360°
Submitted by billythepunk 1023d ago | news

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". (Battlefield 3, Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3, Infinity Ward, PC, PS3, Sledgehammer Games, Xbox 360)

« 1 2 »
zeksta  +   1023d 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.
#1 (Edited 1023d ago ) | Agree(29) | Disagree(4) | Report | Reply
badz149  +   1023d ago
Sledgehammer, seriously?
you give 60fps but sub-HD graphic which looks like poo! why even talk at all?
Playstation4lyf266  +   1023d 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
DrRichtofen  +   1022d ago
Its seems to be another case of mines bigger than yours with CoD. .....Grow up sledgehammer.
Hanif-876  +   1022d 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_boy  +   1022d ago
Shouldnt they be working on DLC
cant be working on the game just add a couple of tweaks to Modern warfare 2 and !boom!

Modern Warfare 3
badz149  +   1022d ago
@playstation4lyf266
kids nowadays. you don't know what you're talking about. just go to bed already!
madjedi  +   1022d 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 -_-
#1.1.6 (Edited 1022d ago ) | Agree(3) | Disagree(1) | Report
Peaceful_Jelly  +   1022d 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?!".
#1.1.7 (Edited 1022d ago ) | Agree(3) | Disagree(5) | Report
DeadlyFire  +   1022d 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.
gamingdroid  +   1022d 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....
Biggest  +   1022d 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.
gamingdroid  +   1022d ago
@Biggest
"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.
#1.1.11 (Edited 1022d ago ) | Agree(2) | Disagree(1) | Report
Biggest  +   1022d 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.
gamingdroid  +   1022d ago
@Biggest
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.
Prototype  +   1022d 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.
evrfighter  +   1022d 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
#1.1.15 (Edited 1022d ago ) | Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report
ilikegam3s  +   1022d ago
Meh I will have both games, no biggy.
Echo307  +   1022d ago
This guy has it figured out.
Joe2911  +   1022d 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.
#1.3 (Edited 1022d ago ) | Agree(5) | Disagree(7) | Report | Reply
zeksta  +   1022d 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.
#1.3.1 (Edited 1022d ago ) | Agree(4) | Disagree(2) | Report
FlashXIII  +   1022d 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.
#1.4 (Edited 1022d ago ) | Agree(4) | Disagree(1) | Report | Reply
killerhog  +   1022d 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.
awi5951  +   1022d ago
Its easy to run your game at 60FPS when it looks like crap lol. Come on Activision is that all you got lol.
XRider  +   1022d 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.
egidem  +   1022d 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!
Pandamobile  +   1023d 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.
#2 (Edited 1023d ago ) | Agree(31) | Disagree(5) | Report | Reply
LOGICWINS  +   1023d ago
What exactly does MW3 running in HD or not have to do with it running at 60fps?
Agent-86  +   1023d 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.
#2.1.1 (Edited 1023d ago ) | Agree(16) | Disagree(1) | Report
LOGICWINS  +   1023d 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?
#2.1.2 (Edited 1023d ago ) | Agree(5) | Disagree(8) | Report
Hicken  +   1023d 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-86  +   1023d 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".
LOGICWINS  +   1023d 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.
#2.1.5 (Edited 1022d ago ) | Agree(6) | Disagree(3) | Report
Foxgod  +   1023d ago
yeah, but the majority doesnt.
fr0sty  +   1022d 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.
#2.1.7 (Edited 1022d ago ) | Agree(4) | Disagree(0) | Report
radphil  +   1022d 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.
#2.1.8 (Edited 1022d ago ) | Agree(6) | Disagree(0) | Report
Joe2911  +   1022d 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 :| )
#2.1.9 (Edited 1022d ago ) | Agree(2) | Disagree(8) | Report
LOGICWINS  +   1022d 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.
#2.1.10 (Edited 1022d ago ) | Agree(3) | Disagree(6) | Report
radphil  +   1022d ago
@Joe2911

Then that just boils down to people being impatient.
Hicken  +   1022d 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.
radphil  +   1022d 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.
egidem  +   1022d ago
"What exactly does MW3 running in HD or not have to do with it running at 60fps? "

