MW3 makers dig at Battlefield 3's 30FPS

By Robert Purchese Published 29 June, 2011

"60 is our competitive edge."

Battlefield 3 runs at 30 frames per second on console - it's the chink in the armour that the makers of Modern Warfare 3 have begun prying open.

You can dress an engine up with whatever flashy name you like, said Sledgehammer Games founder Glen Schofield (co-developer of MW3). But, simply, Modern Warfare 3 runs at 60 frames per second.

"You can go out and name your engine and call it whatever you want. I've done that before - I've seen that trick," Schofield told AusGamers. "The bottom line is this game [MW3] will run at 60 frames a second. Not sure any of our competitors will.

"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," he added. "60 is our competitive edge and you just don't throw that away."

Battlefield 3 burst into view earlier this year with a stunning gameplay trailer. Developer DICE used the footage to wax lyrical about new engine Frosbite 2. Impressive demo after impressive demo followed, but all on PC. It wasn't until EA and DICE demoed Battlefield 3 on TV chat show Jimmy Fallon that we finally saw the game running on console. This demo was later confirmed to be running at 30FPS and in 720p.

The Call of Duty series prides itself on a smooth 60FPS experience. But engine talk is beside the point, concluded Schofield, who declared that "you don't ship an engine, you ship a game".

EA has invested heavily in Battlefield 3 to mount a serious challenge to Modern Warfare 3 this autumn. And talked up the fight - a lot. But Activision has also poured pounds into its flagship franchise, putting three developers - Infinity Ward, Sledgehammer and Raven Software - to work on Modern Warfare 3. That number rises to four if you consider the integral Call of Duty: Elite service developed over two years by Beachhead.

Glen Schofield and Michael Condrey co-founded Activision studio Sledgehammer in late 2009. They were given a "fantastic new facility" and hefty backing to cherry pick a "world class team". The pair were previously employed by EA at Visceral Games, where they made Dead Space - now a blockbuster series for their former wage payer.

Modern Warfare 3 will be the first fruit of Sledgehammer's labour.

Battlefield 3 shown running on console.

Picture of Robert.

About Robert Purchese

Bertie is Eurogamer's Senior Staff Writer. When he's not hunting down news stories he's often found playing with his kids or gabbling about fantasy games and strange online worlds. @Clert on Twitter.

Read more articles from Robert by visiting the Robert Purchese archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (150) Latest comment 11 months ago

Comments for this article are now closed, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • Matfink #1 11 months ago

    BF3 makers dig at MW3's boxy geometry.

  • Bravestinsane #2 11 months ago

    Voice of comic book guy

    *worst comeback ever*

  • darleysam #3 11 months ago

    Yeah, no.

  • JoeGBallad #4 11 months ago

    Looking forward to not buying Modern Warfare 3.

  • Huxamalay #5 11 months ago

    60fps? 30fps? who fucking cares as long as it plays well

  • KennyLickLick #6 11 months ago

    Not sure why this is garnering so much attention, most console shooters run at 30 fps (if you're lucky), as long as it's stable it's not an issue. 60 fps would be nice but then hopefully BF3 will bring other things to the table, like crazy environmental destruction for example.

  • Kano-11 #7 11 months ago

    Are people really that shallow? I'd much rather have a decent game running at 30fps than a tarted up rehash running at 60fps.

  • darleysam #8 11 months ago

    DICE just need to make up a building that spells out 'MW3', and then blow it up. In game.

  • Benno #9 11 months ago

    I'd rather have 30 frames of quality, than 60 frames of shit.

  • bodhi85uk #10 11 months ago

    60FPS on an antique engine. Bravo you Asshat.

    /slow clap

  • Bonders99 #11 11 months ago

    @JoeGBallad

    Sadly you and I will be in the minority. Come November the chavs will lap it up as they do every year and I bet the chav mums will be lining up in Asda for the midnight release so their little mights get the game. Bloody depressing.

  • Jon1292 #12 11 months ago

    "our FPS is bigger than yours!"

  • schnide #13 11 months ago

    I suppose what makes this really annoying then is that even if the sales gap will be considerably narrowed once both titles have released, the makers of MW3 can say whatever the hell they want because it's still going to sell the most just by trading on the name alone.

  • coolbritannia #14 11 months ago

    Wow, it's a solid 30 fps and looks like the most incredible console game ever, confirmed. Sale!

    Probably not the reaction Sledgehammer are hoping for.

  • Bagpuss #15 11 months ago

    Lol, as if the average IQ challenged MW purchaser will even know what 60fps or 30fps is......

  • Progguitarist #16 11 months ago

    Frames per second warz!

  • Erinan #17 11 months ago

    They should just take their manly parts out and be done with it.

  • Scopeh #18 11 months ago

    All your FPS are belong to us!

  • Anthony_UK #19 11 months ago

    They must be worried if that's the best comeback they've got!

