Close
Are you sure? Are you sure you want to report this comment? I understand, report it. Cancel

Digital Foundry

Battlefield vs. Modern Warfare: Does 60FPS Really Matter?

Wed 13 Jul 2011 7:10am GMT / 3:10am EDT / 12:10am PDT
Digital Foundry

How frame-rate defines the gameplay experience

This year's video games battle royale - Battlefield 3 vs. Modern Warfare 3 - is underpinned by an age-old technological conflict: 30FPS vs. 60FPS. The question is, how important is the higher frame-rate and to what degree do gamers really care?

On the one side we have the Call of Duty game, co-developed by series founder Infinity Ward and newcomer Sledgehammer Games, utilising what looks to be an enhanced version of the existing, established and hugely successful COD engine, running at 60 frames per second. On the other we have a brand new Battlefield title developed on a fresh 2.0 version of DICE's state-of-the-art Frostbite technology. For the console versions of the game, DICE has targeted what has become the default refresh: 30FPS.

The basics are very straightforward: with Battlefield 3 running at half the frame-rate, DICE has twice the amount of processing time to run game logic and render the action on-screen: 33.33ms vs. the 16.67ms available to the Call of Duty developers, resulting in richer visuals and more complex, realistic physics amongst a whole range of other benefits.

The issue of which frame-rate to target has long been debated and despite the dominance of games like Call of Duty, Gran Turismo and FIFA - all 60FPS titles - the general trend is to support 30FPS instead.

For its part, Modern Warfare 3 will run much smoother and controller latency will be that significantly lower, giving the sensation of precision response from the pad. Some superb art direction and technological tweaks by the developers keeps the game looking competitive, even if the core rendering tech and physics are necessarily not as sophisticated.

Good game design plays its part too, of course. Call of Duty games are typically fairly linear, a rollercoaster ride of sorts, and by guiding the player through a set-route of set-pieces and tightly defined gameplay scenarios, the developers can keep to their target frame-rate and still produce a very good-looking game.

Certainly, the developers believe that 60FPS is a core element of what makes COD the most popular franchise of this generation, with Sledgehammer's Glen Schofield saying that it gives the game its competitive edge over the Frostbite 2.0-powered BF3.

"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," Schofield told Ausgamers during E3.

"Not sure I've seen any of our competitors on the console especially running at 60 frames a second and I'd be a little scared at this point - in June - if I was looking forward to a particular game that wasn't on the console and running at 60. And I think 60 is our competitive edge and you just don't throw that away."

Thanks to an HD off-air transmission, we were able to re-constitute the 60Hz output of the Xbox 360 in Microsoft's E3 conference. Our performance analysis shows that Modern Warfare 3 maintains its 60FPS output admirably. Indeed, this snippet suggests extensive optimisation to the tech since we last saw it in Black Ops...

Call of Duty: Black Ops developer Treyarch goes into a little more depth on why frame-rate defines the gameplay experience.

"The reason why Call of Duty in my opinion feels so good in your hand, and why it is one of the best expressions of 'that is me on the screen' is because we do let it run at 60 frames per second. That's why it's so fluid," studio boss Mark Lamia told Videogames Daily.

"It's a critical component. Are there parts where it will dip? If there are, only barely for a second if you're lucky. Almost always you're seeing that constant 60 frames a second you've seen in all the Call of Duties. And I think also visually, there's a difference. I think that's why the engine looks a bit different from other engines, because we're running at 60 not 30. That would be a compromise that some people are willing to make - we're not. It’s all about the gameplay, and it's a lot of work to keep it that way."

While we have to take issue with Lamia's claims on performance, the general sentiment is shared by John Carmack of id software, who equates 60FPS with a "quality feel" and fought hard to get that target frame-rate adopted for his team's latest blockbuster, Rage.

"My biggest pride and joy about Rage is that I won the fight for 60 frames per second on there, but it involves significant trade-offs. You can't have 30 guys crawling all over you at 60 frames per second at this graphics technology level because it's painful. It's a lot of effort to do that," Carmack says in a GameSpot interview.

