PS3 News: Sledgehammer Defends MW3, Takes Shot At Battlefield 3 - PS3 News

Members Login: Register | Why sign up? | Forgot Password?

Sledgehammer Defends MW3, Takes Shot At Battlefield 3

In the ongoing battle between EA and Activision concerning the two biggest titles of the year (potentially), EA has been getting in a lot of shots.

But now that Battlefield 3 has plenty of support and hype, maybe it's time that Infinity Ward fires back and defends their upcoming Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3. Well, don't forget that multiple studios are working on MW3, so in this case, it's Sledgehammer Games that comes to the rescue for CoD fanatics. Sledgehammer boss Glen Schofield spoke to AusGamers about the big new blockbuster, and he had a few jabs for DICE:

"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, this game will run at 60 frames a second. Not sure any of our competitors will.

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."

Schofield adds that 60FPS gives MW3 the "competitive edge" and at the end of the day, "you don't ship an engine, you ship a game." He has a point. Then again, many gamers have responded by saying they'd prefer 30FPS with Frostbite 2 rather than 60FPS with a 6-year-old engine. It's true that a developer doesn't "ship an engine," but isn't that kind of important?

At any rate, you can bet that both productions involved will be immensely popular; the only question that remains is- which one wins from a critical standpoint? It'll be interesting.

Related Game(s): Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3

Tags: cod, call of duty, mw3, modern warfare 3

6/29/2011 10:54:42 AM Ben Dutka

Put this on your webpage or blog:
Email this to a friend
Follow PSX Extreme on Twitter

Share on Twitter Share on Facebook Share on Google Share on MySpace Share on Delicious Share on Digg Share on Google Buzz Share via E-Mail Share via Tumblr Share via Posterous

Comments (66 posts)

Underdog15
Wednesday, June 29, 2011 @ 11:13:51 AM
Reply

Couldn't have said it better myself, Sledgehammer:

As the end of the day, you aren't shipping an engine at 60-frames-per-second. You should be shipping me a high quality game.

Take that from whatever angle you will.

Agree with this comment 5 up, 10 down Disagree with this comment

manofchao5
Thursday, June 30, 2011 @ 5:04:14 PM

you can put a picture of shit that doesnt move in 60 frames per second but is it really more interesting than watching a dog run at 30 frames per second as the shit falls out of his ass, take that and shove it in yo throat sledgehamma!

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

bigrailer19
Wednesday, June 29, 2011 @ 11:15:04 AM
Reply

I'm excited for both. Every year I get excited to hopefully see something a little different with the CoD games. This year I'm excited for that again, haha. ;) seriously I am though. But with Battlefield I'm just excited for something new, it may have the same formula but it just has a great vibe about it. That's all I can say considering I havnt played them. But I will say as much as I'm going to presumably like both MW3 will get more play from me. That's what always happens. The KZ games are my fav. FPS' but CoD always gets more attention. Shame, shame!

Agree with this comment 5 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

CrusaderForever
Wednesday, June 29, 2011 @ 12:05:57 PM

Me too, always looking forward to a new CoD/BF game! This year is no different and I will buy both at different times.

Agree with this comment 5 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

ZettaiSeigi
Wednesday, June 29, 2011 @ 11:18:48 AM
Reply

Okay, 30fps is definitely not as smooth as 60fps. However, is 60fps really that important in a shooter? I understand that it is crucial in games where blistering speed is the name of the game (e.g. Wipeout), but how bad can a game be it if it is stable at 30fps and never dips below that?

It's just a tech query that I have. I am obviously no guru when it comes to this, so I'd like to hear some opinion from those who are more familiar with it.

Since I don't play a lot of FPS games, I can't really say which one of the two will be technically better. However, that's not gonna stop me from rooting for Battlefield 3 just because it's not an old game slapped with a new number.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Jawknee
Wednesday, June 29, 2011 @ 11:34:03 AM

I think 60fps is nice but it's over rated. Tends to make some games look too fake. While I liked it in the God of War Collection, I didn't miss it at all while playing God of War III.