  • Machetazo #20 11 months ago

    DICE are going in fighting, Acti are convinced they can wing it. Cash registers open for your votes in the last quarter of this year!
    @8: Why do DICE need to react like Duke Nukem, again? @10: Yeah, I've seen the benchmarks on PC. You might have something there, lol - not that it matters, because it's the game that matters of course.
    Edited by Machetazo at 29/06/11 @ 12:18

  • Spekingur #21 11 months ago

    So is that locked at 60fps or the max? How much variation from those 60fps' are we going to see? How much variation from BF3 30fps are we going to see? That's what matters here. If a game runs at 30fps and doesn't deviate from that then that means an overall smooth experience. If a game runs at 60fps but has hugs dips in that number then that is not a smooth gameplay experience.

  • Darren #22 11 months ago

    I suggest EA comeback with a comment about sub-HD rendering (on the consoles anyway) and scripted physics. ;)

  • evilrobot #23 11 months ago

    Post deleted at 22:12:53 08-05-2012

  • SBfistfun #24 11 months ago

    30 fps a second is fine.

    Try harder

  • geeza2020 #25 11 months ago

    If 60fps is all they can come back with, then I pity them.

  • bratmandu #26 11 months ago

    So basically - "Our engine's shit, but at least it's fast shit!"

  • darleysam #27 11 months ago

    Machetazo, because they'd be demonstrating what their engine can do as a throwdown to Infinity Ward/Sledgehammer. MW3 isn't doing any kind of dynamic destruction, and to set something up like that in their game would require much effort. DICE could likely throw it together in a fraction of the time.
    I'd rather be able to blow the arse off a building than look it an extra 30 times a second.

  • metalangel #28 11 months ago

    Neither game is out for four months and yet we have one of these pathetic news stories every day? There must be something else EG can report on.

  • menage #29 11 months ago

    60 Frames of shit is still shit. Smooth shit but shit.

  • Cjail #30 11 months ago

    On the other hand battlefield has: vehicles online, totally destructible environments, far better graphics, 64/24 players online, and most importantly it is not a clone of its predecessor!

  • arcam #31 11 months ago

    Well I'll be running BF3 at 60FPS, so what's their competitive edge for me? :D

  • agparrot #32 11 months ago

    I don't really have any affiliation to either series or care particularly about the tech-specs of either, but in opening up the can of comparison, EA have essentially invited this sort of response from Activision, and perhaps even relish it. I'm sure the whole thing will become far more pantomime as the release dates hove into view.

    Hopefully we'll have some proper industry bridge-burning, personal insults and all that malarkey. No, I'm being sarcastic. What Schofield says is true, you don't ship an engine, you ship a game, and it'll hopefully be the comparison of the games that we eventually get to mull over, not these slightly tedious corporate releases.

    The BFBC2 Grenade-spamming video is a much better example of how to handle this sort of thing, imo.

  • LHH #33 11 months ago

    Love the bit in the last couple of paragraphs which quite simply says employees will go where the money is. Acti threw wads of cash at the Dead Space team and won them.
    Shame they got them working on a piece of shit
    Edited by LHH at 29/06/11 @ 12:29

  • TheEarlOfZinger #34 11 months ago

    I don't care Glen. Now what?

  • layleeloo #35 11 months ago

    Like half the gaming public can actually tell the difference so it's hardly bragging rights is it

  • Sodding_Gamer #36 11 months ago

    When I played previous COD's, I didn't even notice it was running at 60fps. Neither have I with all the Battlefield games I PLAY. They both run smooth. IMO The latest rehash (BLOPS) had aweful frame rate on the ps3 version when I bought it. Not to mention the pixellated dodgy explosions that are everywhere in the game.

    If that's the only "competetive edge" they have, then things ain't lookin' good ACTI!

  • Machetazo #37 11 months ago

    It's a good headline grabber for a trade show stage demo closer, but in the game itself not so good of an idea. Unless you meant a clip of in-engine footage.

  • Subdominator #38 11 months ago

    With all this bashing from Activision and Sledgehammer and emphasizing how they don't need to be scared - they must be really scared.

  • Ashwin #39 11 months ago

    Pretty sure the engine is not called "Frosbite 2"
    ;)

  • StolenGlory #40 11 months ago

    So you've cranked 60fps out of an over seven year sub-HD resolution engine which as soon as it hits the heady heights of 720p, has to drop down to 30fps with no other significant engine features to compensate.

    What an achievement.
    Edited by StolenGlory at 29/06/11 @ 12:38

  • vmanb #41 11 months ago

    Couldn't give a shit what these game run at, both look pretty good especially BF3 and therefore i'll be buying both of them as well.

  • lockload #42 11 months ago

    Massive maps, destructability, vehicles id rather have all that than 60fps

    Bf3 is not a twitch shooter anyway

  • FireMonkey #43 11 months ago

    Pong also runs at 60fps. Doesn't make it any more fun

    Edit: should have said Daikatana as it's a better comparison and would run at 60fps on modern pcs
    Edited by FireMonkey at 29/06/11 @ 12:45

  • FogHeart #44 11 months ago

    You can talk about framerate and environments and graphical prowess from now until release date, but the only question Dave needs answered is, "Will all the other Daves buy it?"

    :(

  • danidrums #45 11 months ago

    60 fps with a shitty b-movie sound and houses/environment made of super steady steel! What a piece of crap!

