Yes brand matters. This is not a new insight or a disputed fact.
*spin* another 60 vs 30 framerate argument
- Thread starter owen
- Start date
Yes brand matters. This is not a new insight or a disputed fact.
They play 20+ hours because the game is fun to play. If you start to analyze the game mechanics of CoD you start to realize where the fun comes from.
There certainly is ALOT of people who buy cod because they feel the aim is sharp. They might not know what 60 frame per second is but They certainly could have bought a prettier game of they cared about pixels!
In any case, the ps3 and Xbox and pc iterations have sold 150 million copies or so. Most people play it online, im quite sure there is some unique aspect to cod that makes em buy it, and its certainly not the graphics
As fr as brand goes, yes it matters, but mind you infinity ward has made an extremely popular shooter before, which was based on the same fast paced cqc combat (medal of honor), and build the cod brand from scratch. There is a reason for their success
In any case, the ps3 and Xbox and pc iterations have sold 150 million copies or so. Most people play it online, im quite sure there is some unique aspect to cod that makes em buy it, and its certainly not the graphics
As fr as brand goes, yes it matters, but mind you infinity ward has made an extremely popular shooter before, which was based on the same fast paced cqc combat (medal of honor), and build the cod brand from scratch. There is a reason for their success
Last edited by a moderator:
L. Scofield
Veteran
Do you? How many other shooters are 60fps and sell better than the 30fps games?
How do you know that most people buy COD because of the high framerate?
You don't. You're assuming facts not in evidence.
RenegadeRocks
Legend
COD's selling point has always been the 60fps MP this whole gen ! You want evidence for that???
Ι do not understand the obsession with 60 frames per sec.
Hear me out a minute if you please.
It seems to me that people sometimes need numbers to justify a few things. To be honest I believe 60 frames per second is not good for most types of games, the reasons being:
a) It sacrifices eye candy. No matter how you spin it, rendering double the pixels simply sacrifices a lot.
b) And most important for me atleast, it sacrifices cinematography. Motion in 60 frames appears "faster", like you are playing in 1.5 X speed. It is really hard for me to watch cinematics in 60 frames. It kills all the "movie feeling". Just like when I watched The Hobbit in 45 frames in the theater and it just looked.... "weird", it didnt feel right. I dont like to play cinematic games in 60 frames. I believe rock solid 30 frames is the way to go.
Now dont get me wrong. There are games that simply demand 60 frames, like sports games, or fighting games and a couple of more. Maybe multiplayer portions of shooters need as well 60 frames. But the single player part doesnt have to. And quite frankly I am glad that devs will be targeting rock solid 30 frames and eye candy.
60 frames are way overrated in my humble opinion and it looks more like an obsession of some people to justify just how powerful a certain machine is. I on the other hand will gladly take 30 frames per sec for more polygons, more effects and generally more eye catching stuff.
Hear me out a minute if you please.
It seems to me that people sometimes need numbers to justify a few things. To be honest I believe 60 frames per second is not good for most types of games, the reasons being:
a) It sacrifices eye candy. No matter how you spin it, rendering double the pixels simply sacrifices a lot.
b) And most important for me atleast, it sacrifices cinematography. Motion in 60 frames appears "faster", like you are playing in 1.5 X speed. It is really hard for me to watch cinematics in 60 frames. It kills all the "movie feeling". Just like when I watched The Hobbit in 45 frames in the theater and it just looked.... "weird", it didnt feel right. I dont like to play cinematic games in 60 frames. I believe rock solid 30 frames is the way to go.
Now dont get me wrong. There are games that simply demand 60 frames, like sports games, or fighting games and a couple of more. Maybe multiplayer portions of shooters need as well 60 frames. But the single player part doesnt have to. And quite frankly I am glad that devs will be targeting rock solid 30 frames and eye candy.
60 frames are way overrated in my humble opinion and it looks more like an obsession of some people to justify just how powerful a certain machine is. I on the other hand will gladly take 30 frames per sec for more polygons, more effects and generally more eye catching stuff.
60 frames per second gives you far less input lag and more responsiveness. IMO all games benefit from it, but I can live without in some slow paced genres.
But of course it's a sacrifice of eye candy!
A) It indeed is resource expensive.
B) No nothing appears "faster" it is exactly the same speed, "movie feeling" can go to hell as it is an old concept that needs to die a swift death.
With that said, 30hz is a viable option for slower paced games, but action based games should be 60hz.
I do not understand why some people cannot understand why other people prefer a smoother framerate that is closer to what our eyes actually perceive and not some 100 year old "cinematic feel" rubbish that was only used as a cost saving measure and not because it's better in anyway.
You contradict yourself. One the one hand you cannot understand why some people cannot understand why other people prefer 60 frames per sec (and I never said I dont understand it, or that I dont respect it, I just provided my "humble" opinion on the matter) and on the other hand you call the opinions of others "100 year old rubbish".
It seems to me that if someone cannot understand it is you.
Plus you present all your "arguments" as if they are some fundamental truth and everyone who thinks differently and actually prefer that 100 year old cinemtaic feel, is pure rubbish.
Sorry but this is not a proper way either to argument or to speak ina respectful manner.
Whatever I said is my opinion as stated in my post. And I do prefer 30 frames per sec in shooters, adventures etc while I opt for 60 frames in sports games, fighting and some hack n slash.
It appears I cannot still edit my posts so I want to add where i say " i never said I dont understand it" the following:
" I understand that some people prefer 60 frames per sec, what I dont understand is the obsession with it. Like if it is 30 frames it kinda looks like the game is disappointing when it comes to "tech".