Agree with this comment 6 up, 3 down Disagree with this comment

Him
Wednesday, June 29, 2011 @ 2:26:15 PM

I think 60 fps is perfect for call of duty's very fast paced action. Its almost like racing games, the faster the action is the faster the frame rate has to be to catch up with it.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 3 down Disagree with this comment

godsman
Wednesday, June 29, 2011 @ 6:24:30 PM

I don't know if it's frame rate issues, but I have played the Uncharted 2 game to death. I became really good with it and getting super fast reactions, but there are many times where I die after I jump behind a wall safely. It could be server lag or slower frame rate.

Someone with technical background can shed some light in this topic?

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Teddie9
Wednesday, June 29, 2011 @ 7:07:27 PM

I was wondering the same thing - I don't think I'd notice the difference in a shooter really, now a hack n' slash it's noticeable. Although like Jawk said - wasn't an issue in GOW3.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Eld
Wednesday, June 29, 2011 @ 9:02:05 PM

30fps or, even as low as 25fps, is perfectly fine for most people. What really matters is ability to maintain constant fps. Sudden fall in fps from 60 to 30 and than back up to 60 is far worse than constant 30 fps.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

faraga
Thursday, June 30, 2011 @ 11:31:44 AM

@ Godsman, it's lag, I'm sure about that. It's about the location you're at for the host or the server. If someone is shooting at that position, though on your screen you appear to be somewhere else, that is because the information about your position wasn't updated fast enough, which is the definition of lag.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Jawknee
Wednesday, June 29, 2011 @ 11:31:28 AM
Reply

I'll take 30fps and better graphics over the Call of Duty engine any day. Battlefield games control better too. CoD feels weightless and like you're skating on ice. I was helping my dad pass a section in MW2 the other day. I so do not regret giving that game to him. I forgot how terrible the sound was too. The guns sound like toys. Sound is another department were DICE's games completely own Call of Duty.

Agree with this comment 9 up, 5 down Disagree with this comment

bigrailer19
Wednesday, June 29, 2011 @ 11:34:56 AM

I really thought MoH nailed the sound of the guns. I was very impressed with that aspect of the game. Seeings how DICE had a hand in the MP for that game I can only assume BF3 will provide the same.

Agree with this comment 5 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Jawknee
Wednesday, June 29, 2011 @ 11:42:23 AM

I thought the sound in MoH pretty okay. I liked how the shots echoed. Certainly better than Call of Duty but still not as good as Battlefield or Killzone.

Last edited by Jawknee on 6/29/2011 11:43:57 AM

Agree with this comment 5 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Zorigo
Wednesday, June 29, 2011 @ 11:39:50 AM
Reply

We'll see which turns out better. 60fps of some dodgy looking thing wont compare to 30fps of clean machine will it...

Agree with this comment 1 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

CaptRon
Wednesday, June 29, 2011 @ 11:44:35 AM
Reply

LOL this guy is retarded.. You don't need 60fps. Your eyes can't even tell the difference. That's this guys only point? Sad...

Agree with this comment 4 up, 6 down Disagree with this comment

Jawknee
Wednesday, June 29, 2011 @ 11:51:44 AM

Yes they can. I can certainly tell the difference. Albeit, it's not a huge difference. Play MW2 then go play Killzone 2. You can tell the difference.

Agree with this comment 6 up, 2 down Disagree with this comment

Highlander
Wednesday, June 29, 2011 @ 12:11:32 PM

Your eyes can tell the difference at 60 frames per second, it becomes much more marginal at higher frame rates than that though. Even at 60fps you don't distinguish individual frames, but the eye can clearly tell the difference between 30 and 60 frames per second.

It's like HD resolutions. At a typical viewing distance for a large HDTV (50-60 inch)anything beyond 1080p is essentially pointless because the human eye can't distinguish it. I can't remember the exact math, but it has to do with the number of arc seconds that human vision is precise to and how that precision works out when 8 feet from a 55-inch 1080p screen (for instance). You really can't see any extra resolution unless you are sitting much closer to the screen.

