Top
410°

MW3 Didn't Copy BF3, What Brings Fans Back to CoD, and more - Sledgehammer Games On MW3

Some interesting things that Glen Scholfield and Michael Condrey, the co-founders of Sledgehammer Games, said about Modern Warfare 3.

The story is too old to be commented.
Hitman07692641d ago

He's right, 60fps is rare for shooters on consoles these days and that IS what many people come back for whether they realize the technical details behind it or not.

Mister_V2641d ago

Gotta admit, there's nothing sweeter than that smooth 60fps!

evrfighter2641d ago

guarantee you 75% of cod gamers have never heard of the term frames per second.

Kee2641d ago

See, I know about frames per second, but I couldn't tell you how many fps a game is running at.

I'll bet a lot of people do buy cod for it's fps and not even realise that's why they like it.

The reason I keep buying CoD is simply because all my friends buy it and because I'm already good at it.

No point buying a shooter that you're gonna be terrible at. Just play the hell out of one and be a boss at it. I'm also pretty good at resistance, but other than that, it's just cod I'm good at.

Most of my fun in an FPS game derives from winning the game so I won't have the patience for going back to square one with a shooter again and just losing over and over. It's demoralising.

NatureOfLogic2641d ago (Edited 2641d ago )

It was a hard decision for me, but I chose to pre-order MW3 over BF3, I just gotta have some COD. It's not that I suck at BF, I just like COD better and I still do plan to get BF3 later.

Edit: I don't think COD would be the same at 30fps.

john22641d ago

I too prefer a 60fps game but let's face it, we need new consoles that can offer better graphics (Samaritan level of quality) with 60fps

WarPonyDestroyer2640d ago

I hope they don't clone each other. I want to play both games for two difference experiences. Some of us play more than one game.

Lazy_Sunday2640d ago

It's upsetting to see how many people feel consoles are capable of so much more. In one single DVD, compressing data to that amount--you can't, because no space protocols are used to keep the framerate up. The way that CoD is currently made, it isn't capable of running any more because it jeopardizes framerate. Vehicles? Framerate drops. Realistic effects? Framerate drop. More people on screen? Framerate drop. RaGE is capable of 60FPS on consoles because it utilizes space over compression, and not having to decompress nearly as many things and having all that raw data helps the game run faster.

Now here's a fun fact: CoDMW2 may be said to be capped at 60FPS but in reality it plays at 59FPS on consoles, and drops slightly when more is added on-screen. We all learned that when MW2 got hacked, since a lot of challenge lobbies received framerate counters to keep from crashing lobbies. It was a rule of thumb for hosting, since lobbies can actually close if the framerate is jeopardized heavily.

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 2640d ago
3GenGames2641d ago (Edited 2641d ago )

If they don't know the details, then they don't give two s***s about the FPS. It shouldn't matter the frame rate. MW3 is 60fps because they need no frame time to do all the math and GPU writing because the game is still unable to add enough content to take up all the CPU time in a frame and use it to it's fullest.

30FPS games are either taking good use of the CPU [BF3] or just bad programming. 60FPS means you're just not taking real advantage of the hardware and possibly have bad programming that you can get away with because you don't need to have optimized programming anyway.

And there's NO "significant" advantage between 60fps and 30fps. None. You're eyes can't see it. If you processed information 2x as fast, yes, but for the normal person your sense aren't good enough to be able to see the difference.

vyke32641d ago (Edited 2641d ago )

Even though they dont know what the term frame rate means, they still notice a significant difference between it and other shooters. Take this crazy dude for an example:
http://www.youtube.com/watc...

He doesnt know what he is talking about, yet he keeps mentioning the "smooth controls" which is one of the 60FPS advantages.

Gamer_Z2641d ago (Edited 2641d ago )

@3GenGames

You will be surprised at how many people can see 60fps, i can tell the difference right away when i play a game. Anyways your wrong about the eye only seeing at 30fps when in fact the eye can perceive much past 30 FPS to 60 FPS and even surpassing 200 FPS. Though still a game playing at 60fps isn't a enough of a reason to buy it, i'd rather have quality over 60fps any day.

bozebo2640d ago (Edited 2640d ago )

"And there's NO "significant" advantage between 60fps and 30fps. None. You're eyes can't see it. If you processed information 2x as fast, yes, but for the normal person your sense aren't good enough to be able to see the difference. "

Bull.

