Approvals 11/10 ▼
Valay (4) - 2708d ago Cancel
iamnsuperman (1) - 2708d ago Cancel
crofterz (2) - 2708d ago Cancel
Phil4000 (1) - 2708d ago Cancel
patrielm (2) - 2708d ago Cancel
JoePrime (1) - 2708d ago Cancel

"Some Things Just too Big For Current Consoles" MW3 Developer

Glen Shofield revealed a new Spec Ops mode and also made a bold statement with an interview for

Read Full Story >>
Create Report !X

Add Report


That was NOT the quote, I watched the whole video.
NJShadow2707d ago WhoDisagree(0)Agree(0)
+ Updates (1)- Updates (1)


Changed from Pending to Approved
Community2708d ago
The story is too old to be commented.
WhiteLightning2708d ago (Edited 2708d ago )


Most of the COD games have enough room for a ton of know the stuff you'd rather wait and make into DLC so you can sell it for a higher price.

If this was Epic Games, NaughtyDog, Dice, Crytek, Id software talking then fine....but a MW3 developer...

No....just no

EDIT: I know right I mean...

"we always want to throw in 1 more tank or 10 different enemies but we have a long way to go"

Dice have managed to put in a ton of vehicles in Battlefield 3 and even jets....bloody jets for christ sake and these guys think one tank is a challenge.

samoon2708d ago

Yea I'm kind of upset they would say something like this. I mean look at the leap that DICE can do with the current gen consoles so why can't these guys. I guess it has to do with their glorious 60 FPS that they have somehow sweared an oath not to touch.

ShoryukenII2707d ago (Edited 2707d ago )

I'm actually pissed that they're saying this too. You look at their game and you look at Battlefield. It's just so obvious that they are years behind. Now look at their game and look at 2009's Killzone 2. They are still years behind. If they can't add 1 more tank (which isn't need because you won't be able to ride it), then maybe they are years behind because they are bad devs not because Activision is too greedy to fund a new engine.

...That is...unless he is talking about Battlefield 3...

Edit: I forgot to mention that the graphics don't suck because of the 60 FPS. Look at RAGE. That will no doubt be one of the best looking games this year and it is running at 60 FPS and 720p. Not 60 FPS, crappy graphics and sub-HD.

dragonelite2707d ago

60 fps is better then some destruction.
it actually one thing console gamers get close to glorious pc gaming.

Rush2707d ago (Edited 2707d ago )

I wish Call of Duty was "Just too Big" for current and next generation consoles....


Get it right It's the glorious pc gaming master race.

Persistantthug2707d ago

Lots of devs could do 60 frames with SUB HD.


Everyone knows Call Of Duty is garbage.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 2707d ago
Convas2708d ago (Edited 2708d ago )

"Dice have managed to put in a ton of vehicles in Battlefield 3 and even jets....bloody jets for christ sake and these guys think one tank is a challenge."

I'm not disagreeing, but I would wait till the Beta for Battlefield 3 before we start hailing DICE for Battlefield 3's MP on consoles, especially when it comes to Conquest.

That trailer that blew everyone away was like a lapdance peep show. The PC BF3-ers are inside the window booth getting the show up close in person from Battlefield 3.

Us console folk simply have to watch from outside the widows with 24 players. That's a 40 person drop from the utter chaos we saw in the trailer.

samoon2708d ago

yea definitely am looking forward to say how the beta is shaping up on consoles. Do you guys know if they've announced a date??

iamnsuperman2708d ago

well said. +bubs. The likelihood for that level of chaos is very small

Mr Patriot2708d ago

We all hate COD but in terms of business perspective, Activision knows that people are hungry for more cod every year, why the hell stop when there is some serious cash to be made, I would have done the same

LoVeRSaMa2707d ago

All the money the get from the COD games and they just throw the games together, Battlefield is LEAPS beyond this..

When BC first came out I thought "Nice try, they'll never be able to get the battles like the are on PC" but look at Battlefield 3..

Lazyness thats all I can say.