That's why the next bunch of consoles won't go beyond 1080p60, human vision limits the benefit of additional resolution or frames per second. The laws of diminishing returns kick in and there's really not much reason to go beyond 1080p60 in the home environment.

Agree with this comment 5 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Temjin001
Wednesday, June 29, 2011 @ 12:44:01 PM

I'm so sick of reading that almost always miss interpreted, "the human eye can't detect 60fps" garbage. As if our eyes were perfectly synchronized with every drawn digital frame to begin with.

Let go of the text book twig of misunderstood info and just go turn on a 60FPS game and then go play a 30FPS game. Let your brain tell you the difference and stop reciting that crap.

Last edited by Temjin001 on 6/29/2011 12:44:12 PM

Agree with this comment 4 up, 2 down Disagree with this comment

Doppel
Wednesday, June 29, 2011 @ 1:19:56 PM

Yes, eyes can detect the difference between 60 and 30 fps. I've experienced this myself on playing DJMAX Trilogy and the portable versions.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Highlander
Wednesday, June 29, 2011 @ 12:03:13 PM
Reply

30fps at 720 with all the lighting, particle effects, filtering and anti-aliasing you can muster, or 60fps with slightly more fluid motion but less of the lighting, particle effects, filtering and anti-aliasing?

You know, unless a game is unable to maintain 30fps, that's actually a decent framerate for a game as Uncharted has demonstrated very well indeed. The important element here could be the image quality rather than the frame rate,.

Then again, I agree with the thought; "you don't ship an engine, you ship a game." . Seriously, give your engine a cool name (pun intended), great, go for it. But, let's not make that cool sounding name the focus of the publicity for the game. I think we have seen enough of that BS with the unreal engine games. Instead, focus on your game, how it plays and what it actually looks like.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Jawknee
Wednesday, June 29, 2011 @ 12:12:23 PM

I guess we can only hope that this new CoD is better than previous installments. I mean so far, Activision has only shipped the same game with a slightly new coat of paint. At least DICE is trying to give us a new experience with a new, better game engine and they are doing it with less resources. With all the money Activision made off MW2 and Black Ops, they could have easily invested in a new game engine.

Agree with this comment 7 up, 2 down Disagree with this comment

Cesar_ser_4
Wednesday, June 29, 2011 @ 3:01:47 PM

Hey mr lander quick question, what res do you play your games on 720 or 1080?

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Highlander
Wednesday, June 29, 2011 @ 6:04:09 PM

1080 now, but a couple of years ago I was 720p all the way baby.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Killa Tequilla
Wednesday, June 29, 2011 @ 7:27:48 PM

Highlander, what TV do you have?

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Highlander
Wednesday, June 29, 2011 @ 9:25:09 PM

Originally a Viewsonic 32-inch 720p/1080i, then I got a 22 inch viewsonic monitor/TV with a native screen that was something like 1650x1080, but for the PS3 it managed 720p/1080i (scaled of course). Now I have an Asus 1080p monitor that includes speakers. It's only 23-inch, but is a true 1080p.

Personally I felt the best of the lot might have been 720p on that Viewsonic with the 1650x1080 native resolution. 1080p looks very nice as well, but the scaling on the viewsonic gave the 720p output a nice soft edge, like a CRT would, the effect was very nice.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

ZettaiSeigi
Thursday, June 30, 2011 @ 6:37:30 AM

Highlander, since you're playing on a "small TV" by today's standards, I suppose you'd recommend Sony's upcoming 3D TV (the PlayStation-branded one)?

Believe it or not, I am still playing everything on an SDTV (shocker!) but I am definitely going to upgrade before this year ends. I was thinking of getting one of LG's 32" LED TVs (Full HD, but not 3D) but Sony's 3D TV has had my attention since it was announced last E3.

I guess the size shouldn't bother me much since my room is small. But then again, a certain VP said that "gaming is having a ridiculously huge TV in a tiny one-room apartment." LOL

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Highlander
Thursday, June 30, 2011 @ 1:25:02 PM

Yep, I'm definitely considering that Sony screen. That said, I'm about to get stung for replacing my central air conditioning and heating system, and judging by the costs estimates so far, I'll be fortunate to afford a Vita later this year.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

WolfCrimson
Wednesday, June 29, 2011 @ 12:12:14 PM
Reply

I don't know what this guy thinks shooters are to need 60FPS. The only genre I can think of to need such a frame rate are fighting games, and maybe racing games, because that's where even milliseconds makes a difference.

