In the ongoing battle between EA and Activision concerning the two biggest titles of the year (potentially), EA has been getting in a lot of shots.

But now that Battlefield 3 has plenty of support and hype, maybe it's time that Infinity Ward fires back and defends their upcoming Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 . Well, don't forget that multiple studios are working on MW3, so in this case, it's Sledgehammer Games that comes to the rescue for CoD fanatics. Sledgehammer boss Glen Schofield spoke to AusGamers about the big new blockbuster, and he had a few jabs for DICE:

"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.

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."

Schofield adds that 60FPS gives MW3 the "competitive edge" and at the end of the day, "you don't ship an engine, you ship a game." He has a point. Then again, many gamers have responded by saying they'd prefer 30FPS with Frostbite 2 rather than 60FPS with a 6-year-old engine. It's true that a developer doesn't "ship an engine," but isn't that kind of important?

At any rate, you can bet that both productions involved will be immensely popular; the only question that remains is- which one wins from a critical standpoint? It'll be interesting.

Related Game(s): Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3

Subscribe
Notify of
66 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Underdog15
Underdog15
9 years ago

Couldn't have said it better myself, Sledgehammer:

As the end of the day, you aren't shipping an engine at 60-frames-per-second. You should be shipping me a high quality game.

Take that from whatever angle you will.

manofchao5
manofchao5
9 years ago

you can put a picture of shit that doesnt move in 60 frames per second but is it really more interesting than watching a dog run at 30 frames per second as the shit falls out of his ass, take that and shove it in yo throat sledgehamma!

bigrailer19
bigrailer19
9 years ago

I'm excited for both. Every year I get excited to hopefully see something a little different with the CoD games. This year I'm excited for that again, haha. 😉 seriously I am though. But with Battlefield I'm just excited for something new, it may have the same formula but it just has a great vibe about it. That's all I can say considering I havnt played them. But I will say as much as I'm going to presumably like both MW3 will get more play from me. That's what always happens. The KZ games are my fav. FPS' but CoD always gets more attention. Shame, shame!

CrusaderForever
CrusaderForever
9 years ago

Me too, always looking forward to a new CoD/BF game! This year is no different and I will buy both at different times.

ZettaiSeigi
ZettaiSeigi
9 years ago

Okay, 30fps is definitely not as smooth as 60fps. However, is 60fps really that important in a shooter? I understand that it is crucial in games where blistering speed is the name of the game (e.g. Wipeout), but how bad can a game be it if it is stable at 30fps and never dips below that?

It's just a tech query that I have. I am obviously no guru when it comes to this, so I'd like to hear some opinion from those who are more familiar with it.

Since I don't play a lot of FPS games, I can't really say which one of the two will be technically better. However, that's not gonna stop me from rooting for Battlefield 3 just because it's not an old game slapped with a new number.

Jawknee
Jawknee
9 years ago

I think 60fps is nice but it's over rated. Tends to make some games look too fake. While I liked it in the God of War Collection, I didn't miss it at all while playing God of War III.

Him
Him
9 years ago

I think 60 fps is perfect for call of duty's very fast paced action. Its almost like racing games, the faster the action is the faster the frame rate has to be to catch up with it.

godsman
godsman
9 years ago

I don't know if it's frame rate issues, but I have played the Uncharted 2 game to death. I became really good with it and getting super fast reactions, but there are many times where I die after I jump behind a wall safely. It could be server lag or slower frame rate.

Someone with technical background can shed some light in this topic?

Teddie9
Teddie9
9 years ago

I was wondering the same thing – I don't think I'd notice the difference in a shooter really, now a hack n' slash it's noticeable. Although like Jawk said – wasn't an issue in GOW3.

Eld
Eld
9 years ago

30fps or, even as low as 25fps, is perfectly fine for most people. What really matters is ability to maintain constant fps. Sudden fall in fps from 60 to 30 and than back up to 60 is far worse than constant 30 fps.

faraga
faraga
9 years ago

@ Godsman, it's lag, I'm sure about that. It's about the location you're at for the host or the server. If someone is shooting at that position, though on your screen you appear to be somewhere else, that is because the information about your position wasn't updated fast enough, which is the definition of lag.