LOGICFAILS
Theyellowflash30  +   1023d 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.
Pandamobile  +   1023d 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.
JeffGUNZ  +   1022d 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.
Pandamobile  +   1022d 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.
Theyellowflash30  +   1022d 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.
Wizziokid  +   1023d ago
and i call you out for using a dated engine
madpuppy  +   1023d 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.
Hufandpuf  +   1023d 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
GAMExxOVER  +   1023d ago
I have a top of the line gaming rig. I will be running at max settings on a high end game getting 70 or 80 fps, I will then turn on fraps game recording and have the recording set to 30 fps. while recording at 30fps and then turning it off and gaming at 70+ fps, You can not see any difference.

As far as MW vs BF in 30 and 60fps, It really does not matter as you will never know the difference.

Now why is BF3 running at half the frame rate? maybe it is graphically very superior., While the new MW game has a much lower visual quality thus the GPU has no problem running it at the Higher frame rate.

Sure, I can run all my PC video games at 2 or 3 times higher frame rate if I cut the graphics down to a lower quality.

I see the game having to run at a lower frame rate on the exact same gaming system as a good thing.

I do not know why people are complaining about 30fps, first of all that is a perfectly good frame rate and second, you are getting that frame rate in a complete gaming system that costs less than the cost of just a Graphics card to run at the same rate on a pc.

You can not have the highest graphics possible and highest framerates at the same time, You have to cut one to boost the other.

30fps is still faster than movies play at on your TV.
#6 (Edited 1023d ago ) | Agree(3) | Disagree(1) | Report | Reply
Agent-86  +   1022d ago
Exactly, well said. As long as the frame-rate stays above 30, I'll take the higher resolution any day. I'm also a PC gamer, but if I was a console only gamer, I'd like my shooters at 720p with 30fps over 600p with 60fps.
#6.1 (Edited 1022d ago ) | Agree(1) | Disagree(0) | Report | Reply
Chnswdchldrn  +   1022d ago
if you can't tell the difference between 30 frames per second and 70+, you better get your eyes checked

not hating, its just a fact that theres a huge difference between anything below 60fps and anything above 60fps, and I can definitely tell the difference
Pekka  +   1022d ago
All movies are 24 frames per second and few complain about that at theaters. Difference between 30 fps and 60 fps is actually very minimal and most people can't see any difference. Oh, and most TV's and monitors can only show maximum 60 fps.
2v1  +   1022d ago
wow you are fassssss

t
thespaz  +   1022d ago
@Pekka

Movies are filmed with camera so there's a lot of natural motion blur involved in blending the frames together to make it look smooth.

You're also just watching a movie as opposed to controlling it with a controller.

30fps with no motion blur looks and feels choppy, but 60fps with no motion blur looks smooth as butter and responds to controls a whole lot better.

Play a game at 30fps on a PC and you'll go nuts because of the mouse lag.
FasterThanFTL  +   1023d ago
Who the fuck is Glen Schofield & what has he achieved in the gaming industry
Make a AAA game first then open your mouth.

List of games by Mr Glen Schofield:

Dead Space - Still not AAA but it is AA. AAA=90+, AA=80-89

http://www.metacritic.com/g...

http://www.metacritic.com/g...

http://www.metacritic.com/g...

The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King
From Russia with Love
Knockout Kings
Blood Omen 2
Gex: Enter the Gecko
Gex 3: Deep Cover Gecko
Akuji the Heartless
Disney World Racing
Mad Dash Racing
Street Fighter: The Movie
Major Damage (not released)
Werewolf (not released)
Swamp Thing
Rocky and Bullwinkle
Ren and Stimpy
Penn & Teller's Smoke and Mirrors (not released)
Barbie
#7 (Edited 1022d ago ) | Agree(2) | Disagree(2) | Report | Reply
Godchild1020  +   1023d ago
Dead space is a triple A game. Dead space is an amazing game. While the other games he worked on are not appealing to the masses, they were sold to someone.
Pandamobile  +   1022d ago
AAA refers to the budget used to create the game. Not the overall quality. It's not a subjective thing.