Last edited by WolfCrimson on 6/29/2011 12:12:31 PM

Agree with this comment 2 up, 2 down Disagree with this comment

Excelsior1
Wednesday, June 29, 2011 @ 12:46:51 PM
Reply

frankly, i can't wait until 60 fps becomes standard on the consoles. it makes a game feel and play better in my opinion. the gameplay just feels more respponsive.

a high, and consistent frame rate is considered important for shooters. this gen of consoles just don't have enough horsepower to do it without sacrificing in graphical detail, and post proccessing effects.

i guess i prefer 30 fps games with better graphics, but it would be great to have both.

i think activision has a point about how little we have seen of bf3 on the consoles. i was really surprised it wasn't playable at e3 on the any of the consoles to my knowledge. it just seems odd. bethesda's out there showing off all that awesome syrim footage on the 360 even though it will be on the pc as well.

the only console footage i have seen was from the jimmy fallon show for the ps3. it looked good, but was by no means nearly as good as the awesome pc footage ea has been showing. i know this is to be expected, but i was hoping for a little better considering how much hype frostbite 2.0 was getting.

Agree with this comment 3 up, 2 down Disagree with this comment

LimitedVertigo
Wednesday, June 29, 2011 @ 1:16:25 PM
Reply

Only 60fpps? :)

BTW I don't work tomorrow, I look forward to seeing all of you in Home.

Agree with this comment 3 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

SnipeySnake
Wednesday, June 29, 2011 @ 1:19:27 PM
Reply

60fps is nothing when you're lagging hardcore because of someone's crappy internet connection.

Agree with this comment 4 up, 2 down Disagree with this comment

Jawknee
Wednesday, June 29, 2011 @ 2:00:50 PM

LOL!

Agree with this comment 4 up, 3 down Disagree with this comment

DjEezzy
Wednesday, June 29, 2011 @ 1:20:21 PM
Reply

As Jawk said... I'd rather have a game at 30 fps and have graphics like uncharted 2 or GoW 3 or Killzone... This guy is just feeling the sting of EA's wrath. LOL. Well maybe not that bad but you know what I'm talking about. The pressure is getting them.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Godslim
Wednesday, June 29, 2011 @ 3:12:38 PM

see im different i dont care for graphics as much in a game....i mean yeh its always cool but just a bonus for me.....gamplay is the most important

Agree with this comment 1 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Lawless SXE
Wednesday, June 29, 2011 @ 1:29:17 PM
Reply

60FPS, IMO, should not be necessary in shooters. I dislike the ridiculous speed at which you are asked to play Black Ops, and I'm sure that MW3 will follow that ideal, particularly as they are touting this. Battlefield seems to be a slower option, so 30fps is no great hardship. And even if you aren't shipping an engine, it's been proven before that tech-demo games can actually turn out surprisingly well. Star Wars: TFU and, to a lesser extent, GTA IV proved that.

Agree with this comment 4 up, 2 down Disagree with this comment

Godslim
Wednesday, June 29, 2011 @ 3:22:37 PM

off topic
hey dude whens your infamous 2 review coming
your reviews are always a good read

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Clamedeus
Wednesday, June 29, 2011 @ 5:44:28 PM

It all depends on your play style, you can play it slow and carefully or fast and aggressive but actually thinking about routes to take and choke points with high traffic flow with line of sights.

It really depends on the person though.

