring, arcadey and generic.

seeing as how dice has been extremely quick to respond to people who want to bash the game...that little cheap shot will not end well for the person who said that

there right they did have the 60fps edge....years ago, and Dice is usually the one to say a smartass comment so im waiting for there response:lol:

When they could get their game to look as good as BF3 with 60FPS only then I'll be impressed.

[QUOTE="TREAL_Since"]

[QUOTE="Zero_epyon"]

This is just a bad attempt at defending the usage of the same engine for the last 4-5 years. Running at 60fps doesn't mean it's going to be good. Especially when they know that the PC version of BF3 is going to take a major crap on MW3's cosole port.

Zero_epyon

It's odd, one day the gaming community cares about graphics, the next day they don't. I say we wait until the features are revealed.

Another thing you have to take into consideration was the fallout at IW. Just imagine, if it affected Infinity Ward enough to prevent them from making/releasing map packs in order to rape consumers for money, you can assume that they weren't able to patch the game at the pace consumers wanted. Treyarch on the other hand with 150 more employees and no interuptions are able to respond to the Black Ops community with ease. I think IW will be more capable this time around.

Already, there are changes to the multiplayer that the community were clamoring for (no nukes, no OMA, no commando, shorter knife lunge, killstreaks will be more supportive than overpowering, more focus on gun-on-gun action, launcher weapons will be limited).

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

[QUOTE="TREAL_Since"]I bet they get the fact that it's lightnig fast and it's smooth as hell. Casuals may not know the technicalities of 'frames per second' but I guarantee you they enjoy the result. It is probably the smoothest online shooter on consoles.

Also, check out my edited post.

TREAL_Since

From every person I've ever talked to who prefers CoD over BC2 it has nothing to do with the shooting controls or feel of the game. They have all always prefered the faster paced gameplay that CoD has over BC2. They like really short matches with tons of action and kills while getting rewarded. This is the same reason why they like it over Halo as well, it's just faster pace. They also love killing things really fast, they hate having to put more than 1-2 bullets into something to kill it.

I've never once heard a casual gamer complain about framerate unless it was really dropping badly (when they are playing something on the PC). Most people can't tell the difference and simpley don't care.

It's all about the gameplay why people prefer CoD. CoD has modern graphics and very tight and quick gameplay that people can't get enough of.

You ever consider that gameplay as fast paced as COD may not be partly due to high FPS?

The FPS will do nothing but improve the responsiveness of the controls. At 30fps you could still crank up the speed of which the characters move quite a bit and still have it playable. Also you're not taking scale into consideration. The size of the map directly influences the amount of time inbetween each encounter. Also BC2 has about 1/4th of the auto aim that CoD has which makes quickscoping absolutly impossible. Furthermore there are no killstreaks which really help a player rack up kills fast.

Basically everything about the gameplay in CoD is geared for fast, easy kills with tons of rewards to make you feel like you're always accomplishing something and winning, even if your team is losing. It's all about the solo play.

I hate playing on 30 FPS, but that said, it is not as big a deal on consoles, because you are not turning as fast and as often as on PC. PC FPS's require the best framerate.

[QUOTE="TREAL_Since"]

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

From every person I've ever talked to who prefers CoD over BC2 it has nothing to do with the shooting controls or feel of the game. They have all always prefered the faster paced gameplay that CoD has over BC2. They like really short matches with tons of action and kills while getting rewarded. This is the same reason why they like it over Halo as well, it's just faster pace. They also love killing things really fast, they hate having to put more than 1-2 bullets into something to kill it.

I've never once heard a casual gamer complain about framerate unless it was really dropping badly (when they are playing something on the PC). Most people can't tell the difference and simpley don't care.

It's all about the gameplay why people prefer CoD. CoD has modern graphics and very tight and quick gameplay that people can't get enough of.

Wasdie

You ever consider that gameplay as fast paced as COD may not be partly due to high FPS?

The FPS will do nothing but improve the responsiveness of the controls. At 30fps you could still crank up the speed of which the characters move quite a bit and still have it playable. Also you're not taking scale into consideration. The size of the map directly influences the amount of time inbetween each encounter. Also BC2 has about 1/4th of the auto aim that CoD has which makes quickscoping absolutly impossible. Furthermore there are no killstreaks which really help a player rack up kills fast.

Basically everything about the gameplay in CoD is geared for fast, easy kills with tons of rewards to make you feel like you're always accomplishing something and winning, even if your team is losing. It's all about the solo play.

I'd rather have my console game run at 60FPS. lol at buying BF3 on console though, though I hope the PC version will run at 60FPS and doesn't make my GTX 480 melt. :PStevo_the_gamer

That is very true. I couldn't put it any better. Also, this is huge reason. Control, control, control. Feedback is monumental for those with ADHD :P.

TREAL_Since

I still don't think it's all about the controls like you think. BC2 responds just fine. It's about the gameplay, size of the maps, and the killstreaks.

Why do you think kids like playing on Nuketown so much? Nothing to do with the controls, all to do with how fast the game plays. Matches are over in minutes.