Top
360°

Sledgehammer Games' Glen Schofield Calls Out "Competitor" For Not Running at 60-FPS on Console

In an interview with AusGamers, Sledgehammer Games's Glen Schofield took a dig at their "competitor" for not running their game at 60-fps on the consoles.

"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," he told the site.

He also dismissed the rumour Modern Warfare 3 would again abandon Dedicated Servers, saying that "we haven’t even made decisions internally ourselves".

Read Full Story >>
ausgamers.com
The story is too old to be commented.
zeksta1823d ago (Edited 1823d ago )

Activision Vs. EA, Simple fact of the matter is that it's preference over each of the games, but frankly they shouldn't try to trash their competitors when their games are beginning to become old and inferior.

Modern Warfare 3 is going to be nothing more then a Call of Duty MW2 DLC, and frankly, that's not enough to get my damn purchase, Battlefield 3 on the other hand, is going to bring some innovation to the table and some great graphics with it, along with it's massive MP game play and Maps.

Frankly, I suggest Activision and their Employees shut up untill their game is released, and if it sells good, then and only then may they begin speaking.

badz1491823d ago

you give 60fps but sub-HD graphic which looks like poo! why even talk at all?

Playstation4lyf2661823d ago

tbh battlefield does look surperior on pc but on consoles mw3 will look better yes the frostbite engine is newer and better 1080p will always be surperior to 720p dice could have made battlefield 1080p but there lazyness will be there downfall im glad im getting mw3 now

DrRichtofen1823d ago

Its seems to be another case of mines bigger than yours with CoD. .....Grow up sledgehammer.

Hanif-8761823d ago

Personally, i can hardly tell the difference between 60 and 30fps. So i'll take the more realistic game with better graphics, sound and gameplay over a 60fps sub-hd piece of garbage any day.

curtis_boy1823d ago

cant be working on the game just add a couple of tweaks to Modern warfare 2 and !boom!

Modern Warfare 3

badz1491823d ago

kids nowadays. you don't know what you're talking about. just go to bed already!

madjedi1823d ago (Edited 1823d ago )

@playstation

"tbh battlefield does look surperior on pc but on consoles mw3 will look better yes the frostbite engine is newer and better 1080p will always be surperior to 720p dice could have made battlefield 1080p but there lazyness will be there downfall im glad im getting mw3 now"

That old engine looking better than bf3, lay off the drugs.

And use your brain once in a while, rendering at 1080p uses alot more memory than 720p and hello a battlefield game has alot more going on than cods static narrow environment with a staggering 16 players and tiny maps.

With some of the most dated ass effects i have seen this gen, like launch games effects bad. There is a very good reason 99% of games run at 720p and 30 fps or below and it's not laziness stupid, you can do a hell of alot more on screen action @ 720p than you can at 1080p.

A higher resolution doesn't always mean better graphics.

Well when cod devs can make a good with sp campaign and a addicting mp with massive maps, with vehicular combat and destroyable environments @ 60fps then maybe i'll listen.

Why the hell should a veteran dev team like dice, pay any attention to a studio that has yet to release a game, let alone build an entire successful franchise by themselves?

I saw a new trailer for bf3 mp, didn't look good enough to melt my eyes(Thats probably next gen anyway), but did look a substantial amount better than bc2 did.

So still looks real good,(bearing in mind all videos i have seen have pre alpha footage disclaimer).

Last where are all these negative and alot of times dumbass ps3 bf3/dice articles originating from on n4g this last month, i have yet to run across a single ps3 owner that has any problem with dice or the ps3 version of bf3. Well minus the occasional cod zealot.

What gives? Yikes long ass post -_-

Peaceful_Jelly1823d ago (Edited 1823d ago )

console gamers have been playing games at 30fps for so much time they can't even see the difference anymore. 30fps games are like playing with Resident Evil 2 tank control. At the time nobody noticed it but now?

Just wait until next-gen when we get more 60fps games with higher graphic quality. All of you will be like: "how the hell could I play such a sluggish game on my X360/PS3?!".

DeadlyFire1823d ago

haha.

CoD:MW3 - 60 fps + 6+ year old game engine. Time for optomization in between yes. HD resolutions exist yet? no.

BFLD3 - 30 fps + New game engine. Not enough time to really optimize it beyond 30 fps for consoles. Tons of physics, vehicles, particle effects, and HD graphics resolution.

gamingdroid1823d ago

To each their own, but it is only trading one advantage for another.

Personally, I will take a smooth as butter response time as opposed to slightly better graphics. Why? Because I care more about game play than a few more pixels!

The presentation will more than make up for the lack of graphics if any. Frankly there are plenty of games that look far worse than MW, but I still play them.