  • FireMonkey #46 11 months ago

    60fps is not the only thing that makes games look smooth.

    If you have 60fps but no motion blurring your eyes can actually detect the changes between image quite easily, however if you have 30fps with motion blurring your brain is fooled into thinking that there are more frames between updates and you will believe that the game is running smoother.

    This page explains some of it quite well
    http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frames_ca...

  • Shikasama #47 11 months ago

    Wow, you are all so witty and amazingly funny.

  • Kikizosan #48 11 months ago

    Don't care about FPS. BF3 looks to be shaping up as the better game in terms of gameplay, which is what matters.
    Edited by Kikizosan at 29/06/11 @ 12:44

  • Restart #49 11 months ago

    Ah, but you haven't counted on the ace up BF3's sleeve!

    It's not a load if shit, unlike Modern Warfare.

  • flaming.carrot #50 11 months ago

    Looks like Sledgehammer are going to need their Flak Jacket Pro, Hardened Pro and Second Chance Pro perks equipped for this one. Not to mention a grenade launcher attachment.

  • pbz #51 11 months ago

    Most films are running at 24 FPS and I've read reports stating that the human eye to brain cannot really process (or more likely cannot really differentiate ) over 30FPS...... so not really sure why anyone harps on about 60 FPS.


    Although I will be playing on my PC - with much higher graphical settings than your puny consoles and well over 60 FPS MUWAHAHAHA

    /giveashit

  • richensw #52 11 months ago

    60fps @ 1280x720?

    Or are they still running at 1024×600?

  • Retro_ #53 11 months ago

    PS3 version no doubt won't run at 60fps thus negating that argument.

  • Eraser #54 11 months ago

    Infinity Ward has a point that 60fps does improve the experience, but it doesn't mean that 60fps is a requirement for a game to be totally awesome.
    I'm in the BF3 camp to be honest, even though I haven't played a Battlefield game since Battlefield Vietnam and I did play and buy MW and MW2. It's just that what I've seen from BF3 looks so amazing while MW3 looks to be a bit like... well... more of the same. MW2 wasn't that good either to be honest.

  • DiamondIce #55 11 months ago

    #INSERT Pathetic Generic Call of Duty Insult Here#

    It is bloody tiresome.

    Who cares about frames per second as long as the game is good, though?

  • Mr.Spo #56 11 months ago

    Yawn.

  • FireMonkey #57 11 months ago

    @pbz - " I've read reports stating that the human eye to brain cannot really process (or more likely cannot really differentiate ) over 30FPS"

    Not quite true. If you are in a black room you can detect a light flash at about 1/300th of a second (300fps) which indicates that depending on the image you can detect differences. The trick is to make the difference between frames minimum (by blurring). This really reduces the need for high fps. That's why when you take a still from a film it looks pretty shitty as everything is slightly blurry.

    I posted it before, but just in-case you missed it (as it is very interesting)
    http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frames_ca...

  • carlitoswagon #58 11 months ago

    "You can go out and name your engine and call it what you want, I've done that before - I've seen that trick"

    Did he really intend to sound like a complete fool. I'm pretty sure Dice haven't just renamed frostbite for the sake of it. I can see the destruction difference between BC1 & BC2. From what I've seen these have been improved for BF3. Each incarnation looks better than the last. Good job Dice.








  • P1GEONPOO #59 11 months ago

    Why does it have to be one or the other? Why cant we enjoy both? Then everyone is happy!
    Battlefield's going to kick arse mind you!

  • JBlokeUK #60 11 months ago

    Still buying Battlefield 3 over Modern Warfare 3.

  • Raptaur #61 11 months ago

    Well they had to have something

  • KDR_11k #62 11 months ago

    Whatever, I don't think FPSes like that are really playable on consoles anyway and anything can run at 60FPS on the PC.

  • O2L #63 11 months ago

    well ill be playing BF3 on PC so there is no limit on the fps for me :)

  • JamieR #64 11 months ago

    I can't tell the diffrance between 60 and 30 anyways.

  • Beavoir #65 11 months ago

    poor! very very poor!

  • arcam #66 11 months ago

    I'm surprised so many can't tell the difference between 30 and 60 FPS. To me the difference is clear.

    Test yourself here: [link url=http://www.boallen.com/fps-compare.html
    ]http://www.boallen.com/fps-compare.html
    [/link]

    (obviously this test doesn't take compensatory effects like motion blur into consideration.)

  • homerramone #67 11 months ago

    Well I suspect both will be pretty much more of the same of the last one.. which was in itself pretty much more of the same of the last one etc..
    So i think ill take a pass on both (Which im sure is worthy of a neg or six :) )
    Edited by homerramone at 29/06/11 @ 13:12

  • fizzyfish #68 11 months ago

    There are some who hope that games consoles will some day offer a baseline screen resolution and/or frame rate and I'm happy for Sledgehammer to pride themselves on defending 60fps. However, by and large, I think people will always be willing to sacrifice some clarity or fluidity if it translates into fancier graphics or computationally-demanding gameplay elements.

