The key to accessing the Console FPS market (at least one part of it.)

[Korten12]

It goes without saying that: Call of Duty reigns supreme over the Console FPS market.

I think I got the reason why this is (and I believe some have already mentioned this before) because the 60 FPS. Most shooters on consoles have 30 FPS, and you can tell the difference. This is what makes COD feel better because it is running better. I was recently playing Homefront Demo on steam at a constant 60 FPS and it felt great getting kills.

This is why people play COD, well also because they like the gameplay but also because it runs great. I think what games like BF3 needs to do on consoles is to somehow get that 60 FPS and more gamers will move over to more shooter games.

(Note: This isn't a thread to hate on COD or wish it would fail, it mainly is to bring up point about FPS.)

Edit: I think some are mistaken - this isn't the ONLY reason, but is ONE reason. The other reasons being gameplay, and things like that etc...

 

[YawningAngel]

I think the real problem here is that consoles are hardware that's five years old and therefore terrible.

 

[Pearwood]

I don't think the human eye is capable of telling the difference between 30 FPS and 60 FPS, it's more likely to be something else.

I think the real problem here is that consoles are hardware that's five years old and therefore terrible.

PCs have a lot of other processes to run in the background and their OS's take up far more resources. Therefore PCs are terrible

 

[Jordi]

I don't think the human eye is capable of telling the difference between 30 FPS and 60 FPS, it's more likely to be something else.

That's not really true. It depends on what you are looking at. Most people can easily perceive a light flickering at 60 Hz as flickering rather than constant. For instance, old CRT monitors often have a refresh rate 60 Hz and the flicker can get really annoying. Especially near the edges of the screen (your peripheral vision).

In things like television and games it's less noticeable. First of all because usually the entire TV is in the center of you field of vision. But more importantly, because changes are smaller. However, when the image changes rapidly (e.g. when you are turning/moving really fast) you can tell the difference.

I highly doubt it will make a big difference and if it's at the heart of CoDs success though.

 

[Pearwood]

That's not really true. It depends on what you are looking at. Most people can easily perceive a light flickering at 60 Hz as flickering rather than constant. For instance, old CRT monitors often have a refresh rate 60 Hz and the flicker can get really annoying. Especially near the edges of the screen (your peripheral vision).

True but I didn't want to make my post too science-y. Analogue sticks don't really turn fast enough for that to be a problem.

 

[Zac Smith]

I think it less to do with technical aspects, and more to do with the fact that IW had tapped into what the majority FPS players want. The single player campaign with set piece moments, but most attention is payed to the online component which is indefinably re-playable. Regardless of whether it was 30fps or 60fps if the game your playing doesn't actually have what you want in it, you're certainly not going to keep buying it year after year are you.

Only problem now is that other game developers have caught on to what IW were doing and are only now trying to copy that formula, even if it is a little too late

 

[Joleo]

most decent stop motion films run at 25fps. this is because the rate of detection for your eye is about 20fps, so anything higher is just unnecessary, other than if you view the odd anomaly.

 

[Reaper195]

I thought the Key was for the FPS game to be more than six hours long, and have a story that makes sense, interesting characters and decent voice acting. Not the scripted events that you miss because you were looking at that interesting building in Half-Life, or that camera with a gun from the Call of Duty series, or whatever the fuck excuse of voice acting that was in Far Cry 2.

 

[jamesworkshop]

It goes without saying that: Call of Duty reigns supreme over the Console FPS market.

I think I got the reason why this is (and I believe some have already mentioned this before) because the 60 FPS. Most shooters on consoles have 30 FPS, and you can tell the difference. This is what makes COD feel better because it is running better. I was recently playing Homefront Demo on steam at a constant 60 FPS and it felt great getting kills.

This is why people play COD, well also because they like the gameplay but also because it runs great. I think what games like BF3 needs to do on consoles is to somehow get that 60 FPS and more gamers will move over to more shooter games.

(Note: This isn't a thread to hate on COD or wish it would fail, it mainly is to bring up point about FPS.)

Medal of honor on PC with 60fps feels like a totally different game and much like CoD when compared to the 30fps locked console version.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-lag-factor-article

"Our mantra of '60FPS 60FPS 60FPS!' would all be for nothing if we had horrible input lag," says Infinity Ward's Drew McCoy. "It is extremely helpful being able to see the physical, measurable, result of what is going on in our game - especially if things change or if someone in the office complains that things 'don?t feel right'. If anyone cares about the end user experience of their game, they should be heavily invested in their input latency."

For the eyes don't notice frame-rates crowd
60fps is more than just to make animations look like a smooth movement rather than a sequence of still images, everything has to be faster, the Ai updates, physics collisions, network code etc. also need to be insync with the faster frame rate.

Also 30 fps vs 60fps is noticeable in both responsivness and the visual smoothness of animations, movies don't need high frame rates because the fixed camera introduces motion blur that makes the images softer plus are not interactive, videogames are not movies afterall.

Crysis is very smooth even at 25fps because of the excelent motion blur, now compared that to the animations of 25fps Diablo 2, not so smooth now is it.

Even just recently in the PC version of Alice madness returns I removed the 30fps frame rate limit and it's a night and day difference in gameplay, me and my friends didn't need to read or find out by using fraps, we could simply tell by playing that the frame rate was capped at 30, not just that it was capped but even got the specific frame rate correct.

