Cam Lee Inquisition
Dragon Age: Inquisition producer Cameron Lee has become a fixture here at AusGamers. The Aussie ex-pat took tie out of his Gamescom duties to chat with us again. Check it out!
Wrestling Time
We take a look at 2K Games' latest WWE contender and find out just what the game has in store for fans of the wrestling series. Click here for our full preview!
Resident Evil Within
The Evil Within is creeping up just around the release corner, so we decided to take a look back at Shinji Mikami's incredible Resident Evil 4. Click here for more!
handsome devil
We took the five winged, five week challenge with Hearthstone's first campaign and walked away less deathrattled than you might think. Read on for more!
Post by Steve Farrelly @ 04:38pm 29/06/11 | 37 Comments
In an interview with AusGamers at this year's E3 (click here to view), Sledgehammer Games' Glen Schofield essentially laid the console frames-per-second smackdown on their "competitor" - let's call them "Field 3. B"... no wait, that's too obvious, how about "Battle. F 3" - by pointing that that unlike Modern Warfare 3, which runs at 60-fps on the consoles, their competitor's game wouldn't.

"You can go out and name your engine and call it whatever you want, right. You know, I’ve done that before; I’ve seen that trick and the bottom line is, this game will run at 60 frames a second. Not sure any of our competitors will," he told us.

"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," Schofield added. "And I think 60 is our competitive edge and you just don’t throw that away."

"You don’t ship an engine, you ship a game," he said.

When broached on the topic of dropping dedicated server support for the PC again in the same interview, Schofield was quick to assert there'd been o official line from Sledgehammer Games or Infinity Ward on the subject.

"All that’s just rumours," he responded. "I don’t know where this stuff comes from because we aren’t talking about it; we haven’t even made decisions internally ourselves... The truth is that so much stuff is rumours that we’d love to be able to get out there and talk about this stuff, but just wait ‘till multiplayer comes out and I’m not saying that’s going to be the surprise, but the surprises... it’s going to be a great new game."

So there you have it, the modern shooter slinging match is in full swing. Stand by for our full video and interview transcript with Glen coming shortly.





Buy now from Green Man Gaming for only GBP£26.99 (USD$39.99 on Steam)!
(compare all prices)






Latest Comments
maRtz
Posted 04:54pm 29/6/11
lol have a cry
Sile
Posted 04:55pm 29/6/11
It still doesn't matter. Can't compare a shoe box to a mansion imo. BF3 will always win.
Erisus
Posted 05:01pm 29/6/11
All hes ranting on about is how his game runs at 60fps. Thats the only thing this games got going for it at the moment.

'You dont ship an engine, you ship a game" - Pretty sure dice has shown more gameplay videos then IW/Sledgehammer/Raven studios has.
Midda
Posted 05:03pm 29/6/11
Haha, who gives a s***? The CoD series has been stale for ages now. At least Dice manage to keep their franchise fresh and interesting.
Tollaz0r!
Posted 05:12pm 29/6/11
Hi guys, 60 fps.

Our game runs at 60 fps but theirs doesn't run at 60 fps. I bet they wish it ran at 60 fps because 60 fps is where it's at. If you don't run at 60 fps, you might as well not make a gaming that can't run at 60 fps.

So there you have it guys our game runs at 60 fps!

P.S. The surprise is that our game runs at 60 fps on consoles!
LOTUK
Posted 05:15pm 29/6/11
Of course they run at 60FPS on the console. It's the same engine AND game re-skinned for all the MW games. There's no doubt at all in the slightest which game I'll be going for. And if that's the best he can come up with for slinging at *cough* attle ield hree *cough* then I doubt they're going to come out with anything ground breaking.

(their games remind me of apple. Hey here's the same thing again! Same problems, bigger number... oooooo)
DM
Posted 05:18pm 29/6/11
Someone needs to link him this video. It says everything anyone needs to know about this whole MW3 vs BF3 debate.

FSCB
Posted 05:22pm 29/6/11
haha this guy sounds like a complete tool, but he knows and Activision know that the rubbish he spurts forth will appeal to the little kids and teenagers who don't even understand what fps is: "COD's better 'cos it will run at 60fps" etc.
You can easily run 60 fps, just have nothing in the way of graphics, lighting, physics or content...i'm sure my windows screensaver could run at 60fps on a console, but its not terribly exciting.
And "you dont ship an engine, you ship a game"...no doubt, but the reverse is also true "you don't just ship a game, you ship it with an improved and impressive engine"
Dan
Posted 05:33pm 29/6/11
Personally I reckon it's a very good response based on what they have to work with. He really didn't say it in an arrogant way either, it was purely a defensive answer and I think the best he could have given.