"But, we did make the call that for Doom 4, the single-player is going to go 30 frames per second on the consoles. So we can have 30 demons crawling all over you on there. But the multiplayer is still going to be 60 frames per second, so it has the quality feel that Rage has."

The issue of which frame-rate to target has long been debated and despite the dominance of games like Call of Duty, Gran Turismo and FIFA - all 60FPS titles - the general trend is to support 30FPS instead.

In the case of Battlefield 3, DICE presumably accepts that controller response will suffer but points to advanced visual effects, larger maps, the unparalleled destruction model, and the implementation of vehicles as just a few of the advantages its game has over its major rivals, not to mention a phenomenal deferred shading set-up that produces some sublime lighting. DICE rendering architect Johan Andersson has also pointed out via his Twitter account that Call of Duty games run at sub-HD resolutions - 1024x600 to be precise (Black Ops was actually 960x540 on PS3) - a significant deficit in comparison with Modern Warfare 3's planned native 720p image.

John Carmack has also confirmed that Rage employs a dynamic resolution system on console - when the game drops down from 60FPS, resolution is lowered until the engine recovers performance. It's an intriguing solution similar to work done by Sony's Studio Liverpool. In its WipEout HD, the 1080p60 mode adjusts resolution according to load in a similar manner in order to maintain as high a frame-rate as possible. Evolution Studios uses similar techniques to get MotorStorm Apocalypse running smoothly in 3D.

At the end of the day, there is a finite level of resources available on the current generation consoles. As Carmack says, hitting 60FPS does indeed involve significant trade-offs. However, at the core, creating games is a business. The question is, do gamers actually care? Can these trade-offs impact sales? Would gamers still flock to Call of Duty if it ran at 30 frames per second? Insomniac's engine director, Mike Acton, produced an in-depth study to in an effort to address this question.

Previously a 60FPS advocate, Acton re-thought his position when his community team's research suggested that higher frame-rates do not produce better review scores, and don't boost sales of games. On the flipside, Mike asserts that better graphics definitely do, and the more rendering time available, the more rich and complex the visuals can be. For him, the message was clear: drop frame-rate down from the target 60FPS, improve graphical quality and reap the rewards of higher review scores and sales.

Bearing out his thinking is the way that video games are marketed. The usual tools of the trade are screenshots and video, both of which are better tailored to showing 30FPS console games at their best. Clearly, screenshots will benefit from "better graphics" (note how COD tends to use PC visuals for its screens) but perhaps more importantly, streaming video technology inherently does a better job in showcasing 30FPS games.

Should developers put so much effort into creating 60FPS games when there is no effective marketing vehicle for communicating the difference in smoothness and control response?

By far the most widely disseminated medium for video is the internet. Whether it's YouTube or any other form of streaming video, the plain and simple fact is that Adobe's Flash player has real trouble producing a consistent frame-rate at the best of times and it's utterly hopeless at running 60FPS video. Take a look at the Gran Turismo PSP video we produced further down on this page. Here we tried to showcase the game's buttery-smooth 60Hz refresh. The video is encoded at 60FPS, with a very light encoding profile, and the actual window of motion is PSP native res: a mere 480x272. However, on most PCs or Macs, it doesn't look much smoother than the average 30FPS Flash video, owing to the renderer dropping so many frames.

60FPS titles look more fluid, more pleasing to the eye, but when your main channels for the distribution of video don't show this key plus point, your most important media assets make your game look considerably less impressive than it actually is. All told, it's a bit of a marketing nightmare.

On top of that, while the Xbox 360 has no issues decoding 60FPS video, we've yet to see an Xbox Live Marketplace video running at this frame-rate. On the plus side, however, some of the latest PSN trailers we've downloaded from Sony's service have definitely been encoded at 60FPS (just about all the EU Vita trailers, for starters), and look so much better as a result. Finally we are seeing these games in the way that they will look when you're playing them, but we would imagine that PSN video download stats pale into insignificance compared to the streaming video views elsewhere.