Jawknee
Jawknee
9 years ago

I'll take 30fps and better graphics over the Call of Duty engine any day. Battlefield games control better too. CoD feels weightless and like you're skating on ice. I was helping my dad pass a section in MW2 the other day. I so do not regret giving that game to him. I forgot how terrible the sound was too. The guns sound like toys. Sound is another department were DICE's games completely own Call of Duty.

bigrailer19
bigrailer19
9 years ago

I really thought MoH nailed the sound of the guns. I was very impressed with that aspect of the game. Seeings how DICE had a hand in the MP for that game I can only assume BF3 will provide the same.

Jawknee
Jawknee
9 years ago

I thought the sound in MoH pretty okay. I liked how the shots echoed. Certainly better than Call of Duty but still not as good as Battlefield or Killzone.


Last edited by Jawknee on 6/29/2011 11:43:57 AM

Zorigo
Zorigo
9 years ago

We'll see which turns out better. 60fps of some dodgy looking thing wont compare to 30fps of clean machine will it…

CaptRon
CaptRon
9 years ago

LOL this guy is retarded.. You don't need 60fps. Your eyes can't even tell the difference. That's this guys only point? Sad…

Jawknee
Jawknee
9 years ago

Yes they can. I can certainly tell the difference. Albeit, it's not a huge difference. Play MW2 then go play Killzone 2. You can tell the difference.

TheHighlander
TheHighlander
9 years ago

Your eyes can tell the difference at 60 frames per second, it becomes much more marginal at higher frame rates than that though. Even at 60fps you don't distinguish individual frames, but the eye can clearly tell the difference between 30 and 60 frames per second.

It's like HD resolutions. At a typical viewing distance for a large HDTV (50-60 inch)anything beyond 1080p is essentially pointless because the human eye can't distinguish it. I can't remember the exact math, but it has to do with the number of arc seconds that human vision is precise to and how that precision works out when 8 feet from a 55-inch 1080p screen (for instance). You really can't see any extra resolution unless you are sitting much closer to the screen.

That's why the next bunch of consoles won't go beyond 1080p60, human vision limits the benefit of additional resolution or frames per second. The laws of diminishing returns kick in and there's really not much reason to go beyond 1080p60 in the home environment.

Temjin001
Temjin001
9 years ago

I'm so sick of reading that almost always miss interpreted, "the human eye can't detect 60fps" garbage. As if our eyes were perfectly synchronized with every drawn digital frame to begin with.

Let go of the text book twig of misunderstood info and just go turn on a 60FPS game and then go play a 30FPS game. Let your brain tell you the difference and stop reciting that crap.


Last edited by Temjin001 on 6/29/2011 12:44:12 PM

Doppel
Doppel
9 years ago

Yes, eyes can detect the difference between 60 and 30 fps. I've experienced this myself on playing DJMAX Trilogy and the portable versions.

TheHighlander
TheHighlander
9 years ago

30fps at 720 with all the lighting, particle effects, filtering and anti-aliasing you can muster, or 60fps with slightly more fluid motion but less of the lighting, particle effects, filtering and anti-aliasing?

You know, unless a game is unable to maintain 30fps, that's actually a decent framerate for a game as Uncharted has demonstrated very well indeed. The important element here could be the image quality rather than the frame rate,.

Then again, I agree with the thought; "you don't ship an engine, you ship a game." . Seriously, give your engine a cool name (pun intended), great, go for it. But, let's not make that cool sounding name the focus of the publicity for the game. I think we have seen enough of that BS with the unreal engine games. Instead, focus on your game, how it plays and what it actually looks like.

Jawknee
Jawknee
9 years ago

I guess we can only hope that this new CoD is better than previous installments. I mean so far, Activision has only shipped the same game with a slightly new coat of paint. At least DICE is trying to give us a new experience with a new, better game engine and they are doing it with less resources. With all the money Activision made off MW2 and Black Ops, they could have easily invested in a new game engine.

Cesar_ser_4
Cesar_ser_4
9 years ago

Hey mr lander quick question, what res do you play your games on 720 or 1080?