Frame rate might be an irrelevant thing for PC gamers, where if you want either BF3 or MM3 to run over 60FPS, you can just throw a bit more money at it and it will. But on consoles -- where the vast bulk of the market for these games now is -- if you value that smooth framerate over sheer visual fidelity, their game is going to have that. It's a definite selling point for some people.

That said, why anyone would care if it has silky frames if the netcode is still dependant on your opponents home connections is another question entirely. They better damn well hope that they're offering dedicated servers on all platforms, otherwise, who gives a damn what the frame rate is, because the experience will still be laggy anyway.

Any developer that things client-hosted games are sufficient hasn't tried playing their game from Australia and getting matchmade with Americans and Europeans because there's not enough local players in the wait-pool at any given time.
MARLINBLADE
Posted 05:32pm 29/6/11
I just love how he craps on about you just use the same engine and build and build and build on it... you upgrade it and make it better.

Really....???? Cause to be honest...i can't see it...

+ 1 DM's vid.... the brown bomb of FAIL
FraktuRe
Posted 05:38pm 29/6/11
It's only 60fps because it runs on an engine 6+ years old. I can run counterstrike at 1000+ fps, it doesn't mean it is good.

And the response about the Dedicated servers is pretty clear that they won't have them, because they're lazy f****.
Khel
Posted 05:45pm 29/6/11
Everyone knows 30fps is all you need anyway
Dan
Posted 05:51pm 29/6/11
And the response about the Dedicated servers is pretty clear that they won't have them, because they're lazy f****.
I get the impression that they won't too, but I don't get why you think it's because they're lazy? It's actually been way more effort for them to implement and develop their matchmaking system with all the server migration and everything. It's the most advanced form of that multiplayer model out there.

It's not about laziness in not implementing dedi servers ,it's about control. The publisher controls when the game's multiplayer gets switched on and offer and they control moderation powers over every player on the service. They can track stats right across the entire playerbase and prevent people from creating their own modifications and content that might erode sales of their DLC. It's all about control.

It's only 60fps because it runs on an engine 6+ years old. I can run counterstrike at 1000+ fps, it doesn't mean it is good.
Also, keep going on the 6+ years thing. Pretty sure Infinity Ward originally started with id Tech 3 (Quake 3 Engine) as a base for the first CoD, though I doubt much is left.
FraktuRe
Posted 05:50pm 29/6/11
^They can do that too with Black Ops Dedicated server model. They have that control already. The only reason to not update that model to mw3 is because they couldn't be bothered, just like they couldn't be bothered making a game that doesn't suck :)
sleepy
Posted 05:54pm 29/6/11

Everyone knows 30fps is all you need anyway



ahhh that ole chestnut... oh you devil, you.
Python
Posted 05:58pm 29/6/11
IN BEFORE BF3 FANBOIS

too late

Eorl
Posted 06:42pm 29/6/11
IN BEFORE COD FANBOIS

oh wait...
Infidel
Posted 06:57pm 29/6/11
I dont understand how you could enjoy the multiplayer of COD over the battlefield games, each to their own I guess. the original modern warfare was fun but I never got any of the further games since it was just more of the same, just simple fast paced fps on tiny maps.
Stalfax
Posted 07:06pm 29/6/11
What FraktuRe said: Of course it runs higher FPS on dated (console) hardware because it looks like ass.
fade
Posted 07:10pm 29/6/11
Everyone knows 30fps is all you need anyway
Bah
Posted 07:52pm 29/6/11
frames a second and I’d be a little scared at this point -- in June
Then...
we haven’t even made decisions internally ourselves...
Wonder if he noticed the irony.
Raider
Posted 08:08pm 29/6/11
The 1 thing that s**** me off about BF is how there's no sniper limits, the amount of games i've played which have been ruined by f***wits with snipers just camping the entire time while the other team just facerolls over them... kinda annoying.. Whereas in CoD since the maps are smaller 1 guy can make more of a difference.
Infidel
Posted 08:19pm 29/6/11
Raider, I only got battlefield bad comapny 2 recently for pc and I played on one server that had a limit of 5 snipers so I am guessing it can be controlled on the dedicated server?
teq
Posted 08:22pm 29/6/11
we're never getting game_server.exe's back are we?
they've realised that people will play an awesome game forever if they can run their own dedicated servers and they really dont want that
Suxsuxsux
Posted 11:45pm 29/6/11
The fact he is being cagey about dedicated servers says it all. Don't want to start the negative vibes too soon.
How many games are they going to squeeze out of this engine before it starts looking like Duke Nukem by comparison to the new engines from Crysis, Rage and BF.
Python
Posted 12:49am 30/6/11
I enjoy both COD and BF on PC, they each have their own merits.