We hand-encoded this Gran Turismo PSP video to run with 60FPS playback in order to show off how smooth the game actually is. However, on most of the computers, frames are dropped due to inefficiencies in Adobe's Flash player. It's a major challenge to market 60FPS gameplay when you can't actually show it properly via streaming video.

There is much to ponder on in Mike Acton's research (for example, can reviewers and consumers properly articulate frame-rate - is a smoother game perceived as "better graphics") but there's little doubt that in the case of the Ratchet and Clank games he helped develop, a sustained 30FPS update in combination with improved visuals would almost certainly result in a stronger product. As it is, we have an excellent parallel example: Travellers' Tales certainly appears to have arrived at the same conclusion as Insomniac and has adopted a similar approach - the vast majority of the LEGO games it has created could hit 60FPS but starting from the recent LEGO Clone Wars release, frame-rate has been halved, with visual complexity and effects work improving dramatically.

However, it's equally fair to say that pin-sharp response from the controls isn't exactly a stock in trade of either Ratchet and Clank or the LEGO games. The compromise pays off because you feel like you're getting a significant visual upgrade, but the gameplay doesn't really suffer as a consequence. It's safe to say that the best-selling 60FPS games out there - COD, GT, Forza, FIFA - just wouldn't play as well as they currently do. The question is whether what they lose could be off-set by what they gain.

There's no doubt that if DICE wanted to produce a 60FPS console shooting game, it definitely could. However, the studio's strategy appears to be somewhat more ambitious than producing a "me too" release: it is deploying a range of new technologies that should take the genre in new directions, while at the same time the underpinnings are there for a new engine technology that not only services the current consoles but also forms the basis for prospective DirectX 11 powered next gen machines, while being flexible enough for non-DICE teams to use (witness Need for Speed: The Run).

Will the upcoming BF3 vs. MW3 conflict resolve the "does 60FPS matter" question? The smart money is on both of these games being so successful that it will only prolong the debate rather than resolve the issue in one way or another. However, at least gamers will have the choice between what will definitely be two very different experiences, and that can only be a good thing.

28 Comments

Lewis Brown
Snr Sourcer/Recruiter

198 56 0.3
Interesting article again, thought the conclusion was very apt

Posted:3 years ago

#1
Hardcore FPS'ers who play competitively will always want 60fps over 30fps.

Posted:3 years ago

#2
As a competitive player myself in the CoD4 community, the desired FPS rate is 125 believe it or not! The PC players will release whats call "Pro Mod" for said games that cuts down on the unessential particle effects, depth of field etc. So I think no, players don't care cause:

1) The non competitive players, half of them don't even know what FPS is or care

2)Competitive players and the players with technological knowledge will simply use these mods and console commands anyway. As for console gamers.. meh, you're stuck with what you get.

:)

Some of you might wonder 125 fps! what the hell, trust me as a gamer transcending into the industry, such frame rate allows quick and easy "trick jumps" and complete smoothness of gameplay. Recommend developers look into promod - not to make it the main focal point for creating the fps engine but just to see what gamers in the fps community are trying to mod - then again, the high competitive league players are tiny compared to the larger hardcore market, so probably not worth the time.

Edited 2 times. Last edit by Khaled Al-Hurby on 13th July 2011 12:11pm

Posted:3 years ago

#3

Gregory Keenan

102 11 0.1
Not a comment on FPS but im boiling over here:

I HATE badly researched films/books/games. First time ive seen that E3 video:
-The inside of the Submarine would not/does not look like that!!
-Its a bomber: it would never be that close to the shore (unless there is some story reason for it, doubt it)
-the US Ships are at war and yet don't have their CIWS turned on which would shoot down incoming missiles(have them on more often than not in peace)

I understand artistic licence, but a 5 minute google search would have told you - or even watching Red October! Only bring this up as I think reality could have made it allot more powerful an opening (then again slaughtering a bunch of unfit, unarmed submariners who haven't seen the sun for 3 months would be abit extreme)

The Chinook part was accurate though, seen that done on a training exercise.


