It seems like every week there is some kind of back and forth, a trading of verbal blows between Activision’s Call of Duty franchise and EA’s upcoming Battlefield 3 first-person shooter games. Both games look fantastic, some better than others. Whereas Battlefield 3 is hoping to tweak Call of Duty‘s tried and tested game mechanics and go one step above the best seller’s visuals with its beautiful Frostbite 2 engine, Modern Warfare 3‘s advantage will be its fluid 60 frames per second run-time.
Speaking to AusGamers, co-founder of Sledgehammer Games (co-developer with Infinity Ward) Glen Schofield says, “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 jab sounds like a bullet aimed at EA’s Battlefield 3 and its measly 30 FPS on the Xbox 360 and PS3 consoles (60 on PC). We love us some smooth running games, but will you not pick up Battlefield 3 because it’s not running at 60 FPS? It sounds like the whole 1080p/720p argument. Sure, it’s nice to have more FPS just like it’s much sweeter to have 1080p graphics over 720p, but is more always better? Halo 3 is only 30 FPS, but gamers still love it…
Filed in . Read more about Activision, Battlefield 3, Call of Duty, Fps, Modern Warfare 3 and Sledgehammer Games.