Just my 2 cents....

Biggest1822d ago

You think that Battlefield 3 is only about better graphics, gamingdroid? Do you care about map size? Do you care about destrucible environments? Do you care about air/ground vehicles and anti-air/ground weapons? The list of what BF3 has and does well when compared to what MW3 has and does well is kinda large.

gamingdroid1822d ago (Edited 1822d ago )

"You think that Battlefield 3 is only about better graphics, gamingdroid?"

I said no such thing!

"Do you care about map size? Do you care about destrucible environments? Do you care about air/ground vehicles and anti-air/ground weapons? The list of what BF3 has and does well when compared to what MW3 has and does well is kinda large."

I personally didn't like BF2 game play, but respect the series.

That said, 30fps might work for a slower game like BF3. Halo was also 30fps and was a much slower paced game than CoD, but better responsiveness never hurts.

Biggest1822d ago

What you're doing is agreeing with Glen Schofield as if the 60 FPS is a difference maker in itself. I agree that better responsiveness is a good thing. I do not agree that better responsiveness trumps the other elements involved with a good game. Battlefield 3 is a better overall package than Modern Warfare 3. The developers of BF3 are better than those of MW3. I agree with the idea that BF3 with MW3 sized maps and limited gameplay would look worlds better than MW3 while also moving at 60 FPS. I'm glad that DICE isn't going for that angle.

gamingdroid1822d ago

I said:

"Personally, I will take a smooth as butter response time as opposed to slightly better graphics."

Which is exactly what I mean, re-read it with an open mind. Not necessarily what you said:

"What you're doing is agreeing with Glen Schofield as if the 60 FPS is a difference maker in itself."

But yes, 60fps does make a difference depending on the type of game. Slower paced games don't need as fast response time, but as an example I would have hated Ninja Gaiden 2 if it was significantly slower for some jazzed up graphics.

"Battlefield 3 is a better overall package than Modern Warfare 3. The developers of BF3 are better than those of MW3."

That is a personal call, not a universal fact.

"I agree with the idea that BF3 with MW3 sized maps and limited gameplay would look worlds better than MW3 while also moving at 60 FPS. I'm glad that DICE isn't going for that angle."

It might be, but considering MW3 draws twice as many times as BF3, I would say the devs are doing a remarkable job making it look like that.

I also, I wouldn't call it "limited gameplay" when the game play is what it is i.e we could add role playing elements to the game and etc, but it doesn't mean it makes sense for the game type.

Bottom line, BF3 isn't a better game, nor is it's developer any better from what I have seen. If anything, Dice hasn't released an as well received game yet. At the end of the day, it is your personal call what you spend your time on. Personally, I will likely spend more time on Gears 3 this fall/winter than any other game when time permits.

Prototype1822d ago

They will sell at least 5+ million just on name alone; the game can be junk, rehashed, etc but just because it has "Call of Duty" in the title people will buy it. So they can talk the trash because they know stupid people will buy into it - I will be playing Uncharted 3 and Battlefield 3 when this comes out.

evrfighter1822d ago (Edited 1822d ago )

well he couldn't say

"we don't even put out games in HD, but 60fps!!!!"

Only shows he's more focused on console only as pc bf3 fps depends on your hardware and monitor and is the version DICE put all their stock in.

I'm shooting for 75fps max settings as I know I probably won't be able to top out at 120 unless it's incredibly optimized and I buy a 2nd 6970

+ Show (12) more repliesLast reply 1822d ago
ilikegam3s1823d ago

Meh I will have both games, no biggy.

Echo3071823d ago

This guy has it figured out.

Joe29111823d ago (Edited 1823d ago )

@zeksta

I'd like to know your definition of innovation.

I'll get disagreed with for saying it, but how is battlefield being more innovative than call of duty. They are basically carbon copies of their predecessors with improved visuals, there is nothing innovative about that.

I will probably still give both a go, but please don't try to kid me than either of them are innovative.

zeksta1823d ago (Edited 1823d ago )

Innovation via Graphics and new gameplay features.

Sure, some games might be a Carbon Copy of their predecessors but that being said, isn't it the games that are previous to it that help make the new version better?

Frankly, Dice have put alot into this, Graphics, Maps, and even re-creating the original maps from BF2, I see alot of innovation.

FlashXIII1823d ago (Edited 1823d ago )

They honestly did not just to play the 60fps card? They're acting all high and mighty for using a what.. 4 or 5 year old engine while EA are trying to push graphical boundaries and using a new engine?