EDIT: Apologies for venting (think before posting?) - just a pet hate of mine.

Edited 1 times. Last edit by Gregory Keenan on 13th July 2011 2:17pm

Posted:3 years ago

#4

James Wells
Gaming Contributor - digboston.com

72 32 0.4
Nice article. These are truly two very different visual styles, and it'll be interesting to see how it plays out in the fall. Personally, I'm a sucker for high framerate so will likely stick with MW3, but I also love the Battlefield style of combat, with destructible environments, vehicles, etc... it's really like apples and oranges in that respect.

Posted:3 years ago

#5

Thomas Sigrist

12 0 0.0
It's nice that some want to talk about "competitive play" on consoles. But please, everywhere else then america, shooters are played competitively on computers. With mouse and keyboard. So, on one hand, yes ATVI has the lead in "competitive console play". But ATVI has the lead on console players in general anyway. And nobody cares about those 5 american "competitive cod teams" who wanna duke it out on the XBox. It's like bicycle football, nice and all but, COOOMEOOOON! Use your fucking feets for gods sake!

Posted:3 years ago

#6

Greg Wilcox
Creator, Destroy All Fanboys!

2,177 1,125 0.5
Er, Thomas... A few billion Halo franchise matches (on console) PLUS a number of "competitive play" tournament winners since about 2002 would like to have a word with you out back.

Posted:3 years ago

#7
this so-called 'argument' is ridiculous however. just because the engine is rendering to the screen at 30 fps has little to no relation to how often it is polling the controller for input etc. This assumption that '1 frame == 1 tick / cycle of everything else that goes on in a game engine' is probably the biggest misconception ever.

Regarding the arbitrary '125 fps', it would entirely depend on the screen refresh of your monitor / display. If you have a 60 hz display, anything over 60 fps is literally wasting processing power on rendering frames that aren't being displayed by the screen. By forcing the framerate higher than your screen can update, you may actually make the overall performance WORSE by taking processing power away from things like physics etc.

Most commercial screens are 60 hz, which is why 60 fps would be the ideal, although just as movies and TV have used for years - anything higher than 30 fps is difficult to distinguish. In the end though, having a consistent framerate is much more effective in producing a smooth-feeling game, than simply trying to max out the framerate.

The whole 'input latency' issue (as covered excellently in this article: http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/di... is probably the bigger problem that most people have with 30 vs 60 fps. It would be much better to focus on improving input latency more than wasting optimization cycles trying to achieve 60 fps for an arbitrary reason.

Posted:3 years ago

#8

Doug McFarlane
Co-Owner

39 36 0.9
I've heard this debate a few times.

How hard would it be to just simply offer both options?
If you want high FPS, then you don't get certain visual effects.
If you want amazing visuals, you're forced down to 30fps.

But this may lead to different game play experiences for the same game.
I wouldn't really care myself, just keep both versions separate for high scores or online play.
Just a thought.

Posted:3 years ago

#9

Greg Wilcox
Creator, Destroy All Fanboys!

2,177 1,125 0.5
+1000, Mike! Thanks for that input (pun intended)...

Posted:3 years ago

#10

Gábor Stanyó
Programmer

3 0 0.0
@Mike "This assumption that '1 frame == 1 tick / cycle of everything else that goes on in a game engine' is probably the biggest misconception ever."

While in theory it doesn't have to be like that, it was actually 1 frame == 1 tick in every engine I used so far.

Posted:3 years ago

#11
Let me have a good game for the next 20 years. Sod the framerate (its all relative)

Posted:3 years ago

#12

Richard Löwenstein
Journalist, iPhone-Developer

2 0 0.0
Very nice feature, reflects exactly my thoughts. 60 fps rule, because they are the base for best possible on-screen-reaction to the gameplayers actions, and therefore the best possible playability. 60 fps used to be the norm on homecomputers and consoles in the 80s and 90s, but were sacrificed with the transition to the pc and on the altar of marketing of goodlooking screenshots. Great so see some developers keeping up with 60 fps.