    Sledgehammer is just being petty for ignoring this truth and taking a swipe at DICE's decision to come to a compromise that leans further towards graphical fidelity and realism than their own offering. Every competent developer has to deliberate over this with every game that they produce and they typically opt to perform a similar balancing act.

  • mukki #69 11 months ago

    Well looking forward to both games...
    this banter is fun to read and hopefully will result in better games?
    I would love to see BF3 win the match but in the end I do think MW3 will probably sell more... Mahhh

  • Pehmu #70 11 months ago

    I bet folks at Sledgehammer Games are rubbing their hands together in anticipation and thinking people are now totally going to cancel their BF3 pre-orders and choose MW3 instead.

  • sport #71 11 months ago

    War. War never changes.

  • TruWari3r #72 11 months ago

    Just curious, was bfbc2 30fps? If so then bf3 should be just fine.

  • SpaceMidget75 Verified Senior Software Developer, Minerva Computer Services #73 11 months ago

    The Call of Duty series prides itself on a smooth 60FPS experience. But engine talk is beside the point, concluded Schofield, who declared that "you don't ship an engine, you ship a game".

    You're right - and yours could run at a 120fps and it would still bore me to tears after yet another interation of COD4.

    Roll on tanks, planes and destructible enviroments at 30fps.

  • Pwnsweet #74 11 months ago

    I hate it when I read some of the dumbass shit some of you guys say in the comments like 'Peter Molyneux can do no wrong', 'the (something) of the 3DS is acceptable' and '60fps isn't necessary'. It really irks me how you can be so ignorant. Perhaps you've come waltzing onto the comments section of Eurogamer after picking up a console for the first time in your life and playing a few rounds of Wii Sports. You may have even (gasp!) bought a game for your shiny new Wii and played it once for an hour before going out for lacrosse training and never touching it again. But that, in no way, makes you a gamer and, as such, you do not belong here. You are not qualified to comment on anything gaming related, here or elsewhere. We would prefer you go and continue to buy shovelware like Nintendogs, Nintencats, Nintendoanimals etc and never hear from you again. Go away, we do not care about what you have to say. I've looked on in silence for far too long and I can't, for the life of me, let the injustice continue. It's time to set the record straight:

    Peter Molyneux is a failure. Yes, a failure. A failure as a human, as a man and as a game developer. He's also an idiot. I know, I know, he's English and you guys want to believe in him because you're English too, but let's face it the guy hasn't made a single good game in the last 10 years, lies with every second word he says and prances around on stage at the Microsoft conference like a twat.

    The (something) of the 3DS is not acceptable. Not the battery life, not the graphics, not the resolution, not the colour scheme of the unit itself, not the price, not the viewing angles, not anything. I don't care what you brainwashed Nintendo fanboys say, PSVita has significantly better hardware, an OLED screen, two analogue sticks (yes sticks, not sliding pieces of shit), significantly better AR implementation and is the same price.

    And finally, frame rate makes a world of difference to the 'feel' of a game. Some game genres 'feel' significantly better with a higher frame rate. The key word here is 'significantly'. FPS is one of these genres, and I would go so far as saying that 60fps+ is absolutely necessary for FPS games. The developers of CoD know this, the ignorant masses know this (inadvertently - they can 'feel' the 60fps advantage) and coupled with the accessibility of CoD (read: its pick-up-and-play nature) is the reason MW3 will beat BF3 this year.
    Edited by Pwnsweet at 29/06/11 @ 13:21

  • dagas #75 11 months ago

    Quake 3 can run at several hundred frames per second so that must be the better game right?

  • BM #76 11 months ago

    FPS = Fucking Pricks Sledgehammer

  • WAusJackBauer #77 11 months ago

    60 FPS is way too important. BF3 will have destructible walls and stuff but 60 FPS is way more important.

  • actionfitz #78 11 months ago

    wow. your derivative yearly update of your bland military dude-bro corridor shooter will run at 60fps.

    ill be busy blowing shit up and destroying buildings in BF3 at 30fps
    #thankyouverymuch

  • billy-beauts #79 11 months ago

    You COD haters make me sick. The way you target the people who play the game, making assumptions about their social status and intelligence, thinking that you're superior. Can't you see you're the ones with the problems?

  • stealthfinger #80 11 months ago

    90% of the people this is aimed at have zero idea what 60FPS actually means or the differences between 60 and 30 other that 60 is double 30 so must be twice as good, right? Tools.

  • arcam #81 11 months ago

    the ignorant masses know this (inadvertently - they can 'feel' the 60fps advantage)

    Quoted for truth.

    The mainstream might not know what FPS means, but they know that a CoD game 'feels' better than other shooters, even if they don't know why. I think 60 FPS is a big part of CoD's success.

  • actionfitz #82 11 months ago

    "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,"

    Well, if its good enough for Gears of War 3... and pretty much every other game with decent quality art and interesting game mechanics, then its good enough for me.

  • Smudge1983 #83 11 months ago

    'you dont ship an engine, you ship a game'

    Ha ha....he should of said 'we dont ship an engine, we ship the same game every year' Face it Schofield your scared. This will be the year COD gets knocked off it perch.