TheHighlander
TheHighlander
9 years ago

1080 now, but a couple of years ago I was 720p all the way baby.

Killa Tequilla
Killa Tequilla
9 years ago

Highlander, what TV do you have?

TheHighlander
TheHighlander
9 years ago

Originally a Viewsonic 32-inch 720p/1080i, then I got a 22 inch viewsonic monitor/TV with a native screen that was something like 1650×1080, but for the PS3 it managed 720p/1080i (scaled of course). Now I have an Asus 1080p monitor that includes speakers. It's only 23-inch, but is a true 1080p.

Personally I felt the best of the lot might have been 720p on that Viewsonic with the 1650×1080 native resolution. 1080p looks very nice as well, but the scaling on the viewsonic gave the 720p output a nice soft edge, like a CRT would, the effect was very nice.

ZettaiSeigi
ZettaiSeigi
9 years ago

Highlander, since you're playing on a "small TV" by today's standards, I suppose you'd recommend Sony's upcoming 3D TV (the PlayStation-branded one)?

Believe it or not, I am still playing everything on an SDTV (shocker!) but I am definitely going to upgrade before this year ends. I was thinking of getting one of LG's 32" LED TVs (Full HD, but not 3D) but Sony's 3D TV has had my attention since it was announced last E3.

I guess the size shouldn't bother me much since my room is small. But then again, a certain VP said that "gaming is having a ridiculously huge TV in a tiny one-room apartment." LOL

TheHighlander
TheHighlander
9 years ago

Yep, I'm definitely considering that Sony screen. That said, I'm about to get stung for replacing my central air conditioning and heating system, and judging by the costs estimates so far, I'll be fortunate to afford a Vita later this year.

WolfCrimson
WolfCrimson
9 years ago

I don't know what this guy thinks shooters are to need 60FPS. The only genre I can think of to need such a frame rate are fighting games, and maybe racing games, because that's where even milliseconds makes a difference.


Last edited by WolfCrimson on 6/29/2011 12:12:31 PM

Excelsior1
Excelsior1
9 years ago

frankly, i can't wait until 60 fps becomes standard on the consoles. it makes a game feel and play better in my opinion. the gameplay just feels more respponsive.

a high, and consistent frame rate is considered important for shooters. this gen of consoles just don't have enough horsepower to do it without sacrificing in graphical detail, and post proccessing effects.

i guess i prefer 30 fps games with better graphics, but it would be great to have both.

i think activision has a point about how little we have seen of bf3 on the consoles. i was really surprised it wasn't playable at e3 on the any of the consoles to my knowledge. it just seems odd. bethesda's out there showing off all that awesome syrim footage on the 360 even though it will be on the pc as well.

the only console footage i have seen was from the jimmy fallon show for the ps3. it looked good, but was by no means nearly as good as the awesome pc footage ea has been showing. i know this is to be expected, but i was hoping for a little better considering how much hype frostbite 2.0 was getting.

LimitedVertigo
LimitedVertigo
9 years ago

Only 60fpps? 🙂

BTW I don't work tomorrow, I look forward to seeing all of you in Home.

SnipeySnake
SnipeySnake
9 years ago

60fps is nothing when you're lagging hardcore because of someone's crappy internet connection.

Jawknee
Jawknee
9 years ago

LOL!

DjEezzy
DjEezzy
9 years ago

As Jawk said… I'd rather have a game at 30 fps and have graphics like uncharted 2 or GoW 3 or Killzone… This guy is just feeling the sting of EA's wrath. LOL. Well maybe not that bad but you know what I'm talking about. The pressure is getting them.

Godslim
Godslim
9 years ago

see im different i dont care for graphics as much in a game….i mean yeh its always cool but just a bonus for me…..gamplay is the most important

Lawless SXE
Lawless SXE
9 years ago

60FPS, IMO, should not be necessary in shooters. I dislike the ridiculous speed at which you are asked to play Black Ops, and I'm sure that MW3 will follow that ideal, particularly as they are touting this. Battlefield seems to be a slower option, so 30fps is no great hardship. And even if you aren't shipping an engine, it's been proven before that tech-demo games can actually turn out surprisingly well. Star Wars: TFU and, to a lesser extent, GTA IV proved that.