Last edited by Clamedeus on 6/29/2011 5:45:12 PM

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Lawless SXE
Thursday, June 30, 2011 @ 1:44:10 AM

Thanks Godslim, but I want to complete my evil playthrough first, and I'll be popping up an article about it at TitanReviews hopefully this weekend, and the review here within a fortnight.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Godslim
Friday, July 01, 2011 @ 5:17:30 AM

i look forward to it :)

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Godslim
Wednesday, June 29, 2011 @ 3:11:22 PM
Reply

They both just need to band together and make one ultimate game.....imagine the devs of k3,mw and bf......making a game together using all their idea now that would be great
see i think gameplay wise cod is the best its just so smooth to play
bf has however the destruction big maps and team work
k3 has the graphics and a mix of both cod and bf
MAKE IT LOL

Agree with this comment 0 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

AcHiLLiA
Wednesday, June 29, 2011 @ 3:42:56 PM
Reply

The thing that kind of bugs me is the killstreaks and some overrated perks, those pro challenge crap u have to mess with.

Last edited by AcHiLLiA on 6/29/2011 3:44:13 PM

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Clamedeus
Wednesday, June 29, 2011 @ 5:47:22 PM

The only 2 perks I didn't like in Black Ops was Ghost and Second Chance. But I didn't mind the challenges you had to do for the perks, it was pretty easy if you ran with a good party in the game.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

AcHiLLiA
Wednesday, June 29, 2011 @ 8:04:15 PM

My comment was also on the next COD game.

The funny thing is I haven't even played Black Ops(no lie). My cousins have it but I haven't even touched the disc.

Last edited by AcHiLLiA on 6/29/2011 8:09:29 PM

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Clamedeus
Wednesday, June 29, 2011 @ 10:17:04 PM

Is there any info what would be in the new one? I haven't seen any official stuff on it yet, most of the stuff I seen is just rumors. Unless they did but I didn't see it.

I know I'm getting Battlefield 3, I'm not sure on MW3 though yet, still waiting on info for it, I really don't know if i want to go through the hassle with what happens in the game.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Excelsior1
Wednesday, June 29, 2011 @ 3:54:02 PM
Reply

i think 60 fps is a competitive edge in today'd more twitch based market. when i try to think of why cod is so insanely popular when compared to its competition it's about all i can come up with besides its social appeal.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

UK_MrSim_UK
Wednesday, June 29, 2011 @ 4:20:08 PM
Reply

There's loads of thumbs down CoD fans I think here. I'm getting Battlefield 3, I couldn't care less about MW3 and it's outdated engine. CoD4 is still the best CoD.

Agree with this comment 5 up, 4 down Disagree with this comment

JMO_INDY
Wednesday, June 29, 2011 @ 4:32:15 PM
Reply

I don't think it's fair to compare the two in terms of just engines or Frames Per Second. BF is clearly aiming for the PC crowd with an engine like FrostBite 2, it's practically tailor fit for the PC. COD on the other hand is shooting more for the console crowd and granted using a 6 year old engine. But in COD's favor the engine has been tailor fit to please both the PC and maximize the game's console potential (Not the actual console itself) at the same time giving it a slight edge in terms of stability and bumping it up to 60 FPS only helps it. In terms of sheer image quality we will have to wait and judge first hand, and if COD can fix it's anti-aliasing issue has yet to be seen.

Agree with this comment 5 up, 2 down Disagree with this comment

Temjin001
Wednesday, June 29, 2011 @ 8:17:38 PM

What anti-aliasing issue?
Most of them have used 2xMSAA.
The problem for Treyarch's CoD games have been more about it's lower than norm rendering resolution. CoD3, WaW, and Black Ops on PS3 all had their resolutions dialed back moreso than the IW CoD's on the same platform.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

bluedarrk
Wednesday, June 29, 2011 @ 4:52:07 PM
Reply

I think it comes down to game play which one you like better. The thing I hate is a lot of CoD fans won't even give BF3 a try because it isn't CoD. I run a local game store and people new to gaming or parents buying their kids systems just buy CoD. They come in get a 360 or ps3 and buy black ops or mw2. I'm assuming its because what their friends play. It just seems in my area at least that new gamers are just playing CoD and not trying any other games.