  • blackbriar101 #84 11 months ago

    45 - 60 fps on ps3 like every cod game, mediocre looking non destructible environments, the joy of host migration, overpriced DLC plus subscription nonsense, repetitive grating sound effects, the genius behind the masterpiece that was MW1 long gone. Sold.....

  • Fulford #85 11 months ago

    while chatting to a lad at work, he asked me if i had xbox live, i said no, he then said "oh you have a ps3?" again i said no, i told him i played pc, to which he replied "pc's are for noobs". guess what game he plays! the thing is im pretty sure ill be playing bf3 for years to come on my pc, the average cod player will have bought 3 or 4 new versions in that time..

  • eltonpr0n #86 11 months ago

    Great work. Boast about using a 4 year old engine.

    GG Infinity Ward.

  • Mik3yB #87 11 months ago

    It would be great if you could blind test framerates in these new games (just to see exactly how 30 vs 60 fps compares). I'm sure a lot of it is the placebo effect.

    Also, Schofield sounds like an arrogant dick.
    Edited by Mik3yB at 29/06/11 @ 13:36

  • Fightclubber #88 11 months ago

    The guy has a fucking terrible gaming C.V apart from thinking up dead space, which im sure went along the lines of "space and monsters and its like resi abit yeah? Now fuck off a make it."

    And why does he think Dice talk up the engine so much does he think they just like saying the words frost bite and 2, and leaving it at that?

    Having an advanced engine means its going to enhance alot of the well loved game mechanics from the other games in the series. Instead of using old worn out tech than cant achieve or enhance anything new.

    Guys a hack
    Edited by Fightclubber at 29/06/11 @ 13:44

  • kosigan #89 11 months ago

    "The Call of Duty series prides itself on a smooth 60FPS experience"

    ..and yet Black Ops is rendered at a sub-HD 960x544 in order to do it.

    edit: on PS3 it's 960x544, Xbox360 gets 1040x608.
    http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digita...
    Edited by kosigan at 29/06/11 @ 13:46

  • BeachGaara #90 11 months ago

    Being the better game is BF3's competitive edge...

  • Nikanoru #91 11 months ago

    Anyone who thinks it's a "placebo effect" has obviously never seen a 30 and 60fps game running side by side.

    I went someplace with some friends a while ago with a bunch of game consoles set up. Among them was a shooter running at 30, and a fighter (I think it was Soul Calibur) at 60 fps. Neither of my friends could believe the absolutely immense difference looking back and forth between the two screens.

    Of course, I'm not saying it really -matters-, that's a different issue altogether. Like light and dark to the eyes, you get used to a certain framerate and you just don't notice anymore.

    That's why nobody remembers (or even believes!) that Ocarina of Time on the N64 actually ran at 12,5 fps (15 in NTSC regions). It was rock-solid 100% of the time. As long as you didn't put it next to something like Super Mario 64 (25/30fps), you were fine.

    And, to be honest, that's also why a solid 30 is -always- better than a "sometimes 60".
    Edited by Nikanoru at 29/06/11 @ 14:09

  • DavidBoring #92 11 months ago

    im pretty sure i wont buy another cod anytime soon, i have to say that the benefit of 60 fps is online multiplayer with splitscreen, which i think is a pretty nice feature

  • carlitoswagon #93 11 months ago

    @Pwnsweet

    Nice rant. Not wishing to be rude but you sound like the people I hear in most cod lobbies these days. A little angry. Try playing battlefield, put your feet up and enjoy the experience.

  • Bobaganoosh #94 11 months ago

    I don't think it's wise to have your primary argument be along the lines of "our engine is so old, we crank the fps...oh, and we don't even run in HD, but that's 60FPS you'll be looking at, 60!"

    you have fun with your 60fps, i'll be playing BF3.

    also, if i did waste my money on MW2, SORRY, MW3 (same game i got confused), i would play it on PC at probably 94-120FPS...a pointless number range, but it's odd, that's what i played black ops at, and MW2, and MW1, and WaW....it's weird...it's almost like it's the same engine or something...oh...wait a minute...

    Check this out: http://battlefieldo.com/30-fps-720p-cons...
    Edited by Bobaganoosh at 29/06/11 @ 14:27

  • icematt12 #95 11 months ago

    Frames per second, hours of length. All meaningless to me, quality of the experience beats any numbers they throw out. GT5 is the perfect example for me, seems to have gone for quantity.

    Glen is doing standard industry practice, i'll just vote with my wallet.

  • Liquidoodle #96 11 months ago

    I would love it if EA/DICE responded with something really silly and equally school ground in style like... Hey Glen guess what else is 60fps... your mum! While Riccitiello is dancing around sticking his fingers up :)

  • adzengland #97 11 months ago

    60fps is the speed that his sphincter is going thinking about Battlefield 3 tearing him a new one.

  • FogHeart #98 11 months ago

    [link url=http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/insomniac-60fps-no-more
    ]http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/insomn...[/link]

    Insomniac Games is "probably" going to turn its back on its long-standing commitment to 60FPS gameplay for its Ratchet & Clank franchise. According to the developer, there is no marketing premium, or review score value, in supporting the highest-possible refresh rate common to all HDTVs. "We want to give you guys, our fans and players, the best looking games you can buy on a console," says engine director Mike Acton, and 60FPS actually gets in the way of that.