Dead Space was a AAA game.
Bladesfist  +   1022d ago
Why are people disagreeing with panda. That is what AAA means...
Odion  +   1023d ago
I am sure console gamers are ok withe 30 FPS when the game looks so much better and can do so much more.
Pandamobile  +   1022d ago
Yeah, considering just about every console first person shooter runs at 30 FPS you'd think they'd be used to it.

Hell, most console gamers don't even know what FPS stands for or means.

Like I said in a previous comment, this is the one thing that IW/Sledgehammer can laud over BF3 and I expect them to try to peddle it to everyone as if running at a higher frame rate is going to somehow influence any of the console-buyer's decisions.
#8.1 (Edited 1022d ago ) | Agree(2) | Disagree(2) | Report | Reply
t0mmyb0y  +   1023d ago
I call out the exact same game...again...for the 5th time since CoD4 started the CoD buzz?
Anti-Fanboyer  +   1023d ago
uhh the only reason they're able to run 60fps is because the game has a very low resolution. In fact lower than most major titles that run 720p.
t0mmyb0y  +   1023d ago
uhh, is there a high res of your avy :)
Snakefist30  +   1022d ago
NICE PIC!
roguewarrior  +   1023d ago
COD series peeked at COD4, its been dieing a slow death since( I'm talking gameplay not sales) Battlefield seems on its way up quality and sales wise. Furthermore, The net. code for COD is terrible, its consistently the lagiest game I've ever played, and seems to be the same if not worse since COD4.
Godchild1020  +   1023d ago
No matter what we will still see DLC priced at 14.99 for each game and who knows how many will be release per title.
ASSASSYN 36o  +   1023d ago
Yes! Fight you bastards! Fight hard. The end result is a better game for us gamers. This is why there will never be one console or one game developer. Competition is the force that drives the industry. Let the machine run wild. And on launch day, we will put a game in our consoles that gives us one hell of a break from reality.
bumnut  +   1022d ago
If they want to be like that here is my response:

COD only runs at 60 fps on consoles? 120 fps for me on PC........ but will actually be 0 because im not going to buy it.
thespaz  +   1022d ago
There's absolutely no point in running a game over 60fps on a PC if the monitor can only refresh at 60hz. You're still seeing a the screen refresh 60 times per second but the game is pumping out 120 frames per second (which means you'll get a lot of screen tearing because the frames are being drawn faster than the display can display them).

If you have a monitor capable of 120hz, then good for you, you can ignore what I said. Also, I don't think 120hz TVs accept a true 120fps signal.
bumnut  +   1022d ago
I have a 120hz monitor.

I gave you an agree because you know what you are talking about.
#14.1.1 (Edited 1022d ago ) | Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report
Max_Dissatisfaction  +   1022d ago
EA and DICE have been running their mouths off about CoD since day 1, time they got a taste of their own bile medicine
Gran Touring  +   1022d ago
DICE hasn't said anything negative about call of duty. It's really just EA's pr.
JeffGUNZ  +   1022d ago
That doesn't stop people for hating of Call of Duty because of Activision and Bobby Kotick. I guess it's ok if it's the other way around.
billythepunk  +   1022d ago
Here's the full interview: http://www.ausgamers.com/vi...
GrumpyVeteran  +   1022d ago
Shut up Sledgehammer. No one cares about you.
AdmiralSnake  +   1022d ago
Oh.... COD fanboys and BF fanboys all gonna argue over this nonsense. I don't care EA trash talk so I mean it's whatever to me. I have no idea why people wanna be bias when Sledgehammer does it back.
femshep  +   1022d ago
can't admit Battlefield looks, preforms, and is always better than any call of duty game (with exception of the 1st two cause those are there own games and not trying to kill battlefield)
Otheros00  +   1022d ago
Sub-Hd makes everything blurry. So, I will take Hd with 30fps than sub-HD anyday.
Fishy Fingers  +   1022d ago
For an FPS or any other fast paced game frame rate is more important as it actually effects gameplay, slight resolution increase does not.