Agree with this comment 5 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

KNG201
Wednesday, June 29, 2011 @ 4:58:54 PM
Reply

that guy made me laugh...I needed that. if you ship a game and not an engine how come he didnt say anything about the game? I mean bf3 talks about the game as well as the "new" engine while talking down on cod games. this sits here and is not even brave enough to say who or what game he is talking about like we dont know who or what. you are selling a game not 60fps. smh bf3 will be a leader soon. bf3-cod=r.i.p.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Claire C
Wednesday, June 29, 2011 @ 5:13:38 PM
Reply

I wonder how long they're going to use the 60fps excuse for their games looking as dated as they do. o.O

Agree with this comment 4 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Wraith
Wednesday, June 29, 2011 @ 5:31:34 PM
Reply

I'm confident that Mw3 will have have good graphics with 60fps.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 4 down Disagree with this comment

JRA696
Wednesday, June 29, 2011 @ 6:47:43 PM
Reply

I'm sure both will look good and I'll probably buy and enjoy both... What might give BF3 the edge is that "subscription" crap COD is trying to pull.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 2 down Disagree with this comment

Excelsior1
Wednesday, June 29, 2011 @ 7:23:29 PM

i don't thoibk bf3 will come anywhere near moderrn warfare 3's sales. preordes for mw3 are even higher than cod bo. the best selling game of all time. mw3 wuill also benefit from carrying the modern warfare name in its title along with cod.

i know cod isn't so popular here, but obviously the majority of gamers feel differently. it's delivering something that makes it sell exponentially more than it's competition. most fans don't seem to care about it's aging engine or even the developer. they want it so they can enjoy some arcade fps action with their friends.

the subscription service won't affect the core mw3 game. it's just a glorified stat tracking feature with some traning and tournaments thrown in. i can see some hardcore cod fans going for it.

i think one thing activision does right is they don't rely on download passess or gimmicky early dlc like ea, they make a game they people want to hold onto becuase they find its content compelling for some reason.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 2 down Disagree with this comment

Danny007
Wednesday, June 29, 2011 @ 8:07:40 PM
Reply

I don't think anyone should be taking shots at each other in the gaming industry especially if you want it to be looked at positively by the public who doesn't quite appreciate the form of entertainment. It seems to me like Activision's developers are getting nervous when the see the competition that Battlefield 3 brings. I hope that Battlefield 3's developers show how much respectful that they are and don't fire back at Sledgehammer.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Temjin001
Wednesday, June 29, 2011 @ 8:31:56 PM
Reply

Personally, I really like the 60fps a lot in the CoD's and the MW games are some of the best looking 360 military FPS games on the market. On PS3 these games usually suffer more, and it's obvious that the devs haven't placed a lot of effort into PS3's more unique design. Doing little to extract much of it's power, as we'd see from something like Killzone.
Admirably, the FrostBite 2 engine has worked a bit harder with the PS3's architecture, having offloaded lighting and shader tasks to SPUs.




Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Excelsior1
Thursday, June 30, 2011 @ 10:36:55 AM

cod games perform a lot better on the 360

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Bloodysilence19
Wednesday, June 29, 2011 @ 9:28:08 PM
Reply

Ok cod will have 60fps on a console but lets add real time lighting, upgraded shaders and textures, real-time 3.0 destructive environments and physics, huge maps, Multiple vehicles, etc than add 60fps to it and see if Mw3 engine will run smooth on consoles won't happen.

Frostbite 2 engine pretty much does everything i said plus with 64 players, dedicated servers and depending on pc set up runs higher than 60fps flawless and smooth. Im not trying to be to much of bf fanboy but as of late cod games aren't that wow factor as when cod 4 first came out. Activision still using the same engine since 4 but with minor to little tweaks to it. So cod ends up looking horrible and not fresh at all.

The guy makes point you don't ship the engine, you ship the game but when the game ends up being the same thing pretty much with minor to little of nothing new 60fps doesn't mean crap. It's the gameplay, the new and fresh things, the whole package that comes with the game that makes the game great.
What dice is doing with the new frostbite engine 2 and more, it delivers all those things with new ungraded 3.0 real-time destructive environments, brand new shaders and textures, Upgrade real-time physics, Huge Maps, Multiple Vehicles, 64 players(pc) 3o players(consoles), Dedicated servers, full experience of war and still run smoothly what more can you ask for.
Im sure cod will smoke bf3 in sells cant denied that but when it comes to the full experience of new and fresh Bf3 leaves cod on the curb.