Give me 3 computers with counter strike source or call of duty 4 running at 30fps, 60fps and 100fps and I will tell you which one is which every time.

And for any other game, anyone can tell the difference between 30fps and 60fps.

The issue isn't only visual, a lot of games have input lag at 30fps (depending on how the engine works). Fast moving objects going across your field of view will be noticeably jumpy at 30fps too.

@kee
Surely if you are good at one fps you will be good at them all? Especially if the bullets do loads of damage (cod/bf, rather than halo) because your opponents will be instantly dead from headshots.

Heartnet2640d ago

There is a very significant advantage.. 60 fps does run alot smoother and allows for a lille dip in frame rate every now and then.

30 fps cant dip at all cuz if it does you will notice it since the game will be skipping.

and lol at ur bias mind.. have u every thought that the reason bf3 cud be capped at 30 fps is bad programming? obv thats impossible to you 8-)

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 2640d ago
MidnytRain2641d ago (Edited 2641d ago )

Kee

Seriously? I find it awesomely satisfying when I get better and better at a game until I'm BOSS. It's what I loved about Killzone 2, Uncharted 2, and Resistance 3. I'm still working on Gran Turismo 5. :P

HeavenlySnipes2641d ago

you can't really tell the difference between a 60 FPS game and a 60 FPS game. Put COD and KZ3 side by side and any uninformed game will not be able to tell you which runs at 60 FPS or not. You can only actually SEE a difference between the two when the framerate drops. If the engine is optimized enough, you won't, and all will be fine.

The only real advantage 60 FPS games have is that when the FPS drops, it goes down to maybe 30-45, meaning you don't notice anything. Whereas a 30 FPS game would go down to 20-25 where you can actually see the game sputter. If devs make sure the engine won't throw up from too much onscreen action you won't ever see the framerate drop anywhere below 28 FPS.

However, I do believe people play COD for the killstreaks, the very VERY accurate and light guns, and the ability to run around and knife people and still come on top in TDM matches.

SonyStyled2640d ago

VERY accurate and light guns? i think you mean COD requires no skill and teamwork, in that case i agree

kaveti66162640d ago

It depends on your vision.

If your vision is not up to scratch then you probably can't.

My vision isn't perfect, but even I can see the difference.

I feel kind of sad for the people who can't.

Heartnet2640d ago

"you can't really tell the difference between a 60 FPS game and a 60 FPS game"

I agree

latinalover2641d ago

from a old engine. dinosaur mode will be more epic than MW3

OdinFallen2640d ago

OH you are so right, the BIGGEST reason we come back to play games is the FPS. /s Piss off and get a grip on the idiotic nonsense that you just spouted. People come back to a game for ALL that it is, not some tech spec that most people have no clue about.

Heartnet2640d ago

Maybve he was on about what the 60 fps represents :)

solid warlord2640d ago

60fps makes a massive difference and most can't tell you the difference but hell they can feel the difference. COD is fast paced action shooter, for that it needs to be played at 60fps in expense, graphics takes a hit as consoles cannot deliver 1080p and 60fps gaming for shooters. COD fells better and more addictive to play than BF but u might say BF is for people who prefer more tactical gaming and of course large scale battles which COD isnt about. COD is TD gaming to the core whiles BF is territory gaming to the core.

arjman2640d ago

60FPS means nothing when you've got super lag

Heartnet2640d ago

Thats obv ur internets fault and blantantly not the servers the games probably isnt running off :)

arjman2640d ago

They don't even have servers on the console versions of cod, it's all P2P hence the constantly bad connection :(

I'm not hating on cod because I play it, a lot, I just think that their greediness is bringing the quality of the game down

+ Show (6) more repliesLast reply 2640d ago
WhiteLightning2641d ago

These guys think that we need next gen consoles soon because they can't fit enough content in their games. You know the content that they make as DLC after.

Even one Tank is a challenge for them...thats basicaly their reason for wanting next gen consoles, yet if you look at Battlefield 3......well I think you know.