    To back up his arguments, Acton has produced interesting data based on a large number of game reviews, which indicates that while there is a clear link between graphics and final score, there is little to no evidence that frame-rate has as much influence. He also polled readers of the Insomniac website, and found that while 16 per cent of respondents were firmly in favour of 60FPS, most are not, with the majority favouring a solid frame-rate that doesn't interfere with the gameplay.

  • Nikanoru #99 11 months ago

    LOL I just read "pwnsweet"s little rant, skipped over it before after hurting my eyes on his first few lines of drivel.

    I can merely point and laugh.

  • krisskross2 #100 11 months ago

    Activision being bellends as usual

  • Pasco #101 11 months ago

    I will buy Modern Warfare 3 and the main reasons are the framerate and that it's the closest I can get to a 3D-Contra right now. I might buy Battlefield 3 but not before I buy a new PC that can play it properly. So I agree with the words in the article.

    What astonishes me is that people think that the campaign of Battlefield 3 will be any different than a typical Call of Duty although the videos show it is as linear, heavily scripted and the developers already said that it will be nowhere as expansive as Bad Company (2). If you like prettier surfaces more than a higher framerate, it's your prerogative. Saying anything about the gameplay of the campaign being better than that of Call of Duty is at this point of time plainly stupid.

  • FireMonkey #102 11 months ago

    @Pasco - "I will buy Modern Warfare 3 and the main reasons are the framerat"

    Why not just play Doom then? That'll run at 60 and 1080p really easily.

    Also, have you played a BF game? The multiplayer is completely different to CoD and it is mainly the multiplayer people are looking forward to on BF3.
    I like CoD but I do prefer BF.

    There hasn't been a proper single player BF yet so can't comment on that, but if we compare BF:BC2 to CoD, yes they are similar, but I feel BC2 allowed for more variety and much less linear approach than CoD (quite a few levels were very big and allowed lots of choices including the ones to blow up any wall to progress). Even though BF3 will be less expansive, I still feel it may be more so than CoD.
    Edited by FireMonkey at 29/06/11 @ 14:37

  • Bravestinsane #103 11 months ago

    @Pasco

    I like immersiveness, what i can see helps that, destructibility, graphics, gameplay etc.

    FPS makes no odds to me, i play PC games with varied rates, i play killing floor, with 100+, Bad Company 2 with 50-60, others with rates around 30

    I see no difference and it makes no odds to me, framerates makes no odds to me unless its sluggish, 30fps isn't sluggish to me, but hey i guess i must just bet he average gamer to sees no difference in frame rates, like most other people on most other games that never run at 60fps.

    BF3 will be a better game all around, class based system for teamwork, planes, tanks, choppers, destructibility, some of the best sound i have ever heard in games, bullet drops to actually make shooting challenging, snipers have to take into account distance, along with other guns.

    If i can get all that for 30fps ill take it,

    60fps in exchange for none of that, as well as a engine and look of a game released in 2008 that hasn't change in 3 separate installments, and looked exactly the same in the 4th at the rather bland demo at the Xbox E3?

    Take it if you want, let me know when the bullet drops ill be waiting to laugh in your face when you realised you have been had for 4 years running.

  • Tryhard #104 11 months ago

    What is the point of 60 fps when everyone is camping in a corner.Or prone at the top of stairs?

  • Bobaganoosh #105 11 months ago

    @Pasco,

    It's more like any "Time Crisis" game you find in arcades. Sit here, shoot those 4 guys, it moves you over here, shoot those 5 guys, etc.

    Nobody is going to argue that the single-player is cinematic for COD...that's their goal, and that's what they do. Most people are eager for the multiplayer, and while that's not the only part of the game, it's the largest part, and I think what most people should be looking at when making their decisions is the overall gameplay and experience that the game gives. After playing both, it will not be the FPS that people will be talking about. Battlefield will be beautiful and immersive no matter what platform you play it on, and COD will be a "shock and awe" game that will try to be as controversial as possible to get people to talk about it. different people like different experiences, and I think millions of people will buy both.

    Having time for only one big game, I'll choose BF3.

  • XdarXideX #106 11 months ago

    Can I buy both games? Is that allowed? Or do I have to pick sides like a teenager?

  • thomaspower0 #107 11 months ago

    Either way, I'd rather play BF3. 30FPS wouldn't set me back if I'd play it on a console, but I'll buy it for PC anyway.

    E: CoD4, 5, 6, 7 also had 60FPS by the way. This 60FPS shit is like saying: Ooeeh we have a dual core processor for 4 years in a row. Doens't make sense either.
    Edited by thomaspower0 at 29/06/11 @ 14:59

  • FireMonkey #108 11 months ago

    @XdarXideX - "Can I buy both games? Is that allowed? Or do I have to pick sides like a teenager?"

