Dear MW3: No One Cares About Framerate



Dear Reader,

It has recently come out that “Battlefield 3″ will only run at 30 fps on the consoles, and Glen Schofield from Sledgehammer Games has taken the opportunity to make a big deal of that. Proudly pronouncing that MW3 will run at 60 fps, Schofield seems to be under the impression that anyone in the world cares, ever. Allow me to politely rectify that position: absolutely no one does.

Of course MW3 runs at 60, its engine is four years old and has the texture detail of a kindergartener’s sketch of his mommy. BF3 looks better hung over and un-showered than MW3 in his Sunday best. And besides being pretty, it also offers a revolutionary amount of destructible environments which Sledgehammer can’t touch, and which add a new layer to the experience. “Frostbite 2″ is cosmetically and functionally superior, is my point here. Yours just goes a little faster. Get over yourself. Half the people playing either game can’t even point out the difference between 30 and 60 anyway.

I’m amused by Schofield’s plucky dismissal of the millions of dollars DICE spent creating a from-the-ground-up overhaul of “Frostibite.” His answer? “You can go out and name your engine and call it whatever you want, right?” What? You think the issue here is the name? It’s called “Frostbite 2!” It’s not like DICE showed up at E3  with the “Charles Mingus 5.” The last one was called “Frostbite,” and now they put a 2 next to this version, because they made it after the other one. Not a revolutionary concept. I don’t perceive what subtle trickery you think is happening here, Glen.

To be honest, your 60 fps is almost too smooth. It gives things a glassy, half-real quality that I’m not always in love with. It’s perfect for multiplayer, where it just stays out of my way, but it’s a purely ergonomic machine, designed to reduct drag and be ignored. Even the original “Modern Warfare” wasn’t built on a new engine, just a re-tooled version of the same tech that ran “Call of Duty 2.” This stuff is really starting to show it’s age, guys, and I’m not sure you should rush to needle the deficiencies of other people’s tech, lest you simply draw attention to your shortcomings. As Christ once said, take the log from your eye before you make a move at the speck in someone else’s.


the question is vague. it doesn’t say what type of candy, whether anyone is watching…


  • Kenny

    Obviously you do not play much fps games. I am a hardcore gamer who played fps games when they first came out like cs, doom, quake, and wolf stein. Let me tell you tho, fps does matter. When playing a fps game, reaction speed matters greatly. Every millisecond counts when playing competitive. I have a 120hz monitor and when playing css, I notice a big difference between 30, 60, 100, and 120. BF3 running at 30 fps is worse than 60 because bf3 will not be a constant 30 fps. It will dip during huge firefights to around 10-15 fps, and a dip from 30 to 10 or 15 is a lot more choppy and noticeable than a dip from 60 to 50-55.

  • Kenny

    P.S. Real games care more about gameplay than graphics. Frames per second = better gameplay > graphics.

  • Andrew Allen

    “Real gamers,” as you put it, are the target audience of the Battlefield franchise. MW is the more casual-friendly series between the two. If anyone knows the importance of maintaining framerate, it’s DICE. Hell that’s why the player count on consoles is so incredibly low. You assume it won’t be constant, but I think you’re wrong. This is not DICE’s first rodeo.

    I’ve been playing Battlefield as long as it’s existed, and the Frostbite engine is made of freakin’ rock. Consoles, PC, whatever, it runs solidly and smoothly.

  • Kenny

    Thanks for the reply, your right that I’m not sure if the fps is constant or not. But I think we can safely assume from the hardware age of the ps3 and 360.

  • Andrew Allen

    Can we? Do you play Bad Company 2? Cause I do, and I’ve never really noticed a slowdown issue.