Posted:3 years ago

#13

Curt Sampson
Sofware Developer

596 360 0.6
Mike: unfortunately, you're the one with the misconceptions here. How responsive a game feels is not just about how often you poll the controller: it's about how long it takes, on average, for your controller input to be reflected on the screen. If it takes you 30 ms to render a frame, that means you have a minimum 30 ms delay between a controller input and when you see it; if you render a frame in 15 ms., you'll see the results of your controller input that much sooner.

You're right that on computer displays the display itself, as well as the link to it, needs to support a higher refresh rate. (The refresh rate of the display and the refresh rate used on the link to it are often different.) But with careful selection and configuration of components, it appears that this probably can be done. (Note also you'll probably need a dual-link DVI connection for high refresh rates at moderately high resolutions--standard DVI will not support more than 60 Hz at 1920x1280.) And while you're also correct that by doing this you have less processing power per frame for graphics and physics, this may not be a big deal. A modern 4-core Intel CPu has vastly more processing power than, say, an Xbox 360, and you'll note that the fellow who mentioned this also mentioned turning off some of the more expensive graphical candy.

You're right that films have used 24 FPS for years. That it's difficult to distinguish from higher frame rates is utter rubbish; just as any cinematographer about how he has to limit the speed of pans due to the low film frame rate.

Posted:3 years ago

#14

Kieran MacGough
Studying Computer Games Design & Programming

19 0 0.0
"Hardcore FPS'ers who play competitively will always want 60fps over 30fps."

Hardcore FPS'ers who play competitively will have a PC that can play BF3 at 60+ FPS.

Posted:3 years ago

#15

Colin Pearce
Studying Computer Games Technology

4 0 0.0
An interesting debate.

As a PC gamer, I personally I simply don't accept my FPS being as low as 30. It feels unpleasant and 'choppy' to me, and I will always adjust my settings to bring the FPS back up. Furthermore, I also always play with vsync disabled as most games I've experimented with feel more responsive that way, AND I have a 120Hz monitor (if I don't have 3D enabled I gain the benefit of 120FPS). Yes; I like my controls to be responsive!

Just after I got my new monitor, and experimenting around in Portal with 3D, I actually spent some time WITHOUT 3D enabled simply enjoying the smoothness of the game at 120FPS. I literally spent a good while just enjoying the how silky smooth and responsive everything felt and thinking "mmmmm lovely" (yes, I am pretty sad). The fps DOES matter....

However, I think part of the "acceptableness" of different FPS depends on how you're controlling the game, and what type of game it is. Using an exactly precise mouse for aiming in a shooter, I definitely appreciate the 120FPS ultra-responsiveness that can match my mouse movements precisely. Would I feel the same way with a controller in my hand? I don't believe so; I think responsiveness and accuracy is probably less important simply due to how the different control methods operate (not to mention things such as aim assistance that further decrease the importance of accuracy). 30 FPS would normally mean I lose precision, but with a controller I never had the precision to lose in the first place.

Posted:3 years ago

#16

Thomas Eidson
Senior System Designer

18 0 0.0
Adrenaline can increase your capacity to process more visual input. I do not know the exact figure and I've tried googling for the research performed on this.

Scientists dropped people on bungie cords with high speed numeric readouts at a specific frequency. They found, while unreadable at a relaxed state, that some numbers could be read at a "frightened" state.

It is said that at specific adrenaline states that the world seems to "slow down". Basketball players have called it "being in the zone." Video gaming is no exception to this.

Also, each person processes visual input at different rates and do not see the same frames as other people. It is possible to miss frames at higher speeds that other people will notice watching the same screen. This is most notable on camera rotation, where some people will key in on the sniper aiming at them from a huge distance and others do not.