    No! Are you new to gaming? You can only ever like one gaming platform and one of each game genre. If people liked more, what would everyone fight about in forums and in the playgrounds?

    lol

  • patriot #109 11 months ago

    I love the way when BF was first announced everyone was saying how much better it looked than COD and COD was just a revamped engine etc etc... maybe it was true or whatever, but now that BF is shown as being capped at 30FPS everyone is going back to "Frames don't matter lol, Game play does" .... please.

    it's also amazing that all the battlefield nerds storm into any MW / BF related news and just talk down shit about the game and downrate ANY comment where people will talk about why they like MW.

    seriously folks just play the game you want to play and stfu

  • RodHull #110 11 months ago

    Meh. 200FPS or GTFO.

  • apoc_reg #111 11 months ago

    Well when you look like crap, have no vehicles and are being abused by 14 yr olds im sure that will be great....

  • patriot #112 11 months ago

    @apoc_reg
    As apposed to running like crap, having vehicles and being abused by 14yr olds.


  • Architect_z #113 11 months ago

    I care more about whats for my dinner than which games runs at a larger fps rate.

    And for your information, i'm having Spam for dinner......yes....Spam!

  • Daeltaja #114 11 months ago

    If that's the only 'edge' they have over Battlefield, battle lost.

  • misinformed #115 11 months ago

    If thats the only positive statement when comparing the two games he can make, then you know which is the inferior product.

    I wont be suffering on a console anyways.
    Edited by misinformed at 29/06/11 @ 16:03

  • Noble6 #116 11 months ago

    Reading some of the comments below. You still can't dispute the CoD control model. Call it a twitch shooter, call it whatever you like but if you are serious about pin point control, Accuracy and solid control, look no further than CoD. It's a result of it's higher frame too. See I own both, bad co 2 and black ops, they both serve two different purposes as core shooters. Bad company is for laughs with friends and a cooperative online experience whilst call of duty serves my skill based competition crave.

  • ronuds #117 11 months ago

    This is true - whenever I see a person picking up a COD game, they always mention it's because of the framerate.

    /not true

    In reality, the vast majority of people don't care or notice.

  • gamerindia #118 11 months ago

    @evilrobot
    So true... fighting and action/adventure games are the best.

  • priesty_lfc #119 11 months ago

    BF2 is s**t.

    Its slow, unresponsive and plays like it.

    CoD is pick up and play and have fun. All this hate for it is BS

    Hate the player (Bobby K as he's a c**t) Not the game

    Get over it.

  • azazel76 #120 11 months ago

    airstrike.....run for the indestructable wooden shed

    Just one of the comments that won't be on the MW3 cover

  • green_nifta #121 11 months ago

    I can't believe how many "I don't care about 30/60 fps" comments I'm reading! The comments pages are usually full of "If it's not at 60fps I won't play it" comments.

    Is it just because COD:MW is seen as the enemy of the hardcore now?
    Edited by green_nifta at 29/06/11 @ 17:18

  • FireMonkey #122 11 months ago

    @patriot - "I love the way when BF was first announced everyone was saying how much better it looked than COD and COD was just a revamped engine etc etc... maybe it was true or whatever, but now that BF is shown as being capped at 30FPS everyone is going back to "Frames don't matter lol, Game play does" .... please."

    Umm.. BF still looks better than CoD. CoD is still just a revamped engine. Gameplay does matter more than fps. Everyone with half a brain new BF was going to be at 30fps. No one is back tracking. You're an idiot.

    @green-nifta - "The comments pages are usually full of "If it's not at 60fps I won't play it" comments."

    Are they? I can honestly say I have only ever seen that in comments threads arguing about racing games (i.e. Forza vs GT). If I'm wrong show me where all these comments are?
    Edited by FireMonkey at 30/06/11 @ 00:56

  • duckmouth #123 11 months ago

    I wonder if the frame rate has anything to do with tiny, box maps versus enormous realistic environments? I recently started playing BC2 and it puts CoD to shame. I tried to play CoD4 today and it was unplayable after BC2. I know where my money is going come October/November. ARE YOU WITH ME CHAPS??

  • jstar #124 11 months ago

    The vast vast majority of people who will buy MW3 don't even know what fps means. And those that do will buy BF3. Twat.

  • Mik3yB #125 11 months ago

    @jstar

    Tourettes?

  • Mystery_Penguin #126 11 months ago

    After playing a lot Crysis 2 MP on the xbox I went back to black ops and I really noticed how fast and responsive cod was. I had to get used to the speed of cod again. I don't know for sure but that felt like the difference between 30 and 60 fps to me. Unfortunately I've never really liked the BF related games in MP because of the controls that feel sluggish to me. Tried it but I just couldn't get used to the feeling. Maybe it's different on the PC that would require a substantial upgrade of my computer. The frame rate "issue" is why I'm looking forward to the next gen of consoles. I'm fine with the level of graphics at the moment, I just wish it would run a bit smoother. And I expect the next gen to take care of that.

  • GrizzleBoy #127 11 months ago

    I think its pretty awesome that they came out on the record to say that a difference in frames per second is their only "competitive edge".

    Well I guess he could have just said "we have millions of brainless lemmings who will purchase our game regardless of the fact that its run on probably the most dated engine in any recent FPS hence 60fps. That gives us a competitive edge.", but I'm guessing they thought it wouldn't go down too well with the brainless lemmings.