Although 30fps is pretty much standard for consoles so most won't have an issue with it, but going from a 30 to 60 game is quite a difference, 60 feels and plays much better.
Jijoro  +   1022d ago
BF3 will likely be in sub HD too and have screen tearing frame rate dips jaggies pop ups just terrible
#22 (Edited 1022d ago ) | Agree(1) | Disagree(7) | Report | Reply
J-Killer15  +   1022d ago
Only time framerate truly matters are in fighting games and action games because of the animations to be honest.
csreynolds  +   1022d ago
This frame rate Battlefield 3/MW3 argument is getting really old (no dig intended at the author of this article). Sorry Sledge/IW, but I'll take great gameplay over 60fps any day.
lugia 4000  +   1022d ago
Good graphics and 30FPS is better than shitty graphics and 60FPS
despair  +   1022d ago
Can I call him out for reusing Infinity Ward's set pieces, game engine and probably MP again while charging us the full price for a "new" game, where's the competitive edge in that? I don't normally put myself in the anti-COD corner but sometimes its just too blatant not to call out.
Sarobi  +   1022d ago
My eyes have always been bad, so this topic kind of leaves me hollow, i don't think i could tell the difference between 30fps and 60fps. I do think that battlefield will run smooth with things, dice won't its growing fanbase down
#27 (Edited 1022d ago ) | Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report | Reply
s3fr  +   1022d ago
Lets see em adding some heavy physics and some new realtime lighting effects to cod n then try playing the 60fps card.. but seriously, of all, I wouldnt expect a dev to say this considering they're very well aware of the technicalities..

Maybe its just me but I've found a li'l lower fps more tolerable while using a controller than a mouse, its just less apparent..

BF3's gonna be more VFM than MW3 at the end of the day..
ATiElite  +   1022d ago
This is madness
am i the only person who thinks Bad Company 2 console looks better than any COD title?

60 fps at a sub HD resolution is NOT impressive and I will take 30fps at 720p any day of the week vs. sub HD.

Oh and one more thing...Glen Schofield does realize BF3 has full destruction while COD does not!
PhantomT1412  +   1022d ago
We've had 60 FPS on consoles since Call of Duty 2, they don't bring anything new to the table.

What is important is to have a constant FPS rather than a faster one. They could've drop some few frames to 30-40 FPS (between 40 and 60 FPS, unless you have a drastic change you don't see the difference) to upgrade the graphics one step above. But I think they were too lazy and afraid, prefering to stay with the same formula.

Well, considering the devs are some sort of "task force" quickly built to compensate Infinity Ward's outflow, I don't expect them to risk anything and instead just to bring "another" Call of Duty title.
#30 (Edited 1022d ago ) | Agree(2) | Disagree(0) | Report | Reply
« 1 2 »

Add comment

You need to be registered to add comments. Register here or login
Remember
New stories
20°

Welcome to VGRHQ: We Honor Video Game Critics

0m ago - A new website has launched, honoring the video game critic that so often goes unsung. This is th... | Culture
10°

Blizzard Reassure Customers that it is Safe From Heartbleed Flaw

0m ago - Blizzard have said that there is no need to worry about logging into Battle.net as they are safe... | PC
40°

Reports of Vita’s death are greatly exaggerated

0m ago - BT Games: "Roundly dismissed in the hallowed halls of the internet, Ian Dransfield says that, act... | PS Vita
10°

The Last Tinker: City of Colors – Preview (PC)| CriticalIndieGamer

1m ago - (CriticalIndieGamer) The Last Tinker is a 3D platformer from German developer Mimimi Productions... | PC
Ad

Enter to Win a PS4 and More!

Now - We are buying one lucky N4Ger a PS4 just for commenting on any N4G story! | Promoted post
40°

Tom Clancy’s The Division: New Action Screenshot Exposes Stunning Enviroment

1m ago - Tom Clancy’s The Division is currently under development but that doesn’t stop Ubisoft from relea... | PC
Related content from friends

GamesRadar

CheatCC

Gamewise