DeadIIIRed2707d ago

+Bubble, DICE has even said that they went with 24 because they feel that's what console players want. As if we would shun the game if it had 64 players.

BulletToothtony2707d ago

this is what happens when you use a 7 year old engine

RedDead2707d ago (Edited 2707d ago )

Ok, check out Bad company 2. Leaps and bounds above cod on technical terms, now add jets, better graphics.

BC2 still had like 8 vehicles in a map at once, BF3 will have tank battles, for consoles thats 24 tanks(playable I might add) all at once...

And TheDivine down there, Halo has almost all of that, besides a minigame like Dead ops. Botzone is not something I would ad to a list of features. Oh and add forge ;) As big a feature as Firefight and zombies.

+ Show (5) more repliesLast reply 2707d ago
TheDivine2708d ago

To be fair black ops had way more content than kz3, r2, homefront, moh, and almost all fps excluding halo. You got a campaign, dead ops arcade, zombie mode, alot of multiplayer maps, and slitscreen for multi/zombies, and botzone. Mw3 will have campaign, multiplayer, spec ops, and survival mode. Thats olot of content before dlc. People say the dlc is milking but not to me, fans want it so they give it. I dont buy maps but i sure as hell will buy the zombie map bundle.

radphil2707d ago (Edited 2707d ago )

"You got a campaign, dead ops arcade, zombie mode, alot of multiplayer maps, and slitscreen for multi/zombies, and botzone"

A lot of multiplayer maps that you paid a whole nother game for. Bots and splitscreen are present in the games that you mention.

The only thing different it has going was zombie and dead ops arcade, and zombies is done from L4D and many many other games.

And yes DLC is milking when you have to pay $60 for 4 sets.

iagainsti1202707d ago (Edited 2707d ago )

Im sure you can do more in Halo 3 or Reach than Black Ops, theirs a lot to do in those games. But that does not make one better than the other i personally didn't like the Multi-player in any of those games and never purchased Black-ops. (for halo Halo 2 had the best muti-player and MW for Call of Duty). Personally iv been playing Homefront and Battlefield BC2 on online as of right now. (ps i stopped playing Call of duty online when they started charging $15 for 3 new maps and 2 old)
(DLC maps for homefront $6, DLC BBC2 $15 for Vietnam, all others free)

skip2mylou2707d ago

killzone had bots and splitscreen before cod..... R2 had co-op before cod.....

BubbleSniper2708d ago

cant argue with this at allllllll!

KingDustero2708d ago

For once I actually agree with you. CoD doesn't need a next-gen console to get better at all. They just need to make a new engine that uses more of the current gen console's power.

theonlylolking2708d ago

He should say xbox because if you saw the recent article about how M$ forces devs then you will know why he should say xbox.

Lazy_Sunday2707d ago (Edited 2707d ago )

We totally overestimate the power of our consoles. Seriously. If they add any more to CoD (*cough* Black Ops *cough*) it doesn't run at 60FPS. I know, I know--RaGE runs at 60FPS as they say--but we'll really have to see if that's 60FPS constant, or Black Ops "visceral 60FPS" (45-50FPS lies).

These consoles are not capable of what we think they are, we take for granted the amount of work that goes in developer side to make these games run well. Most games that look beautiful today--excluding CoD--require an actual period of development where they compress everything downward to a point where they will actually work on consoles. And that's regularly to a point where they *just* work on consoles--30FPS, which is half of the actual immersion factor sacrificed for fancier effects and visuals which almost make up for the lack of FPS.

I'm all for adding on content to these consoles, but both consoles aren't capable of the same things. You could easily add stuff onto the PS3 version of any CoD game with all the space on disc, and utilize certain protocols with that space to make sure the game runs at 60FPS constant--especially if CoD for PS3 utilized the CELL. However, the 360 just barely fits that 8GB of CoD on there, and doesn't have the same type of CPU power--and since both games have to look equal, well... you know what happens.

nycredude2707d ago

WTF is wrong with 30 fps. that is totally acceptable framerate for a game. I played plenty impressive games that were 30fps and my pc plays all at higher fps and honestly I couldn't care less. Give me a great game at 30fps and throw the crap game with 60fps in the garbage.

jimmins2707d ago

John Carmack said 360 has more available power. Saying the 360 "doesn't have the same type of CPU power" is nonsense.

