MW3 makers dig at Battlefield 3's 30FPS

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

A 480! Oh wow.

Runs hotter than a 295gtx which kept my house warm over the winter.

Good luck.:P

[QUOTE="Stevo_the_gamer"]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. :PTREAL_Since

[QUOTE="TREAL_Since"]

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.

Wasdie

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.

While I personally love a good framerate, especially on PC FPS games, I agree with you in what you are syaing. 60 FPS is not the reason this game sells so well. Casuals are buying it for all the reasons you stated. Which clump together in a impatient, noob friendly game :P.

[QUOTE="Stevo_the_gamer"]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. :Pstvee101

A 480! Oh wow.

Runs hotter than a 295gtx which kept my house warm over the winter.

Good luck.:P

[QUOTE="TREAL_Since"]

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.

Wasdie

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.

[QUOTE="Zero_epyon"][QUOTE="TREAL_Since"]Yet Bungie can keep the backbone of their last gen engine, retrofit it with new guts, and not get hammered for it (not criticizing Bungie). Simply because of the 30 FPS allowing for more graphical features. You'd be surprised of how many old engines that are out there, but have been re-gutted for new improvements, as well as running at 30 FPS. IW aren't low tier developers. I'm pretty sure if IW wanted to drop to 30 FPS, the engine could do more things than at 60 FPS. But... hi-res textures and physics aren't what they care about.

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.

TREAL_Since

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).

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

Just a question: do you have ADHD? Coz I do.

I'm not sure if people with ADHD necessarily have to like CoD over other FPSes.

[QUOTE="TREAL_Since"]

[QUOTE="Zero_epyon"] The difference is that Bungie has the time to get those modifications working right. I like COD but MW2 was a bit of a step backwards. Multiplayer was broken for a while after release and had numerous issues with connectivity. Then the ease of it being hacked even before the PS3 hacks. So after all of those headaches, the game being 60 fps doesn't weigh much. I agree we should wait until the full details are released, however judging by their comments and from what we've seen from previous games, not much will change. Personally though, I don't care much about framerate unless it drops way below 30 when it's noticeable. Zero_epyon

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).

At this moment the whole DICE team are sitting in a meeting room discussing what they should say as a witty remark....

That's the problem with this gen, it's all about graphics and not gameplay... Also just to make a point to the topic, if you're using an old as dirt engine it better run at 60fps on new products.

[QUOTE="TREAL_Since"]

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.

FrozenLiquid

Just a question: do you have ADHD? Coz I do.

I'm not sure if people with ADHD necessarily have to like CoD over other FPSes.

[QUOTE="stvee101"]

[QUOTE="Stevo_the_gamer"]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

A 480! Oh wow.

Runs hotter than a 295gtx which kept my house warm over the winter.

Good luck.:P

Thats why I eventually sold my 295,the temps were just insane even with the fan blasting away.plus running into SLI issues with some games.

Got a 580,best card I've ever had. :D

You're all silly, the ps3 will look the best due to TEH CELL

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

BigBoss154

not to mention the closed corridor vs open field map...

[QUOTE="FrozenLiquid"]

[QUOTE="TREAL_Since"]

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

Just a question: do you have ADHD? Coz I do.

I'm not sure if people with ADHD necessarily have to like CoD over other FPSes.

Nah it's not offensive, though it's like the go-to phrase for games that have this instant gratifying stuff, so it's quite funny. The only time you can offend someone with ADHD is when you offend their opinion. You can mock them, and they will laugh, but don't offend their opinion :P.

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...

Wasdie

I gotta say, there isn't much IW or Sledgehammer could say when everyones just trying to bite their head off with "FROSTBITE!BF3!CODSUX!".:P I'm surprised they actually bothered to reply to those things, considering they know they have this one in the bag as well.:lol:

People like the fast-paced gameplay of COD over the likes of BC2. FPS is a factor, but who cares anyways, people playing BF3 on consoles would probably get laughed at by the hermits.:P

I hope I can at least run it myself without my laptop burning up.:lol: I can run Crysis Warhead though... Not on ultra however.:P

This is so dumb... who freaking cares?

Id tech 3 engine FTW suck that Frostbite 3.Fightingfan

It's funny, because FB2 is perfectly capable of running 60 FPS.

Blame the hardware, not the software.

[QUOTE="SaltyMeatballs"][QUOTE="TREAL_Since"]Yet Bungie can keep the backbone of their last gen engine, retrofit it with new guts, and not get hammered for it (not criticizing Bungie). Simply because of the 30 FPS allowing for more graphical features. You'd be surprised of how many old engines that are out there, but have been re-gutted for new improvements, as well as running at 30 FPS. IW aren't low tier developers. I'm pretty sure if IW wanted to drop to 30 FPS, the engine could do more things than at 60 FPS. But... hi-res textures and physics aren't what they care about.

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.

TREAL_Since

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...

60 fps is a pretty big deal in a multiplayer shooter, I'm not sure why people are brushing this off. But at the same time, I won't be limited to 30 fps with BF3 either, since I'll be playing on PC.MyopicCanadian

Hey Infinity Ward, you know what else runs at 30 FPS?

End of story

[QUOTE="Fightingfan"]Id tech 3 engine FTW suck that Frostbite 3.gandaf007

It's funny, because FB2 is perfectly capable of running 60 FPS.

Blame the hardware, not the software.

I was joking...

It's like I am watching a kindergarten quarrel.

Since I'm a PC gamer where do I fit in all of this?

Meh,developers piss on other developers all the time.

That said,60 fps>30 fps,but there's nothing wrong with 30 fps.

There is so much hate on MW3 in these forums it's insane. As for the article, it will make a difference for Battlefield because of the immense amount of detail in the game. Slowdowns will occur I guarantee, but overall I don't think it will make that much of a difference.

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...

Wasdie

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

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...

JohnF111

Wow... that's sad. 90% of games are 30fps on the consoles.

Wasdie

Meaning that their within the 10% that offers better then the majority. But regardless those clowns should look at the PC version.

Nothing's wrong with using the same engine for 4-5 years. Valve does it.

However, these comments are hilariously stupid. Most console games run at 30 fps. The PC version of BF3, where the main audience is buying it, can run at any framerate your heart and specs desire. COD's fast pace demands it to have 60fps. Without it, it would he horrible.

Not to mention, I'm sure a large part of the COD audience doesn't even know the difference between BF3 and MW3, doesn't know what framerate is, and doesn't care about stupid off comments made by strangers that we nerd rage at.

[QUOTE="JohnF111"][QUOTE="Wasdie"]

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...

KJAX90

MW3 is still running on a quake 3 core, and looks like crap, it'd be embarrassing if it didn't run at 60fps. On top of that i believe BlOps actually had considerable performance problems in some areasSajuukSW

Meh,developers piss on other developers all the time.

That said,60 fps>30 fps,but there's nothing wrong with 30 fps.

Lto_thaG

indeed but when everything else > 60 fps i think i will stay with bf3 > cod

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

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...

SamiRDuran

exactly!!! consoles gamers like so much cod's because they run with 60fps, but they don't realize this.

60fps FTW

its easy to make your game run at a higher FPS when it looks like crap compared to other games.