Modern Warfare 3 Devs Sledgehammer Talk Frame Rate

Sledgehammer Games’ Glen Schofield has spoken out on the difference between Modern Warfare 3 and the competition, or, rather, it appears, the Frostbite 2 engine used in EA’s Battlefield 3.

Speaking to AusGamers, Schofield said “I’ve seen that trick [with reference to naming engines] and the bottom line is, [Modern Warfare 3] will run at 60 frames a second. Not sure any of our competitors will. You don’t ship an engine, you ship a game.”

– ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW –

“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 added.

“And I think 60 is our competitive edge and you just don’t throw that away.”

Do you agree?  Sure, nice smooth action is always welcome but developers often compromise in other areas to achieve that hallowed frame rate.  The battle for this year’s big FPS is just warming up…

– PAGE CONTINUES BELOW –

65 Comments

  1. hahahahaha oh my god what a fucking douchebag. pretty easy to make it run at 60fps when you spend the whole game running down corridors and all the really big destruction is scripted. lets see them make levels the size of battlefienld with the same level of destruction and see if they can still pull it out of their asses.

    • There is some valid points in there somewhere.

    • Can you please tone it down a bit, there is really no need for those profanities at twenty past nine in the morning and the subject hardly warrants it.

      • Let’s have some consitency before you clamp down on members comments. I’ve seen worse from staff, and until they stop swearing I don’t think you’ve got a leg to stand on.

      • There is quite a significant difference when the swearing and insults are aimed at someone which the staff certainly dont do at all.

      • Not what you originally said. Moving the goalposts there…

      • haha jesus, i called someone a douchebag, calm down. i hear worse words in 7pm timeslots on tv.

        and ill still be buying both.

      • @Kronik I was hardly expecting people to pull the sentence apart with pedantry, it was also said part tongue in cheek with the twenty past nine in the morning comment.

        @OptimusGoz It was seeing the first comment calling someone an f’ing d’bag and pulling stuff out of asses which really is disappointing to see so better to ask it doesn’t happen from the start rather than let all comments go like that. Didn’t realise people would be so delicate about it ;).

      • I agree with AJ2297!!

        I mean come on 9.20 in the morning! Surely you should know by now that that sort of language shouldn’t be used till at least 9.30am.

    • Some of the bigger destruction in BF3 is scripted too. And please don’t fall to namecalling devs. BF fans are getting as bad as the notorious COD-boys…

    • @AG2297

      Jog on, who the hell are you the internet police? If you want a place where everyone is as pussy as you are go join mumsnet.

      • Nope, he is a moderator of the forums he is right – It was a bit uncalled for.

        What you have to remember is that not all readers will be ‘of an age’ & some may find it offensive regardless.

        Don’t get me wrong, i swear like a trooper at the best of times, just not in the comments section of front page articles.

      • It’s his job jaffa.

        Calm down a bit.

      • As it happens Jaffa, as the Community Manager on this website I pretty much am yes. It was quite a civil request from myself to not refer to someone in that manner for no reason other than chat about frame rates. We’re not prudes who object to swearing, but within context and not at people.

        As for your comment though, that was certainly uncalled for. You are completely fine to have an opinion and disagree with something but it’s not cool when you present it in such a aggressive manner.

    • cod is about fast paced action(mp.) Not large battlefields.

      Some of the devs comments, are becoming like a forumn fanboy fight, quite childish(although dice seem to be acting the most mature/professional of the two, re how they word the oppositions’ project.)
      COD – fast paced, tight quarters & 60fps, great. BF – large, destructable environments & 30fps, great. Like what’s new devs, we the consumer, know the drill.

      Can’t wait to get both, if i could only have one, i’d soon tire of it. Will continue to mix it up, as i do with bfbc2 & mw2. Although mw2 does get more of my time, as weapons don’t look like cardboard & you can see better through the sights, iron or other. Judging by the bf3 trailer, my wish may have been granted, weapons appear more metallic & sights look greatly improved.