60fps is great but with these generation consoles now its better to go with 30fps if you want smooth gameplay especially if your doing things like dice is doing on bf3. Plus games like Uc or Gow3 both are 30fps 720p those games are powerhouses in visuals and smoothly gamplay.

Last edited by Bloodysilence19 on 6/29/2011 9:32:44 PM

Agree with this comment 0 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

GHOST67
Wednesday, June 29, 2011 @ 9:39:09 PM
Reply

60fps will feel fake to ppl while 30fps will make it realistic nd if u guys want to add me its GHOST7239

Agree with this comment 1 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

kevinater321
Wednesday, June 29, 2011 @ 11:22:23 PM
Reply

I just play games, i don't care how many frames per second it has.

Agree with this comment 7 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

JAMKOR
Thursday, June 30, 2011 @ 9:01:08 AM
Reply

the 60 fps thing is the only thing that MW3 has on bf3, so that is what they will play up all the way till launch. I bet you see a ton of mentions of the sales numbers between the two as well. Both of these metric are completely irrelevant to me as far as enjoyment of a game goes.

Give me a consistent constant 30 fps and I am fine.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

yuanyao
Thursday, June 30, 2011 @ 9:25:22 PM
Reply

welcome to our website:
w w w . L t t s y - t r a d e . c o m

50%off ca,ed hardy t-shirt$15 jeans,coach handbag$33,air max90,dunk,polo t-shirt$13,,lacoste t-shirt $13 air jordan for sale,l nba jersy for sale sale,$35,nfl nba jersy for sale
and so on..
if you like to order anything you like.
More details,
please just browse our website Quality is our Dignity;
Service is our Lift.
enjoy yourself.
thank you!!
w w w . L t t s y - t r a d e . c o m


Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

ransomink
Thursday, June 30, 2011 @ 10:00:49 PM
Reply

More frames per second (fps) just means the game will run smoother, but with a 6-year-old engine I'd hope they can achieve 60fps by now. So I can't acknowledge that as a valid retaliation or selling point-not that I care-because "smoother" gameplay doesn't result in "better" gameplay, just fps. The majority of games released are 30fps anyway, and we've had no problem since!

CoD tweaks and updates their engine to achieve 60fps and BF3 creates a new engine to update their visuals, animation, particles, sound, and all the goodies in-between; but just as he says "you don't ship an engine, you ship a game." This statement makes his claim irrelevant because its the engine that makes it 60fps. Be my guess to choose which game would grab your attention and appeal to your liking...

I played CoD as my first shooter and online experience and personally don't appreciate the fast-paced action. Their perks and killstreaks are second-to-none with a great multiplayer component. Sadly, it feels too fake and has become more of a twitch game, ie. Unreal Tournament. Both games will be great and make lots of gamers happy though I only have money for one since there are a plethora of other releases this fall

p.s. If only money grew on trees...

Last edited by ransomink on 6/30/2011 10:05:49 PM

Agree with this comment 0 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Legend_05
Friday, July 01, 2011 @ 7:51:08 PM
Reply

All i have to say is IW makes good CoD games while treyshit kills the game! Plus if it was just one studio releasing the game every 2 years no one would say anything.... think about it...

But, zombies is a different story....

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

askubs94
Sunday, July 03, 2011 @ 11:55:06 AM
Reply

He talks about shipping a game and not an engine, yet when people ask what is new about the game, you get this answer:

Spec Ops, large scale city fighting with low detailed buildings, and double scope. The double scope is the only new thing, hardly even worth noting.

It all comes down to this: can you tell the difference between the prequel? Answer: No.

Last edited by askubs94 on 7/3/2011 11:55:56 AM

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Leave a Comment

Please login or register to leave a comment.

Our Poll

Did Advanced Warfare save Call of Duty?
Yes, CoD is back on track!
Possibly; it was a positive step.
The jury's still out...
No, CoD is still doomed.

Previous Poll Results