  • Climhazzard #128 11 months ago

    60fps = couldn't care less.

  • Ahskay #129 11 months ago

    Seems like they don't have anything else they can defend their game with. Must be frustrating for Bobby and co.

  • Buran #130 11 months ago

    Black Ops doesn't reach stable 60 fps in consoles. And anyway I'll not play BF3 in consoles, but in the platform that belongs: PC.

  • MakyoDetector #131 11 months ago

    COD4 and BF2:MC are still the pinnacle of online MP on consoles. I have very low expectations of both BF3 and MW3.

  • HoriZon #132 11 months ago

    The above video has some slowdown for the console version which doesn't bode well.

  • Talbot #133 11 months ago

    Everyone sucks BF3's cock and the game ain't even out yet.

    I hated BC2, it was small in scope, handled like a dinosaur (i.e. felt like a console game) and the graphics weren't THAT impressive, in fact, I preferred 2142's - the less said about gameplay the better. Vietnam was equally as small in scope and felt like MW2 dressed up with destruction.

    If BF3 does not bring in the same scope, dynamism and sheer creative tactical ability as BF2 and 2142 did then it fails. If it follows the same scheme as BC2 both in terms of map layout and weapon handling then it will never create the following that BF2 did.

  • tx2002ag #134 11 months ago

    Haha you guys are funny BF won't even narrow the gap because COD is some good shit for most people. It may look like everyone now hates cod but most people who play cod aren't posting on most places. The reason it won't get close is because most people don't want teamwork or for every building they're in to get blown to pieces buy some gayass vehicle, they don't want to get shot then run for another minute and a half only to get sniped again as they finally get to the action then do it again.
    Most people don't want that and that is why MW3 will crush BF3.\
    And god please stop calling people who buy COD retards and idiots. I'm probably smarter than most of you unless you have over a 4.5 GPA
    Edited by tx2002ag at 29/06/11 @ 20:53

  • Happyhammer7 #135 11 months ago

    i7 PC = 60 fps on both.

    Pint of battlefield please barman.

  • juche #136 11 months ago

    60FPS at 640 resolution upscaled poorly upscaled to 1080. Should be AWESOME.

  • Sharzam #137 11 months ago

    So what do they say to PC gamers who can run Battlefield 3 at 60 fps , if that is the COD 'edge'.

    ALthourgh i bet BF3 will be a monsttor to max out but you can bet it will be doable.

  • The-Jack-Burton #138 11 months ago

    And Transformers is awesome because it's shiny with big, loud explosions.

  • ballshock #139 11 months ago

    Frames per minute means nothing

  • SpaceMonkey77 #140 11 months ago

    Not bothered, because I know that while MW is cool, BF is a much better game, that gives on such deeper level. If that means it runs at a lower frame rate, who cares.

  • hiddenranbir #141 11 months ago

    60fps on an engine that is a million years old!

  • man.the.king #142 11 months ago

    What with Killzone 3, Bulletstorm (and the upcoming Resistance 3 and GeOW3), I had decided to delay buying BF3 for a couple of months. But if my buying BF3 will help put another infinitesimal dent in COD's sales numbers, then I'm all for it.

    /BF3 pre-ordered.

  • DrStrangelove #143 11 months ago

    Good thing I don't have to care how it runs on console.

  • Collymilad #144 11 months ago

    I'll take BF3 thanks.

    Take your 60fps and shove it.

  • Lucodeath #145 11 months ago

    My new pc says 60 fps is better than 30 though what ever the game, orange box at 257 fps suits me. An crysis no1 at 60fps on max settings is ace. Took me 7 years to replace pc though. Im a pc snob at the mo so anything below 60fps is dirty talk now.
    Edited by Lucodeath at 30/06/11 @ 02:49

  • MegaCadet #146 11 months ago

    60 FPS is a very big deal. I agree Schofield 100%. That's why I'm getting the PC version of BF3.

  • jstar #147 11 months ago

    @Mik3yb

    No, psychic

  • carlitoswagon #148 11 months ago

    @txt2002ag - # 137

    Thank you for giving me an early morning laugh at work. Love your last sentence. Oh lordy.... You've pretty much summed up the core difference between cod and bf communities without actually meaning to.

  • cyber_nicco #149 11 months ago

    I will say - and I know this won't go over well - that it does make a big difference in how the games feel. I have recently started playing BFBC2 again, and am having a lot of fun, but flipped back to BLOPS the other day and I was initially stunned and the fluidity of gameplay. For a moment I felt as if it was playing in fast forward, but I realized it was just the overall smoothness that had be confused.

    That being said, I like them both as they are very different games.

  • Turbotim3 #150 11 months ago

    This just in......BF3 developers dig at MW3 lack of longevity and substance because of a MP mode that only works for about 60 days and then completly falls apart.

    I am not getting tricked into buying another call of duty game. its also interesting that i have bought the last 4 COD games but have eventually traded all four but i still have battlefield 2 battlefield bad company 2 battlefield 1943 and i still play all of them.

    case closed.

    p.s- dont be a sheep be a goat