      • upon reading cc star, “this is the 1st time they’ve even mentioned BF3… it’s EA/DICE who have spent months trash talking, I wish to retract my comment re dices’ maturity, when commenting on outside projects. I was unaware of the complete facts & i regret that part of my post.

  2. There’s no point in having 60fps when your online is caked in lag. The guy can walk past me as smoothly as he likes, but if I shoot him in the head, I expect him to die, not turn around and knife me because my hit didn’t register.

    I’d also quite like to stay in a lobby for more than one match without getting kicked because we couldn’t connect to host.

    Of course, these are issues most associated with Treyarch’s Black Ops, but it’s COD nontheless. 60fps is much less important to me than these issues. I wouldn’t have sold Black Ops if it ran at 30fps but worked properly online. I sold it because it didn’t work properly. Also, yes it runs at 60fps, but the graphics are so lo-res that surely it’s easier to implement that. It must be harder to implement 60fps when your game looks as good as BF3.

    • you have a very valid point, and its a major one that they will refuse to look at, which is why I quite buying this game. LAG on each COD game is a joke, hosting too. Until they sort that, they might aswell not bother with the 60FPS, because most of the time all I see is people jumping/popping around like they are in a disco in the 1960’s.

    • @tonycawley: Black Ops didn’t even run at 60fps – on the PS3 anyway.
      60fps was X360 only. On the PS3 it averaged around 40fps.
      And that was running at 540p too. With low res textures. Death animations. Small maps. etc. etc. etc.

  3. You can’t sell a game just on 60fps
    I think variety will sell you a game, and a shed load of marketing hype. From a modern warfare game, you would have to include vehicles, as they feature in todays real battles. Battlefield games set themselves apart from the competition as they have useable vehicles in game, not just some perk.

    • Exactly, who is going to buy a game because of the FPS? I want a game that entertains me, makes me feel part of the action, great online, great single player, lots of VFM.

  4. How about making COD a bit more realistic than floaty light quaver men zipping around like they have 60FPS fairy wings rather than feet. And crouching as well, one in the world can go from standing to flat on the ground than a COD soldier. At least Battlefelld looks like it’s weighted properly.

    • lol, Call Of Duty: Floaty Like Quaver Men (now with more zombies)

      • Each to their own but I like Killzone 3’s heavyness. It feel’s like you aer control areal person, not some helium heels marine.

  5. The 30FPS of Battlefield: Bad Company 2 was never an issue. I think Call of Duties are quite different games though, it’s faster paced, a split second makes more difference in a close firefight whereas on a huge battlefield where you can be miles away from the others, it’s not so crucial to be able to make the 1/60 second decision.

  6. Any developer could get a game running at 60fps, just turn down the on screen definition, make everything heavily scripted, map all textures in low-def, easy…

  7. Bringing a house down on an enemy’s head with a tank on a sprawling map in 30fps > run kill die run kill die run kill die run kill die etc in a corridor at 60fps.

  8. Im not fussed at all with all the technical gubbins, As long as it plays well and I enjoy it, Im happy. Im sure i’ll be in FPS Heaven come November!!

    • I could not agree more, I couldn’t care less if it was like a bloody flick book as long as its enjoyable I have a good time playing it.
      Honest to god, far too many people waste far too much of their invaluable time arguing and worrying about frame rates and screen tear(whatever that is) rather than just sitting down playing the bloody thing.

  9. Everytime anything comes out regarding COD trying to defend it or slag off BF3 makes me mad. These chaps are way to bullish and need to realise COD has had its day, most people want a game that is at least a little bit realistic. Charging down in a tank, taking out a building, that collapses in front of my eyes in 30FPS is much more fun than walking around and shooting people in the head, only for them to knife you in the face because you bullets bounce off them like bubbles because of lag.