/facepalm

Battlefield was made for PC first for a change.. DICE are going back to their roots and giving the people who put them where they are today some loving. In response to this EA should just wait patiently and do a screenshot comparison of the PC versions of both games. The differences will far outweigh whatever difference you'll see on consoles.

killerhog1822d ago

meh neither of them should talk. i havent bought a Activision or EA game this generation due to their incompetence to release a quality game especially on the ps3. EA talks a lot of shit yet Crysis 2 lost to Killzone 3, Shift lost to GT5, Mass Effect sold like shit on the ps3. both these companies are also about "console equality" which im against considering the ps3 can hold more and produce better visuals than the 360 but yet these guys give us crappy ports.

if you want a massive online multiplayer play MAG. 32, 64 and 256 player matches in well made modes and maps. MAG has a pretty good install base with 300-500 people playing in each game mode.

awi59511822d ago

Its easy to run your game at 60FPS when it looks like crap lol. Come on Activision is that all you got lol.

XRider1822d ago

I can understand people not liking CoD games (I don't), but to say you you can't tell the difference between 30fps and 60fps, is just a lie.

egidem1822d ago

The irony here is that these guys are both making games based on war and shooting. This is precisely what they are doing to each other!

+ Show (5) more repliesLast reply 1822d ago
Pandamobile1823d ago (Edited 1823d ago )

Ohoho. Sledgehammer, who are you to talk?

Your game won't be running at an HD resolution on the PS3 or 360. Your game's maps will likely be a fraction of the size of the smallest BF3 map. Your game looks the same as it did in 2007. Your game is just a rehash of the last 4 Call of Duty games. Your game will likely only support a maximum of 18 players (if that).

I'm sure if DICE wanted to make a game as small scale as Call of Duty, they could do it at 60 FPS and make it look a lot better in the process.

LOGICWINS1823d ago

What exactly does MW3 running in HD or not have to do with it running at 60fps?

Agent-861823d ago (Edited 1823d ago )

Because, if MW3 was running at an HD resolution, it wouldn't be running at 60fps either. Its a trade-off: BF3 went for 720p with 30fps (which most console shooters run at) and MW3 will probably be at 600p with 60fps (which the previous COD games have run). I play my shooters on PC so I don't have to worry about the trade-off (I play them with high resolution and frame-rates). However, given a choice, I'd rather have the higher resolution as long as the frame rate stays above 30.

LOGICWINS1823d ago (Edited 1823d ago )

So wouldn't that mean its a matter of preference..rather than one game being "better" than another?

MW3 chose 60fps and sacrificed HD and vice versa with BF3.

EDIT: Why am I getting disagrees for asking a question?

Hicken1823d ago

What preference? CoD would have you believe their game will look better because it's running 60fps. But it's sub-HD.

Consider the original Super Mario Brothers running 60fps. Would it look better than New Super Mario Brothers running 20fps? It's somewhat of an extreme example, but you get the picture, I hope.

The graphical prowess of a game is more than just how high the framerate is. Hell, if it were running 100fps in sub-HD, I'd still pass on it.

Agent-861823d ago

@LOGICWINS, exactly. MW3 is more of an arcadey twitch shooter, so it needs the higher framerates to pull off a "smoother feel". BF3 (and most other console shooters) go with the higher resolution to present a graphically more "realistic feel".

LOGICWINS1823d ago (Edited 1823d ago )

@Hicken- Some people prefer 60fps at the expense of an HD game as opposed to an HD game with 30fps. Thats the preference I was speaking of. Considering the growing popularity of COD since MW1, it seems that COD games being "sub-HD" isn't bothering too many people. Heck, Black Ops was sub-HD and I believe it ws the first PS3 game to break 10 million units sold.

"Hell, if it were running 100fps in sub-HD, I'd still pass on it."
Yeah..thats called YOUR preference.

Foxgod1823d ago

yeah, but the majority doesnt.

fr0sty1823d ago (Edited 1823d ago )

Wipeout HD runs at 1080p at 60fps. The thing is, just dropping the resolution from 720p to 640p isn't going to let you double the frame rate. That isn't half the number of pixels, so the math doesn't add up there if you look at it strictly in the terms of what resolution it is running at.

