Design director David Vonderhaar says running at 60 frames per second is "super essential"; DICE defends 30fps rate on console.
The secret to Call of Duty's mass popularity is due, in part, to how smoothly the game runs, according to Treyarch design director David Vonderhaar. Speaking to Eurogamer, the developer explained that running at 60 frames per second is an absolute necessity for the series.
"We think 60 frames is super essential," he said. "Any time you have any kind of input latency at all, players can feel that. I'm pretty convinced Call of Duty is as popular as it is because of how fluid it can feel. You can feel the difference, and we go to a lot of trouble to try to keep the game running at 60 frames all the time."
Vonderhaar's comments came as part of a larger feature that looked at the frames-per-second debate between first-person shooter franchises Call of Duty and Battlefield. DICE executive producer Patrick Bach defended Battlefield's console rate of 30 frames per second, saying, "In the end, everything is a compromise."
"On console we have to make some compromises," Bach said. "We love our vehicles and we love our destruction and we love the pretty graphics and the awesome sound. We think 30 is pretty decent. Some people complain because it's a number, and you can compare numbers. And then there are a few people who complain because they say it's a worse experience. That group has their needs and their urges, and then you have the other group that says, you know what? I'd rather have destruction, vehicles, graphics, audio because it's fun. So, it's a compromise."
so in conclusion.....BF3 need a better frame rate and COD needs better resolution.
until then, most people will play the game which is more fun which is COD at the moment.
60 frames per second is what sold me. gives you full control of your character and that's why the multiplayer became so popular.
I dont give a damn about your crappy graphics. I care if the game is fun. And the cod series, i lost hope after they hypothetically decided that they just cant make a Call of Duty 5.... Bring on the clones!! they said
I want to thank Activision with voice from most players in world ,we are happy to see New game every year thank you.. we all agree with this 199%, We love Outdated graphic games, with Soo manny inovations every year with thousand DLC every month (i'm getting exicted with every new map Bought every dlc wohooo ), i'ts so cool Gj ,Treyarch is doing most amazing and hard thing ever, it's damn hard to do ctrl+a ctrl+v. Soo EA greedy bastards we Don't need way more Cool BF games from you we Don't like amazing graphics with Frostbite engine 2.0, neither we want tank, jets and Helicopters we want Buggy crap game tha get's boring in 1 week. Suck it noobs :))))
Bf3 is really for next gen console just they ain't here yet. Had to sacrifice heaps just to get it to run on current gen.
It's funny that someone at Treyarch says that, when Modern Warfare is perfectly fluid while World at War and Black Ops are clunky and jittery at times.
treyarch is gutter filth and bastardize everything they touch. Don't get me wrong, Infinity ward is no better, since all the main players left, leaving only the interns, temps and gofers behind to tend to the franchise.
@theshonen8899 Want crappy graphics go play ps2 personally as long as a game is good its fine by me. Battlefield may look good but it plays terrible.
Meh, FPS is only necessary for reaction time in Multiplayer. Most films are shot in 24FPS and no one knows the difference.
@shinobiprophetx Actually, most people I have talked to it about agree with me that 24fps takes a few minutes to get used to at a movie theater. It is even more noticeable in a game.
These kids nowdays are so blind you could release a Call of duty Easy-bake Oven they would still buy it, just look at the amount of COD Elite subcribers out there. Don't give us crap like ''it runs at 60fps'', they couldn't care less about that.
@Eruu i mean hell they have CoD edition JEEPs like WTF
its so bad its like WoW. I think its the dumbest game ive ever seen but over 11 miilion people were on it because it was a social gathering. People i watched play barely even played they just chatted.
CoD is the same way its so easy and its socially accepted to where you jump on with all kinds of friends and anyone can be decent. This doesnt mean its "GOOD"
bf3 could push 45 frames on 600p, its so not important to have 60fps that they sacrificed that to have 720p
That is one fact that COD fanboys dont realize, COD runs at only 600p which is last gen resolution, then the xbox 360 and PS3 Hardware upscale it. Thats not anywhere close to current gen's 720p resolution. Its kind of like cheating the system. And its also a big reason why COD games run at 60fps, that and the graphics are incredibly outdated as well.
I think Cod's native resolution is so hilarious!!!
oh REALLY Treyarch?????? I didnt know it was popular because it was accessible...
what idiots. Yes we all know its very easy to play and supposedly runs at 60 FPS which means nothing at all. Most gamers have no idea what that even is let alone see a difference. If you claim theres a massive difference between 30 and 60 your a liar, there isnt.
Its not hard when your garbage engine hasnt changed in a decade and looks so bad that your games look like they are xbox games. Games are not all about graphics but for a greedy company who has billions from this franchise youd think they would be able to have a dev team that could make a new engine every few years.
they obviously have to market these things about their games because what else do they have? The same EXACT gameplay over and over with a few perks here and there and the same imbalanced kill streaks. The games should be like 29.99 and sold as DLC.