There are drawbacks for both slow and fast frame rates. It seems that the drawbacks increase for lower frame rates in first person shooters more so than the drawbacks for slightly higher frame rates, with competitive play. Single player gameplay can be molded to fit either frame rate scheme.

Posted:3 years ago

#17

Cedric Carter
Cook

1 0 0.0
As a gamer since pinball and the Atari 2600, I believe that game play is the single most important piece to success of a game aside from a solid story. Now days everything seems so technology driven and it seems to be a little bit more of a arms race for companies to see who can pump out the best graphics.

I'll go ahead and admit, I slowed up playing Call of Duty when I was introduced to Bad Company and pretty much stopped playing when BFBC2 came out. Why? Since CoD: World at War/CoD 4:MW I've felt I've been playing the same game over and over again with expansion packs ranging from $60-15. While DICE does take a little more time to produce a product, CoD is dropped at pretty much the same time every year. There's not a problem with that, but when only one company shows noticeable and substantial improvement to their game franchise or engine, then I think the argument goes beyond frames per second. FPS does NOT determine the quality of the game. There are plenty of games that look great at 30FPS, not to mention that the human eye has trouble processing anything over 60FPS.

Another thing that always struck me funny about arguments pertaining to FPS', especially when it comes to shooters, is the idea of 'hardcore'. I don't think, given the economic times, that the majority of actual hardcore gamers would fit the new description of 'hardcore' gamers. Most people that play video games can't afford to buy every block buster that comes out let alone have an up to date gaming platform or PC. I find myself waiting for my friends to play catch up when it comes to new releases because they simply can't afford them. Being hardcore about gaming is knowing a good game, playing a lot of games and respecting what a company has produced. I don't think the whole tech argument is really relevant. The size of a persons wallet does not make them more or less of a hardcore gamer.

In short I think both MW3 and BF3 will be great games! I'll be picking both of them up, but when it comes down to it, I feel that BF has more to offer for an older audience whereas MP for MW3 is more accepted by a newer generation of gamers who for the most part are causal gamers who play practically nothing else. I have however always enjoyed CoDs campaign mode and am sad to see that it's becoming the second option after MP.

Posted:3 years ago

#18

Klaus Preisinger
Freelance Writing

1,103 1,073 1.0
Once you really get competitive and in the minutia of optimizing everything, then there is no way around mouse and keyboard controls. You stop the mouse, the aim stops, which is a huge difference to the slight motion you get when the analogue stick snaps back. Not to speak of the 1:1 translation between gesture on the desk and motion on the screen only the mouse provides. A joypad simply can't do that.

After going down that rabbit whole for a while, you cannot help but play any shooter on the PC. There you can always have 60fps. If you are oblivious to all that, then 30fps on console should be fine for you. Once you get nitpicky about frames, you have to ask yourself why you are giving a free pass to the controls.

Posted:3 years ago

#19

Thomas Eidson
Senior System Designer

18 0 0.0
@Klaus: I definitely agree on controls for FPS games. That's why I use mouse and keyboard adapters on consoles. However, the low resolution of the screen is what gets me. Higher resolutions allow many benefits over 1080p.

Also, with wider screens these days, I wish we could have more field of view angle options. It seems awkward that I could be shot by someone coming in from a slightly less than perpendicular angle, when human eyes can easily detect movement from that angle. Most FPS games do not explore expanding the field of view up to a good screen width ratio (Team Fortress 2 has an option for going up to 90 degrees).

Posted:3 years ago

#20

Jan Almqvist
Senior Artist

25 10 0.4
Bad Company 2 was very playable at 30fps but also the BF gameplay is a lot slower than CoD. To keep this brief, a BF game gains lots by including demolition, vehicles, huge maps etc while CoD with its lightning fast twitch-combat benefits from a higher fps.
Same thing goes for Need For Speed games and Gran Turismo, 30 fps is fine for an arcade racer where lots of effects etc are needed while Gran Turismo benefits more from a silky-smooth frame rate. It all depends on the game. Above all though a solid framerate is important.