Lazy_Sunday2707d ago (Edited 2707d ago )

@nycredude: Nothing is wrong with 30FPS. It's the set standard. Most movies and animations run at 24FPS. But they're designed to be watched, not experienced firsthand. For most games, meeting the 30FPS standard means factoring in the toll it has on controls and the overall experience. When a game is made to run at 30FPS there is always a factor of delay that has to be added in to gameplay mechanics to smooth out slight drops in framerate--easing the unnatural viewing speed, to make the game seem like it's just naturally a bit unresponsive. Whether it's animations--idle or transitional--or actual controls that lag, it does happen when a game is coded down--because you remove and compress things to make them work with the hardware.
Games like Uncharted and Gears do this with finesse, but games like Crysis 2 and GTAIV fail miserably because they are unable to bridge the gap between framerate drops and gameplay. They are fun, but GTAIV's length, coupled with it's frequent framerate issues makes it hard for most people to bear through the entire game.
Don't be blind, gameplay is affected by how fast a game runs. The only difference is that FPS is the easiest way to detect how fast a game is actually running, since your movement and all that goes with it in-engine is measured by frames per second.
30 FPS is great in games that are coded well, but for most games on the market, it simply isn't enough.
However, 60FPS is the natural point at which immersion instantly occurs. This is because 60FPS is the speed at which untrained eyes process reality. This is why CoD is able to argue "60FPS! 60FPS! 60FPS!" and why people think this argument may be ludicrous, it is actually just. 60FPS is a huge immersive advantage. The casual game will play CoD because it "plays faster than other games."

@jimmins: John Carmack, of id Tech. Who gets their paychecks from Bethseda. Bethseda, whom we have already distinguished that they have agreements with Microsoft to support their console. It is why Skyrim was made primarily on 360 first, not PC. He does support that these consoles are capable of more, but then again, do realize that there are 3 discs for RaGE to encompass the same type of processes Blu-ray handles. Splitting up the game into multiple parts helps the game run, and more space to store the code means less compression and more protocols and better performance. Now lets simplify the term--"space-to-game& quot ; mechanics are used in order to increase performance. With a better disc drive (*cough* Blu-ray), the 360 could in fact be capable of more. However, it needs a more powerful CPU to handle all of the miniature processes that go on from "space-to-game" mechanics. See, the Cell processor can handle all this data because it was designed to, but not only does the 360 need to have the game in parts because of DVDs, it needs them in parts because it can't handle the whole amount of code all at once. The big advantage that the 360 has is the GPU which is a little bit better than the PS3s, and the small bit of cache for background tasks in the CPU, which is superior to the PS3s, since the PS3 has no small cache left over and uses it all up on the games. The PS3 may have a superior CPU, but they never factored in background tasks *facepalm*.

IcarusOne2707d ago

@Lazy: please cite references for this notion that the human eye sees at 60fps and therefore it's a more immersive experience. Because that sounds like a load of bullshit. Never have I heard of a scientific measuring of "fps" for human vision.

However there have been studies that compare the differences between a brain watching video frame rates (30 & 60) and film (24). And a brain watching video enters a state more closely related to hypnosis and therefore drifts away and has a harder time recalling details. While a brain watching a film frame rate enters of reverie and is much more attuned to what's happening on screen. It's precisely this reason why filmmakers do not shoot in variants of 30fps.

Lazy_Sunday2707d ago (Edited 2707d ago )

Do I need a single reference?
There is no set factual natural "immersion" framerate. Yet. There is a Hz though. Since televisions and most monitors are limited to 60Hz, 60FPS is the highest count of frames that the screen can render. 60Hz is that point for the untrained eye. However 60fps is more frames than the viewer can process and perceive in one single second, and a point which is beyond perception is a point you see without error, flicker or frames--which is where I say natural immersion comes in.
Our eyes perceive everything through light, and they are capable of seeing more. In fact our eyes are capable of seeing at the speed of light itself, but we actually don't--much like we don't use 100% of our brain capacity. But untrained eyes can only process so much immersion. Trained eyes can notice the difference between 60FPS and 200FPS, but it's really not such a big difference unless you're really, really picky.