Battlefield 3 is going for a much more realistic look than MW3 is. It has more post processing effects, etc., all of which are taxing on the CPU/GPU. It's a design choice... do you want to immerse the player in an ultra realistic world, or do you want the screen refresh to be lighting fast but have a less realistic look? Again, Wipeout HD runs at 1080p60, but it's nowhere near as realistic looking as BF3. To say your game runs at 60fps doesn't mean it looks good by any means, and it's not a requirement for a good FPS game. In a perfect world all games would be 1080p60, but since we have hardware limitations to work with, you have to play a balancing act of choosing exactly how good you want your game to look vs. how fast you want it to run. Nothing wrong with choosing one or the other, so this guy is doing nothing but making an ass of himself by "calling out" the other guys for making a different design choice, as if they genre requires it for a quality experience.

radphil1823d ago (Edited 1823d ago )

@LOGICWINS

Sledgehammer is playing it off as 60fps automatically = better, which is not always true. Considering more than 1/2 of games that people played to date was around 30-45 fps, they're trying to catch people on the "numbers" game.

Joe29111823d ago (Edited 1823d ago )

@LOGICWINS

Your totally right, it comes down to preference. I know that a lot of people prefere the 'feel' of CoD compared to Battlefield. 60 fps on CoD is better for its fast paced gameplay, whereas battlefield is sluggish in comparison. Again it seems to be the cool thing to hate on CoD. So disagree if you must, but there is a good reason CoD has got to where it is. People prefere CoD, no matter what it looks like.

Edit: Also, as logic said below, I don't know if you guys mostly play PC, but on consoles, CoD is a much more responsive feeling game to me. I imagine in battlefield they try to emulate a focus on the actual weight of the soldier on all of their heavy equipment and such, but is that more fun.. hell no it isn't.

Battlefield is still a game I enjoy very much, but I have logged a lots more hours playing CoD than BF, and I don't see that changing (unless MP is broken on CoD :| )

LOGICWINS1823d ago (Edited 1823d ago )

Yeah Joe, I feel if the majority of PS3/360 gamers preferred a more realistic game with 30fps..then COD sales would have died down after MW2.

radphil1823d ago

@Joe2911

Then that just boils down to people being impatient.

Hicken1823d ago

It's impatience, to a certain degree. But more specifically, it's the desire for instant gratification.

No need to work at it: just run out there, gun some people down, win. That's all it takes to satisfy people these days.

radphil1822d ago

@Hicken

Oh I don't mind that, and I'm not discouraging what Joe said, it's just that I feel that now a days people have to have action, have to have MP, etc.

I just see people not sitting down as much for RTS style games, or Puzzle/Strategy as they did years ago.

egidem1822d ago

"What exactly does MW3 running in HD or not have to do with it running at 60fps? "

LOGICFAILS

+ Show (11) more repliesLast reply 1822d ago
Theyellowflash301823d ago

@Pandamoble
All this you said is true but when your in a competition with another company you have to point out your advantages you have over them. And whether thats by their design or limitations of the consoles Battlefield is going to be 30FPS on the consoles. Sledgehammer has to ride that cause thats one of the big advantages over they have over Battlefield.

Pandamobile1823d ago

Hardly something to boast about considering all of the cutbacks in graphics they have to make to keep it at that frame-rate.

id can boast about having a 60 FPS game because it actually looks good. IW/Sledgehammer are just grasping at straws here because it's the only feature-set that have over BF3.

JeffGUNZ1822d ago

What are you talking about? How is that not a good advantage to boast about? I love both franchises, but the smoothness with COD ovetr BFBC2 was apparent and made it difference to me. I will end up buying both, but I know I will have a smoother experience with COD.

Panada, it's hard to take anything you say serious when you show such bias. We get it. You loathe COD and I see your insignificant posts in every COD/BF article. Dude, millions of people love COD. Sure, it's not a graphical masterpiece or the best/most innovative game, but it's extremely fun and that's the important part.

Why not play both for what they are.

Pandamobile1822d ago

I don't loathe Call of Duty, I own COD2, 4, WAW, MW2 and BLOPS.

I'm just saying that this is the only publishable feature that COD has an advantage over BF3 and IW/Sledgehammer are going to peddle it to people like it really makes a difference in the games' quality.

Theyellowflash301822d ago

And thats where we differ, some people care about graphics more and other people want 60FPS. Personally I like 60FPS more. i can't stand 30FPS. It gets on my nerves when a game moves at that framerate.

And you basically said what im saying clearly Battlefield looks better, but at the cost of framerate, and they have some other features that are better but if your working on Activisions side you got to say something to point out what you have over the competition. What do you want them to do just say Battlefield is better? If thats the case make sure you never get your own business cause your not always going to have better features than your competitors.

Wizziokid1823d ago

and i call you out for using a dated engine

madpuppy1823d ago

Remember when Glen Schofield put together Visceral games and created the first Dead Space...In interviews he seemed like a pretty nice guy. Now that he has moved over to Activision he seems to have been infected with the Acti virus. making him irritable and arrogant.

Hufandpuf1823d ago

"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 suck and not have dedicated servers. - Sledgehammer Games