Edited 1 times. Last edit by Jan Almqvist on 18th July 2011 9:11am

Posted:3 years ago

#21
ERf... 30 FPS again!! Even if Bad Company 2 is a very good and fluid game, the frame rate is a little problem when reactivity of the player is required in close combat situations for example. But since COD and BF are not the same type of FPS (Arcade vs Realistic/Wide maps), i don't think we will suffer that much at the beginning.

Anywayz, if you can play a Battlefield game, play it on PC !! (says the guy who can only play on console...)

Posted:3 years ago

#22

Ben Howse

9 0 0.0
CoD claim that hardcore fps gamers prefer 60fps?

The fact of the matter is, that hardcore fps gamers are on the PC, not your little consoles, so the argument is void.

Posted:3 years ago

#23

Joe Winkler
trained retail salesman

169 4 0.0

I play Shooters on console. And yes: I like the Controller! I stopped playing games on PC at the times of Half Life 1. And yes: I don't have enough money to buy a state of the art nasa-approved gaming PC.

Battlefield and Cod are in the same genre but are very different games. While Cod is all about quick aming and fast passed action, Battlefield is a more teambased experience in my opinion. It doesen't matter anything if you are able to "quick scope" enemys in Bad Company. It even doesen't matter much if you gain kill streaks of 10 in BC, IF your team isn't able to repair a vehicle, or set a bomb etc. I can play a whole round of "Rush" in Bad Company without firing a single shot only to support my teammates. It's good to be a good "aimer" but at the end of the day, the team achives the winnings.
So reaction time either on screen, or in my hands doesen't make that big difference.

Like someone already posted above: 30 frames are enough for a game like BF (don't forget, that we play it with controllers) , and maybe the 60 fps must be contained in COD.

Posted:3 years ago

#24

John Kauderer
Associate Creative Director

32 5 0.2
On a PC I can see why the frame rate would matter. You have precise aiming control because of the mouse/keyboard. Having played Quake 3 somewhat competitively I can tell you it feels like the more frames you have, the more frames you have to aim at. Whether that feeling is all my head is another story.

On consoles there are usually so many aiming helpers added because of the lack of precision in the gamepad. So why would the frame rate matter on console at that point? Sounds like a marketing snipe more than anything.

But ours goes to 11!

I think on console going for physics, character count, effects etc over FPS would be a wiser move. Both games will likely sell well regardless.

Posted:3 years ago

#25

Kessia Thomas
Studying 3D Computer Animation

16 1 0.1
Personally I'm an eye candy fps player, I love visuals however the recent DirectX11 upgrade for Crysis 2 was painful. Yes it looked stunning and my PC is in no way weak in rendering and processing performance (as a 3D animation student and modeler this was a must) but the effect it had on framerate was disastrous to the point where some very intense combat scenes became unplayable. I disabled it in the end but my point being balancing visuals with FPS must be a real challenge for developers these days so i guess it really does depend on the individuals play style, for casual gaming I want visuals but when I am competing I want FPS hands down.

Edited 1 times. Last edit by Kessia Thomas on 21st July 2011 9:01pm

Posted:3 years ago

#26

Hasan Dervish
Consultant

7 0 0.0
Having seen both the Battlefield and MW footage, and being a long time fan of MW, I'm not ashamed to say that Battlefield has the clear advantage - for a whole host of reasons that makes the framerate redundant.
choice of footage - this alone is significant because is reveals how closely attuned the developers are to what grabs the gamer.
Then there's the characterisation. The DICE advantage gives teamwork, battlefield clearly places you as a member of a team. Add to that, a team of characters that are made credible through their appearance, behaviour and expressions. By comparison, MW gives you visual action alone.
Dice were smart enough to use gameplay footage that drew the prospective player in as being part of a story involving people the player felt connected to, right from the off. Very smart marketing.
To the eye, Battlefield looks visually more impressive. You don't need to be 'told' with a graph that MW is better. Ignore the graph to look at the screen and what you see isn't as gritty and doesn't appeal as much as Battlefield. Battlefield delivers a visually more (from a gaming point of view) combat realistic experience.
And I think this is the dealbreaker. It's what Killzone banked on and it worked, twice.
So, it may well be that the Frostbite 2 engine is only half of the MW delivery but it's more than capable of delivering a better visual experience all round by virtue of it the story, where it puts the player and the way the story is told. Frames per second don't amount to a hill of beans, beyond 'Hey this looks great'

