Battlefield takes another low blow from Call of Duty. Apparently Sledgehammer Games President said that 60 FPS is Call of Duty's "Competitive Edge". Now about a week ago DICE announced that Battlefield 3 will serve 60 FPS only on PC. As consoles will on get half. Wow, Really? Call of Duty's bragging about Frames per second! Are you joking? They did confirm that Battlefield 3 will run at the same frame rate as Battlefield Bad Company 2. So what do you guys think? I think of this as playground bickering, GET THE RULER & MEASURE ALREADY! Battlefield or Call of Duty? Article this is based on: http://www.gameinformer.com/b/news/...-60-fps-is-call-of-duty-competitive-edge.aspx
Lol, you posted this at about the same time I posted the link in the lolbox. Some things the developer mentioned there was quite stupid. Taking shots at BF is one thing (60fps is a waste of power), but "You don't ship an engine, you ship a game". What does that game run off? Potatoes?
I would guess it's been the same from CoD 4- Present. Man CoD 3 was the **** when i played PS2, It was probably running in a 15 fps Engine TROLOLOLOLOL (unnecessary)
i hate to admit it, but i'm kind of a framerate *****. The one thing with Halo graphics that's always bugged me is the framerate. Is it a competitive edge to have 60 FPS? we all know the answer to that. It's a matter of priorities, and if we take this comment seriously rather than dismiss it as an idiot saying something stupid, then **** do the CoD developers have their priorities ****ed.
Isn't 30 FPS the speed at which your eyes cannot process anymore frames anyway? Or is that 60? Either way, who gives a flying ****? Really COD? ¬.¬
Ok, looked it up, people can potentially see any number of fps, so i suppose thats solved. However, picking on Battlefield 3 for not having 60fps is stupid, the gameplay on the battlefield games has been better than CoD in my opinion so I could care less about fps as long as they dont go lower than 30. However, having 60 fps is nice, but not a selling factor.
Yes. Treyarch did an amazing job at making it terrible. Anyways: competitiveness is always political (childish). They are two rivals and they will do whatever it takes to knock the other similar title down a few pegs. I still think that EA has done worse with Medal of Honor; not only did it turn out to be a horrendous game, but they bashed Halo, a game that is NOTHING LIKE THEIR GAME (ad: "tired of needles and plasma toys? Play MoH!"), to gain an audience. I love Battlefield much more than CoD, but I don't have too much sympathy for EA.
Battlefield has controllable vehicles therefore its already better than CoD. End of discussion. Also 30 FPS is not noticeable at all.
I don't know about you guys, but for many games I can definitely see a difference between 30 and 60 fps, and I'm not even an avid PC gamer. Either way, the fps factor is important to a lot of gamers, so there's nothing wrong with using it as a selling point, minor as it may seem.
Im just saying, that if both series' stay how they are right now, and Battlefield had 30fps and CoD had 60, I would still rather play Battlefield because its a better game in general, regardless of its fps. Yes, I do agree that there is a noticeable difference between 60 and 30fps, but not one that's going to make me like a game that's inferior gameplay wise. Fps is a selling factor, yes, but only when both products are equally good. They are not in this case, CoD has been on a decline since #4.
Everyone is forgetting the technology factors involved. It takes a lot more GPU power to process double the amount of FPS, this means that double the calculations can be put into the 30FPS the same amount that can be put into 60FPS. This means the graphics engine and physics engine could be twice as powerful potentially for BF3, which we all know to be true, it's the ****ing frostbite engine..
Do you think that by cranking up the fps they're compensating for something? Wow, as I was writing that I was jokingly thinking ***** size but I realized that it could also seriously refer to gameplay. Well, looks like another rental in the CoD pile.
People are making this a bigger deal than it needs to be. We're all succumbing to Activision's advertising by even discussing this point. the difference between 30 and 60 fps may be a big deal to super competitive gamers, but to the vast majority it's not.
If it's gonna be 30fps, it'll be like Marathon 2 on PC. This may seem odd, but i like games with lower FPS, I honestly don't know why...