I really can't take these guys seriously anymore

Criminal2641d ago

Wow, you're right I think I've read this comment somewhere. "they can't fit enough content in their games"

I, personally, want next gen console because the difference between console and PC games is getting bigger and bigger. Just look at Battlefield 3 running on PC, it's incredible.

I used to be PC gamer, but I like the accessibility of consoles.

DlocDaBudSmoka2641d ago

they should lead on ps3 and fill the disc, then port to 360/pc. up to 50gb should be enough room for more content. go the route other devs have and use more discs.

bozebo2640d ago (Edited 2640d ago )

Leading on PS3 would be a bad idea because the hardware is a totally different architecture.

Also, a PC game can theoretically be infinite in size...

But Blu-Ray is great for games, the 360's dvd has decimated loads of good franchises this generation :(

Dark_king2640d ago

@bozebo actually leading on the PS3 is best as it easier to port down then up.Its actually been said to be the best method by many Devs.

neonlight452641d ago

I think the main reason is because they'll have to drop the frame rate

xtremexx2641d ago

im hoping they do some great things in the multiplayer for
MW3, cant wait till COD XP and also the Battlefield 3 beta :D

Criminal2641d ago

Ohh, I can't wait for the Battlefield 3 beta, I have dreams about it.

Just imagine flying those Jets.

JBSleek2641d ago

Battlefield is spending too much time on the PC...

iXenon2641d ago

The PC gamers, according to DICE, are the most loyal to Battlefield and have been getting the short end of the stick over the years

DaPrintz2641d ago

A true Battlefield game has never appeared on consoles. Bad company 1 and 2 are not full Battlefield installments according to PC players. That being said, how could anybody but PC players be loyal? If BF3 delivers on consoles, I believe that "loyal" statement will shift due to sales numbers.

SonyStyled2640d ago

DaPrintz

is battlefield 2 not a true battlefield game? i got it on my shelf for the PS2. ist subtitled modern combat though. idk if it makes a difference

CAPSLOCKFURY2641d ago

Probably because Battlefield started on the PC.

Farsendor12641d ago

dice the developers of battlefield are doing the right thing working on the better platform.

Criminal2641d ago

I think DICE is giving both communities their due, except 360.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 2640d ago
JBSleek2641d ago

Everyone above me sounds crazy...

Loyalty? Game started on PC? Better Platform?

Honestly the PC will probably be the weakest selling platform and there is no loyalty in this gaming world. The transaction ends when you buy the game after that Dice doesn't owe you anything. I'm just confused in why they would pay so much attention to PC gaming when consoles is where the fan base will have a better chance of reaching.

radphil2641d ago (Edited 2641d ago )

Did you just question the series starting on PC?

Cause if you did, then you can show where 1942 was on consoles.....Or Battlefield Heroes, or BF2142, or BFF2P, Special Forces, Codename Eagle, Road to Rome, Secret Weapons of WWII, Euro Force, Armored Fury, Northern Strike.

The series started in '99 yet the consoles didn't start with the series till '05...

3GenGames2641d ago

PC players will be loyal as they are very loyal, but you're right that PC will not be the best selling platform. Origin is making them all have a hissy fit, although it is for a good reason, which will hurt PC sales.

Farsendor12640d ago

im pc all the way even i know the console version will outsell the pc version but games for pc usually have better features better browser servers better graphics

CAPSLOCKFURY2641d ago

Battlefield 1942 was PC. Consoles did not get Battlefield until they got the Console version of BF2.

Consoles have their perks. Accessibility is the biggest one. That does not make it the better platform. Trying to say something that has 5-7 years old hardware is a better platform is laughable. 5 Year old parts in a gaming PC would be a paperweight. The better platform to make a game for is the one that can push the envelope for development. When the next gen consoles hit, they will be ripe for it. Then the PC markets will catch up again, then the next consoles.

Making a platform that does not change as the lead platform leads to stagnation in development after a few years has passed and then to make prettier graphics compromises in the overall setting and game play have to be made.

So if that is crazy, then yes I'm crazy.

Show all comments (68)
The story is too old to be commented.

Out this Month