There is a study based in Hz that determines 60Hz is the maximum for untrained human perception, since 60Hz is 60 screen traces in one second, coupled with 60FPS is 60FPS as 60Hz. I'll edit this when I can find it...
Here's a comparison of 15, 30 and 60 FPS:
Here's a nice little article on apps running at 60FPS, detailing the natural point of immersion:
You might want to check out what Carmack thinks of 60FPS:

Yeah, I agree on the goal of movies and tv should never be to be seen in anything higher than 24FPS, since I don't want everything to look like a sitcom. But anyway, you might be interested in taking a gander at this article:

30FPS isn't bad. It just isn't as smooth or natural as 60FPS. There's nothing wrong with 30FPS if you're happy with it, and regularly, if the framerate can be consistent--the average guy won't know the difference. But they will keep playing CoD, since it runs "faster" than Battlefield.

IcarusOne2707d ago

Thanks, Lazy. Some very interesting readong. Interesting, interesting...

First off, your assertion of most TV's and monitors running at 60hz is rapidly becoming antiquated. Practically every high end screen in Best Buy now runs at least 120hz.

The Tweak you reference article contains a very telling phrase: "In my experience..." That's all I needed to read.

Carmack seems to be saying 60fps of good graphics is better 20fps of awesome graphics. I don't think many people would argue with him.

The comparison between 15, 30 and 60fps is most telling to me. Obviously 60 looks the best, but pay attention to the corners of the bouncing square. They're still ghosting. If it were truly past the point of our natural persistence of vision (the true immersion factor), we'd see no ghosting. Just the perfect edges of the square as the rotate.

I think the comment just below there is what I'm talking about. The user is discussing the difference of feeling between the frame rates and the benefits of 24fps:

"I want to suck you into the world of the story, suspend your disbelief and make you forget about yourself and your life and just be in the moment..."

Do me a favor. If you have BioShock, throw it in and start playing. This game is capped at 48fps. That was a deliberate choice by 2K. They knew that variants of 24fps have a more filmic and whimsical feeling and can draw the viewer into the story in a much more captivating way. Now go into the options menu and unlock the frame rate. This bumps it up to 60fps.

And suddenly you're no longer in Rapture. You're sitting in front of your TV. Playing a video game.

All I'm trying to say is this argument over fps is meaningless to me. If I had things my way, every game would come in variants of 24fps, except for maybe sports and driving games.

Feel free to PM me. I like this conversation. It's rare to meet an n4g poster who thinks beyond the typical fanboy rant. Have a bubble, sir.

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 2707d ago
subtenko2707d ago

If MGS4 was 59.9 GB total on a 60 GB bluray could still fit the whole Modernwarfare trilogy on it and pacman as bonus content.

(yes I know...heavily exaggerated :s )

Agree or Disagree if you Agree

neonlight452707d ago

LOL dude you can put in the MW trilogy and Uncharted 2.

+ Show (5) more repliesLast reply 2707d ago
samoon2708d ago

I'm also sick and tired of them throwing an extra tank or more enemies. Jesus they think it's fun when we constantly have to destroy one more tank or kill 2000 more mindless enemies in the campaign.....

dangert122708d ago

So Mr Shofield how does all the both CoD blacks + All DLC And Mw3 fair I'm sure we can get them on a single current gen disc with no more compression then whats already been done

Fishy Fingers2708d ago (Edited 2708d ago )

Ummm... He's probably talking more about processing power/hardware capabilities, than storage space.

sikbeta2708d ago

That's even worse, we're talking about COD, the franchise that keeps using the same old modified Id Tech 3 Engine for yeaaaars....

Blitz0012708d ago

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, and this comes from CoD developer??? Hahahahahahah...hilarious...

BladedTech2708d ago

This is exactly why Battlefield is head and shoulders above Call of Duty.