At first we assumed it was caused by a Hard locked v-sync, can't run at 60 goto 30, then 20, then 15 to avoid image tearing, but instead it was a limit in the DefaultEngine.ini


bSmoothFrameRate=TRUE
MinSmoothedFrameRate=22
MaxSmoothedFrameRate=60
Alice Madness Returns\Alice2\AliceGame\Config (for any PC players)

*Edit

[UnrealEd.UnrealEdEngine]
bSmoothFrameRate=TRUE
MinSmoothedFrameRate=22.000000
MaxSmoothedFrameRate=60.000000
(same location)

Purrrfect.

 

[TiefBlau]

I don't think the human eye is capable of telling the difference between 30 FPS and 60 FPS, it's more likely to be something else.

Well, yes and no. For third-person games that you'd typically play with a controller anyways, like Assassin's Creed and hitman, frame rate isn't that important, because those tend to be slow and procedural anyways.

First-Person Shooters, however, belong to a family of crazy twitch-trigger high reflex games. In that case, good framerate can be of the utmost importance, just like in Starcraft, where all them crazy Koreans need to keep a good APM and micro at intense speeds.

PCs have a lot of other processes to run in the background and their OS's take up far more resources. Therefore PCs are terrible

A) Consoles have OS's too. In fact, just about every consumer electronic device out there nowadays has an OS.
B) It's called RAM. PC's tend to have a lot of it. Like, a cheap shitty PC will have at least twice as much, if not four times as much RAM as a 360.
[hr]640[/hr]
For me, I detest having to play First-Person Shooters on the console, but not because of some minor issue such as framerate. I'm not nearly that competitive.

It's the analog sticks. They're just not nearly as intuitive to maneuver as a mouse. That's all.

There are even games like Killzone and Halo that I modify a controller to use a mouse with, but even then there's a dead zone that I can't fix.

 

[Pearwood]

A) Consoles have OS's too. In fact, just about every consumer electronic device out there nowadays has an OS.
B) It's called RAM. PC's tend to have a lot of it. Like, a cheap shitty PC will have at least twice as much, if not four times as much RAM as a 360.
[hr]640[/hr]
For me, I detest having to play First-Person Shooters on the console, but not because of some minor issue such as framerate. I'm not nearly that competitive.

I know, I was just responding to a stupid comment with a stupid comment. Fight fire with fire kind of thing.

 

[Keava]

PCs have a lot of other processes to run in the background and their OS's take up far more resources. Therefore PCs are terrible

Even with 1 GB - 1.5 GB ram dedicated to running background processes and OS on a med PC you still have 1.5 - 2.5 GB system ram free and usually at least 512-1GB video ram.

With 64 bit optimization that gives you total of 2-3.5GB ram to play with, compared to 512 mb ram total of current gen consoles shared between system and video.

Not to mention some more dedicated PC have 8 GB system and 2 GB video ram set-ups.. especially if you use PC for some more complex stuff like digital graphic design.

The high quality visuals on consoles are possible thanks to relative low resolution of display and some tricks to make crappy textures look a bit better with proper use of colours, lightning and blur that makes up for anti aliasing and very limited FOV.

As far frames per second go. 30 fps allows smooth display for non-twitch based games. MMOs can feel smooth even as low as ~25fps. But for shooters and alike higher rate does make a difference.

 

[Numachuka]

A) Consoles have OS's too. In fact, just about every consumer electronic device out there nowadays has an OS.
B) It's called RAM. PC's tend to have a lot of it. Like, a cheap shitty PC will have at least twice as much, if not four times as much RAM as a 360.
[hr]640[/hr]
For me, I detest having to play First-Person Shooters on the console, but not because of some minor issue such as framerate. I'm not nearly that competitive.

I know, I was just responding to a stupid comment with a stupid comment. Fight fire with fire kind of thing.

That's a brilliant idea. How about I make some retarded reply now to get someone else to respond, when in fact you are just causing what you try to prevent.

 

[Smooth Operator]

Um, we seem to be mixing some things here so first off, CoD rules the market place because:
- they got more money on marketing then anyone else
- the game is very casual, spray and pray will work on even the best of players

Now why it feels good to play:
- smooth controls, CoD has always polished them to perfection, and in a fast paced game that is what you really need to strive for

- smooth animation and movement, alot of games will have hickups where some actions will stop others, some animations will take way too long, maps with invisible walls, and catching on corners will stop you dead,... and in CoD the guys put in the time to smooth things out.

- visuals, a visual response to your action is key to conveying world information, so you got over the top effects and text jumping all over the screen as you shoot someone and that gives you direct feedback on what went down

- consistent frame rate, sure a high average FPS number sounds neat but on consoles nearly irrelevant, what you really need is for the frames never to drop below the 30 mark, and that is a hard one, developers usually don't test extensively to ensure every part of the game will keep up the pace under all conditions so the occasional stutter is quite common.

Yes the higher FPS gives you an extra 3% to smoothness of it, but due to the slow console controls I really can't see that having much effect on anything, even on PC only the better players make use of such things.

 

[Korten12]

It goes without saying that: Call of Duty reigns supreme over the Console FPS market.

I think I got the reason why this is (and I believe some have already mentioned this before) because the 60 FPS. Most shooters on consoles have 30 FPS, and you can tell the difference. This is what makes COD feel better because it is running better. I was recently playing Homefront Demo on steam at a constant 60 FPS and it felt great getting kills.

This is why people play COD, well also because they like the gameplay but also because it runs great. I think what games like BF3 needs to do on consoles is to somehow get that 60 FPS and more gamers will move over to more shooter games.

(Note: This isn't a thread to hate on COD or wish it would fail, it mainly is to bring up point about FPS.)

SO people play COD because it looks nice at 60 FPS. I dont think anyone even notices.


IM sorry but thats just such a stupid argument.

I didn't say t hat was the ONLY Reason and I quote myself:

well also because they like the gameplay...