@Nexrad " If you claim theres a massive difference between 30 and 60 your a liar, there isnt. " These are the words of a massive, unbelievable, idiot. Also, THERE'S, ISN'T and YOU'RE! Do you know what an apostrophe is? Why is someone who is so ignorant that they have no experience looking at different refresh rates, feel they have a need to voice their opinion? Everyone can tell the difference visually if you put 30 and 60 fps side by side. Not to mention the improved control responsiveness that is also gained. from a higher refresh rate.
think about the cost per unit, 30 million copies and a development cost of less than U$3 millions, 1 tenth of dollar per copy, they could sell these games at 0,20 dollar (20 cents) and have a 50% profit as DLC
@leandrro lol i just threw out a number. Yes they could be more like 19.99 i was just saying they are not worth anywhere near 60$
@Nexrad think about the cost and profit math, nobody thinks that cod fanboys are stupid as much as activision thinks, they are laughing everyday about it in their ferraris and lamborginis
I mostly agree except the 29.99 deal I think they would be totally worth it for less then that. lol
in truth cod is so inferior in any aspec to any modern multiplayer fps that they have to appeal to something as stupid as giving value to the fact the game is so old it runs at 60fps on 7 years old console hardware
And dont forget to mention the very low native resolution of 600p upscaled.. any game would run flawless pushing that rez LOL
CALL OF DUTY DONT HAVE 60 FPS, it is reaches 60 fps in some moments but most of the time the fps count is very near bf3 console frame rate, check digital foundry frame rate analisys on black ops
some americans are stupid, some teenage americans are really stupid, teenage american console players are super stupid, teenage americans console players that never played a fps before 2007 are incredibly stupid, so when they released a "go be a super soldier in iraq" game in 2007 all these bunch of stupid people bought it, despite the fact that there was better shooters out there, with keyboard and mouse, for 32 plus players etc etc, activision released the right garbage in the right moment for the right stupid people, now they must stick with it to not disapoint the stupid
@leandrro That's hardly fair and too broad of a statement. I love the Modern Warfare games as well as BF3, Halo and Killzone. I have played shooters before 2007, and still the MW games are probably my favorite shooters. When I pick it up it has a fluid and accurate feel I don't get out of any other game. Your assumption that only stupid people play it is baseless and stupid in itself. It's only been 3 games. Hardly enough to produce considerable fatigue unless you've been playing it too much, which is a different matter. Halo,Killzone,Uncharted, Gears of War and God of War hardly varied their formula. Patrick Bach put it well when he mentioned compromise.
Hey, if you don't like it just go ahead and play something else.
@Curarai you´re saying that you are not stupid to give 100% of your money to cod, you play a lot of diffent games, but these stupid people im talking about give 100% of their money to cod, giving activision a 90% market share of shooters before bf3, just like you i play a lot of shooters including cod wich was my top favorite until they insisted on using cod2 engine
@leandrro "giving activision a 90% market share of shooters before bf3" That sounds like you have a specific preference which you are trying to defend. So what if they spend their money on it? They probably spend there money on Madden and Fifa too. It's the way things are. Look at the popularity of anything like movies such as Transformers and Twilight or technology like iPhone. You could argue that they don't deserve to be but it won't change anything. The call of Duty engine is fine and it makes sense to use it since it allows it to add plenty of enemy's and effects such as fire, smoke and other atmospheric effects while keeping the frame rate up. I personally like the way MW uses a kind of checkpoint system to make it feel like you are pushing forward and the enemies back. I like the Survival and the newly added Chaos mode. Not much into the multi-player since I'm not good at it or willing to put in that much time. I would almost pay full price for a game that consisted of the spec ops missions.
Something is always going to be the most popular. As long as you accept that fact then you don't have to get into a twist about it and waste your breath. Enjoy the games you enjoy playing and even dabble in the games you think you might not. Who knows you might enjoy some of them.
Everyone can hate on CoD all they want, but honestly this franchise is a "cash-cow" getting milked every year by their huge fanbase. It is the most anticipated game every year, and has the biggest midnight launch lines I have ever seen every year. They must be doing something right.
@Mills79 It is easily explainable. What %ge of population you think have an IQ less than 100, from 100-120, from 120-140, 140-160 and above 160? The very stupid and very intelligent are in minority. Majority skews towards lower end of average. Quality never guarantees popularity and nor is popularity a mark of quality. It has always been like that. Avatar made more money than Avengers, Dark Night . Phantom Menance made more money than any other movie produced by George Lucas [including ones directed by Spielberg]. Twilight vampires are more popular than Bram Stoker's Dracula.
@the_requiem So what's your point?
@x_hunter00 He's saying popularity and past reputation have more to do with sales than the quality of the actual product. Since majority of people aren't very critical, it's easy to pass on an inferior product to the masses.
He basically took what I said, and gave some specific examples.
@Mills79 They must've done* something right. - Fixed that for ya...
COD4:MW really put the game on the map, and now it's become more of a "all my friends are playing it" kind of thing.
Content you might like…
A sinister villain, some tough choices, and a new kind of multiplayer arena invigorate the reliably intense action in Call of Duty: Black Ops II.
- Nov 13, 2012
Users who looked at this article also looked at these content items.