Home Theater Forum and Systems banner

1 - 3 of 3 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,170 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Sledgehammer talks up MW3 frame rate and engine improvements

Sledgehammer Games co-founder Glen Schofield has said Modern Warfare 3′s frame rate is its “competitive edge”, and dismissed critique of the game’s engine.



“This game will run at 60 frames a second. Not sure any of our competitors will,” the studio head told Ausgamers of Modern Warfare 3. “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.”

Schofield’s comments, made at E3, predate DICE’s confirmation thatthe console version of Battlefield 3 will run at 30 frames per second. A recurring criticism of Modern Warfare 3 is its failure to introduce a new engine, but Schofield said this is nonsense.

“We really re-vamped this engine. We put a whole new audio system in and it is as competitive as anybody out there. You can go out and name your engine and call it whatever you want, right. “… What you do is you build upon it, right? And build and build and build. And we build new tools that make us more efficient. We built brand new tools so that we could put more stuff in.

“… We’re able to put so much on the screen because it’s an engine and it’s well-known, it’s very clean and we’re able to easily upgrade it. So I don’t know what the future holds for the engine. But you don’t ship an engine, you ship a game.” Modern Warfare 3 is due on PC, PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360 in early November.

Source: VG24/7
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
85 Posts
What's the need to use a new engine when ALL of the maps remain static? Or, when you don't feel the need to give any true sense of direction to in game audio, other than the static sounds that are always present. What's the need to make major upgrades when there are no moving vehicles to worry about? Or, when there is hardly any realism in the gameplay physics.
When you don't have buildings falling because of C4, artillery, missiles, RPGs, or tank shells. When you don't have a need to compensate on long shots, due to bullet drop, or blurry vision when under heavy machine-gun fire. When flashlights don't temporarily haze your vision, and there are no major moving vehicles, just stationary ones that kind of explode. When realism in a war based fps isn't your top priority, then there is no need for a truly cutting edge physics engine!
Oh, but you run at 60 frames per second! That makes up for all of the nitty details that you choose to overlook. I think that battlefield 3 will out-class this game all the way around, even at 30 frames per second!
Just my opinion! Cheers!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,170 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
I agree with you but the sad fact is that the C.O.D series is a major seller regardless of it's shortcomings. Sledghammer could have put it's stamp on this game if they would have done away with what has be done before and strive to better the series instead of relying on name recognition.
 
1 - 3 of 3 Posts
Top