    • you’re kidding right, this is the 1st time they’ve even mentioned BF3… it’s EA/DICE who have spent months trash talking, which all the hater just up. One sentence in the opposite direction and they’re all up in arms.

      When you say most people want a game that’s at least a little bit realistic, haven’t you seen the earthquake trailers for BF3… Straight out of a Michael Bay film

      Most people want an experience, that’s why Hollywood summer blockbusters do so well & that’s why CoD has always done so well. It’s blockbuster, popcorn entertainment, people want fun, most people want to be entertained. Just get the product that entertains you & if the other doesn’t interest you then leave it alone.
      BF3 doesn’t interest me because I really haven’t enjoyed a DICE FPS yet, for many many reason that I’ve mentioned elsewhere, but as the core Battlefield game is their bread & butter I’ll be picking it up, especially as I know I’ll be able to trade it in 2 weeks later & pick up MW3 for about a fiver (and I don’t even like IW games, I much prefer Treyarch’s… well the campaigns anyway)

      • *haters just lap up

        damn stupid fingers

      • cc_star, you need to calm down. People can’t have any opinions at all on COD with you jumping down their necks every time. This site is becoming a bit a joke with any COD articles. Because as soon as you say anything, you are on the case defending COD like it was your first born.
        Grow a pair and except some people want to play a more realistic game and alot of people are bored with hearing about it. Both Activision and previous Devs have always said how great their game is compared to others.
        Just because DICE/EA have finally caught up with them and want to show off their (IMO superior game) its fair enough SLedgehammer/Activision want to defend and promote theirs, so thats fair enough. But to slam me because my comments are not liked by you is a little pathetic, especially for someone who has built this site and is a major influence in the gaming community.
        I agree with you on buying a game I want to play, I will, but when you read articles like this which is promoting trolls and bait flaming comments then what do you expect. Maybe TSA should rethink their policies and go back to how they used to write decent articles.
        I’m beginning to feel like I can’t comment on this site without one of the “team” saying something they don’t like.

      • I wasn’t slamming you

        I was slamming your first line which is blatently untrue, the CoD teams haven’t mentioned BF3 yet, wheras EA/DICE can’t stop talking about CoD and haven’t done ever since their game was announced.

        As for the more realistic thing, thats an opinion of your not fact. It’s different, slower & more squad based. Different, if that’s your thing, fine but I don’t see why people like you take every opportunity, no matter how minuscule to belittle something you claim to have no intention of buying (although 99% of people claiming will buy and will play it for 12months or more)

        The hating got tedious 2 or 3 years ago.

      • ok I apologise if you wasn’t (hard to tell on internet)
        Probably best I stop commenting on all COD related emails. Saves the hassle

      • It woudlnt be a TSA news item without a CC_Star rant :)

  10. Quite funny

    Because if it was Battlefield that chose framerate over the quality of a shadow on the backside of a rock you don’t even notice when you’re shooting everything that moves, then people would have been going waaaaah waaaah your game doesn’t run at 60fps. People will manipulate the info at hand to suit their point of view, or agenda.

    CoD games have a feel, the responsiveness & framerate add to that, and even though CoD runs at a lower resolution the engine is still doing far more work pushing far more pixels per second to your eyes.

    I don’t know why people, particularly on here, can’t accept that both games will do what they chose to do, well.
    They’re different and the competition is good for everyone.

    Go Sledgehammer! (and Infinity Ward, DICE, Treyarch, Beachhead) and make the games you’re making as good as you possibly can

    • I do hate the hate – almost all the comments are slating CoD when no one has played BF3 – so how can you say it’s a better game??

      I am looking forward to both games and whilst I’m a bit of a MW fanboy, you won’t see me slating BF3.

      • Exactly.

      • I already like MW (engine, graphics) so assuming the 60fps doesn’t compromise anything else then this is a great, positive step forward and should be seen as just that.

    • You’re probably the sole person on this article who’s actually talking sense.

Comments are now closed for this post.