Posted:3 years ago

#27

Marco Antonio Rocha Lima
Systems Enginner - Workin as Qualit Assurance Coordinator

9 0 0.0
Guys the brain is the question. It does the interpolation and can perceive 30fps as good as 60fps and part of the antialising. As a player i think if you can do better visuals and better physics besides good gameplay responses,good stories and cooperative or single multiplayer modes you can grab the players and in my opinion create a good experience is the objective. I like the two fps expectations, BF3 and MW3 but i say without any doubt that Battlefield will be the best one and has the real advantage. I aways say. If you need to choose a game in a milion its the Battlefield family my first choice! Today i cant imagine a wargame without veicles or destructive scenery. Frostbite Engine 2 Will Rock!
As a minimun framerate, i think 30fps does it good. If you have a Processing power limiter as you have on the consoles you have to think 30fps is you minimum framerate objective with more power to use on the graphic and physics features. For the bigger players like computers with better hardware and even better graphic processing you can achieve this 60fps, 120fps at all. And, unfortunately you will think in, bigger textures on computers againist not bigger textures on consoles. Thus good antialiasing on computers against no ou minor antialising on consoles. We dont have to compare Keyboards and Mouses with joysticks, its obvious that the first choice is better gameplay response and precision. The worst Keyboard and Mouse player will be equivalent the medium or best player on joysitcks. The point is, no matter you have 30, 60 or 120fps what every player really cares about is the Game Experience the quality. If you can achieve this with better graphics, physics and control response YEAH IT WILL RULE THE GAMEWORLD! Im a Carmack admirer and Id tech engine admirer too but i think Rage development is missing the time to launch im waiting now the Doom 4. And Game of the Year Will be Battlefield 3. I will play Modern Warfare 3 too but i dont expect it to be better than BF3.
I know what im saying. i use computers since im 11 and start programming in Z80, 6502, 6809, 65c816 processors and the predecessors, Motorola 68000, 68020, 68040, Intel 8080, 8086, 8088, 86 family until 486, and Pentium family until Pentium 4. Pascal, C, C++ programming, now im 44. Computer graphics, Game Programminge, rendering etc. As a Player i want fun not just 60fps or up to 240fps! The best today Engines in my opinion are Frostbite 2, Unreal Engine 3, ID Tech5 e COD engine. And I always like to mention that Quake 1 and Unreal was the real begin of FPS games, Command and Conquer Renegade one of the games that started the Veicle experiences on games. Half Life the initial good AI on games and finaly Red Faction and Soldner that introduced games with the destructive ambients, Duke Nuken with the interative play and good sense of humor, Unreal Tournament with its fun and fast gameplay, Doom 3 a new era on space shooter with a lot of emotion! Prince of Persia, Tombraider, GTA, Driver, GP4, Fifa 95 etc. Those games dont had to be 120fps to be a inspiration for every game programmer or to grab the player. They were new inspirations on game industry.

Good luck to all the game industry on doing good games! Thanks to people like John Carmack, ID Software, and others from DICE, Infinity Ward, Crytek, EA, Treyarch, UBISOFT, Valve, RockStar, SquareEnix, RARE, THQ and many others. You're pushing the game industry to their best. The salute competition is worth the effort.

Edited 5 times. Last edit by Marco Antonio Rocha Lima on 31st August 2011 5:23pm

Posted:3 years ago

#28

Login or register to post

Take part in the GamesIndustry community

Register now