" I understand that some people prefer 60 frames per sec, what I dont understand is the obsession with it. Like if it is 30 frames it kinda looks like the game is disappointing when it comes to "tech".
Then someone should ask "why the obsession with good graphics when gameplay is more important".
Smooth framerate adds to the visual appealing and to the experience. Smooth and responsive experience is just as important
Its not an obsession. Its something we enjoy and we would like to have from experience on other 60fps games
We were in the middle of a discussion about graphics, hence the focus on the technical aspect not the gameplay.
And again, I dont find 30 frames unresponsive. Look I dont know if we are talking about the same kind of games really... I am not talking about COD multiplayer. I speciifcaly said that multiplayer portion for hardcore gamers should remain 60 frames. Some people love COD gameplay and I respect that, but personally I hate it. It is completely unrealistic, fast and you look like you are playing as fast as you can as if someone is going to get the game away from you. But I understand that, it is extremely competitive and addictive. So yeah keep it 60 frames for those people who love it.
But my single player campaign doesnt have to sacrifice so much. I dont have issues beating the hardest games in their hardest difficulty with 30 frames. It doesnt affect so much my shooting or my experience. Maybe that is because I play with a controler... not a mouse. Mouse + 30 frames is a much worse experience than a controler, I give you that.
I dont find uncharted 3 unresponsive, or gears unresponsive they are fine.
The worst thing of all is fluctuating frames per sec. That is the worst possible experience (for me always)
Its not necessarily about unresponsiveness but how it feels and how it looks. I dont like COD either. Its speed is not due to framerate. Double framerate doesnt necessarilly equal double speed.
For example Blur is faster than Gran Turismo 5
I am not a PC gamer either and these games are my favorite too. Its just that we would have liked better framerates. That doesnt mean of course that Uncharted and Gears were not some of my favorite games this gen
Just to make a point, Metal Gear Solid 2 had a much better feeling than MGS3 but I enjoyed both. At the same time I wish it was 60fps
Both DMC4 and DmC look great and gameplay is very similar but DMC4 looks both outstanding and its smoother. Proper art does wonders.
Its not because we are obsessed with 60fps. Its just that we would have liked it better if Killzone SF looked like the way it does and was also 60fps
^^ Well considering the fact that what they showed on PS4 presentation was based on a devkit with only 1.5 gb RAM for gfx, and the fact that the devs are still learning how to code, it is a given that PS4 has the possibility to run such graphics in 60 frames per sec. But the thing is if they can squeeze out 2ce as impressive visuals by offering 30 frames per sec, well I am a firm believer that it is well worth it.
.Of course you can play games designed for 30 fps at 30 fps. Do you think that the devs when they design and balance the games play them at 60 fps?
As far as I know there are no other 60 fps console shooters (except maybe for Kane & Lynch 2, but I am not sure that is in the same category....). But please tell me which facts I have assumed.
I think the success of the Call of Duty franchise is difficult to explain, and has many wondering, including many other developers with respective shooters of their own. I don't think it's entirely framerate either - perhaps it's more the point that CoD aims at the market interested in "realistic" shooters - realistic meaning, real weapons, conflicts based on past/present/future events which perhaps is a bit more attractive than the science-fiction space setting in the KillZone game. The graphics in the CoD franchise is less stylised, more realistic in appeal, which perhaps is another factor.
Perhaps the success of CoD can also be attributed that Modern Warfware was the block-buster game that was simply better than most shooters at the time - compared to Resistance (and some others that were out at the time). The success just carried over and success spreads the word. I think the framerate is certainly a factor, but sadly, not one, that's high on most peoples list. I'm sure that if Activision was to suddenly downgrade their game to 30fps, most people would still buy it - although perhaps many of its core-gamers (the 8 million that were mentioned further up) would probably question "what is off about the game" - not feeling as smooth and responsive as the 60fps CoD before it.
I guess you set the bar with the first game of the franchise (or the first one that really sells). Once you have your franchise known for that responsive gameplay, it's hard to cut down on that feature because people come with expectations.
It's saddening that framerate is not on most peoples mind. I'm sure most people are aware of differences, but tend to lack the technical understanding on "why" the game feels different.
It's a pitty this KZ aims for 30fps. I actually think I would prefer to have it at 720p@60 than 1080p@30.
Actually, I think if you would conduct blind tests on running the two games side by side, one in 1080p@30 and the same game 720p@60, I'd be surprised if people chose the higher resolution one over the one with the quicker framerate. IMO the 60fps would be much more noticable than the resolution increase on the other. But of course, going into next generation, 1080p is of course the big catch-phrase and bullet-point feature. And now that tablets and phones (especially iPhones that started with the retina catch-phrase) are making people aware of ever increasing screen resolutions, it's the new feature everyone wants to push.
problem is devs dont allow me to run a 60fps game in 30 fps and plus even if they did, that means they have created the game for 60 fps and the loss in quality in certain aspects of the game (possible extra effects, more polys or whatnot) will still be there even if I choose to play at 30 fps.
I've been playing games for over 25 years. I just want to make sure that everyone knows this next bit is my opinion.
60 fps is nice and definately better than 30 fps but better graphics has a bigger impact. In other words 60 fps is nice but its not going to wow you like top graphics can.
It is also alot easier to advertise top graphics than framerate.
60 fps is nice and definately better than 30 fps but better graphics has a bigger impact. In other words 60 fps is nice but its not going to wow you like top graphics can.
It is also alot easier to advertise top graphics than framerate.
Similar threads
- Locked