Godslim
Godslim
9 years ago

off topic
hey dude whens your infamous 2 review coming
your reviews are always a good read

Clamedeus
Clamedeus
9 years ago

It all depends on your play style, you can play it slow and carefully or fast and aggressive but actually thinking about routes to take and choke points with high traffic flow with line of sights.

It really depends on the person though.


Last edited by Clamedeus on 6/29/2011 5:45:12 PM

Lawless SXE
Lawless SXE
9 years ago

Thanks Godslim, but I want to complete my evil playthrough first, and I'll be popping up an article about it at TitanReviews hopefully this weekend, and the review here within a fortnight.

Godslim
Godslim
9 years ago

i look forward to it 🙂

Godslim
Godslim
9 years ago

They both just need to band together and make one ultimate game…..imagine the devs of k3,mw and bf……making a game together using all their idea now that would be great
see i think gameplay wise cod is the best its just so smooth to play
bf has however the destruction big maps and team work
k3 has the graphics and a mix of both cod and bf
MAKE IT LOL

AcHiLLiA
AcHiLLiA
9 years ago

The thing that kind of bugs me is the killstreaks and some overrated perks, those pro challenge crap u have to mess with.


Last edited by AcHiLLiA on 6/29/2011 3:44:13 PM

Clamedeus
Clamedeus
9 years ago

The only 2 perks I didn't like in Black Ops was Ghost and Second Chance. But I didn't mind the challenges you had to do for the perks, it was pretty easy if you ran with a good party in the game.

AcHiLLiA
AcHiLLiA
9 years ago

My comment was also on the next COD game.

The funny thing is I haven't even played Black Ops(no lie). My cousins have it but I haven't even touched the disc.


Last edited by AcHiLLiA on 6/29/2011 8:09:29 PM

Clamedeus
Clamedeus
9 years ago

Is there any info what would be in the new one? I haven't seen any official stuff on it yet, most of the stuff I seen is just rumors. Unless they did but I didn't see it.

I know I'm getting Battlefield 3, I'm not sure on MW3 though yet, still waiting on info for it, I really don't know if i want to go through the hassle with what happens in the game.

Excelsior1
Excelsior1
9 years ago

i think 60 fps is a competitive edge in today'd more twitch based market. when i try to think of why cod is so insanely popular when compared to its competition it's about all i can come up with besides its social appeal.

UK_MrSim_UK
UK_MrSim_UK
9 years ago

There's loads of thumbs down CoD fans I think here. I'm getting Battlefield 3, I couldn't care less about MW3 and it's outdated engine. CoD4 is still the best CoD.

JMO_INDY
JMO_INDY
9 years ago

I don't think it's fair to compare the two in terms of just engines or Frames Per Second. BF is clearly aiming for the PC crowd with an engine like FrostBite 2, it's practically tailor fit for the PC. COD on the other hand is shooting more for the console crowd and granted using a 6 year old engine. But in COD's favor the engine has been tailor fit to please both the PC and maximize the game's console potential (Not the actual console itself) at the same time giving it a slight edge in terms of stability and bumping it up to 60 FPS only helps it. In terms of sheer image quality we will have to wait and judge first hand, and if COD can fix it's anti-aliasing issue has yet to be seen.

Temjin001
Temjin001
9 years ago

What anti-aliasing issue?
Most of them have used 2xMSAA.
The problem for Treyarch's CoD games have been more about it's lower than norm rendering resolution. CoD3, WaW, and Black Ops on PS3 all had their resolutions dialed back moreso than the IW CoD's on the same platform.

bluedarrk
bluedarrk
9 years ago

I think it comes down to game play which one you like better. The thing I hate is a lot of CoD fans won't even give BF3 a try because it isn't CoD. I run a local game store and people new to gaming or parents buying their kids systems just buy CoD. They come in get a 360 or ps3 and buy black ops or mw2. I'm assuming its because what their friends play. It just seems in my area at least that new gamers are just playing CoD and not trying any other games.