Everyone basically shifts onto the next game.

You can still get games in MW2 so its not like they've killed it off it's just that no one is playing.

On console though there's tonnes of players for MW2, MW and Black Ops.
Bad Company 2 for console is very very average and COD takes it to pieces there.

I like the party system for MW2 when it was popular, it made it very easy for a few friends to get a game together.

I'll still be getting both games this year.


last edited by Python at 00:49:01 30/Jun/11
deeper
Posted 01:18am 30/6/11
Yeah same for me pyth, i think i'll definetly pickup both because mw3 is looking very mw2-ish (which i like - f***en hated blops though)

Didnt realise you played mw2, guessing it's under alias or a different game mode

I wish more people played domination but it seems i can only get decent matchmaking in tdm these days
Kf
Posted 01:19am 30/6/11
When you have nothing, u cling to anything
Enska
Posted 05:53am 30/6/11
^^ wow, insightful..

I feel the same deeper, mw2 just nailed it, even with the lack of dedi's
I'm more of a SnD man but so hoping they have that :P
Sc00bs
Posted 07:02am 30/6/11
wow if more fps on console is all this game has to boast about its pretty pathetic
Suxsuxsux
Posted 07:11am 30/6/11
Python wrote:
"You can still get games in MW2 so its not like they've killed it off it's just that no one is playing."

Perhaps it is because they have moved to the independently patched version of MW2 that adds dedicated servers.
Enska
Posted 07:25am 30/6/11
I doubt it, last time I checked the player lvl cap was 18-20 and cheaters were running rampant on those dedi servers.
Dan
Posted 08:43am 30/6/11
I wish more people played domination but it seems i can only get decent matchmaking in tdm these days
This is my main gripe with matchmaking client-hosted games versus dedicated servers. With dedis, you would just be able to browse the list, sort by domination and join a server and even if it was empty, eventually others would see you in there, join in and a game would start.

With the matchmaking procedure, it's just utter pot luck and you have to rely on launching and searching for a game at the exact same time as enough others for something to kick off. This might be all well and good when a game is at it's height of popularity and you're in the USA with 2 million player-base, but it's just crap when you're in Australia.

I don't know how anyone that came from the old school of PC gaming can put up with staring at that "looking for players" screen that after serveral wasted minutes of your life, you don't know if it's going to come back with "no games found" or drop you into a room of players on the other side of the world. It's just nasty.

And that's a game that's 2 years old. Meanwhile, ten years on I could still load up counter-strike any given day and instantly see if there are others playing on local servers and that's a mod, something that's no longer even offered with these new breed of popular shooters and won't be possible at all under a client-hosted game model. So when you support a game that doesn't offer dedicated servers, you're also driving another nail into the modding coffin.
Enska
Posted 08:49am 30/6/11
I wholeheartedly agree, but as evidenced with Brink and to a certain extent Blops, you still need to ship a solid game irrespective of the hosting model used.
This is why I could deal with mw2's matchmaking, the game was just that fun.
but we've done the mw2 and why is it still popular discussion before. :P /end derail.
Cat Scratch
Posted 09:06am 30/6/11
Love it! our FPS is more then yours..... its like getting stuck in an losing argument and coming out with a "your Mum" comment because you have nothing better to add.
Dan
Posted 09:10am 30/6/11
as evidenced with Brink and to a certain extent Blops, you still need to ship a solid game irrespective of the hosting model used.
This is why I could deal with mw2's matchmaking, the game was just that fun.
Yep and Crysis 2 has also now done many of the right things too (mod SDK and public dedicated server files just landed today), but this thread is about a different "competitor", one that is poised to potentially be a lot more popular than any of the games that have done dedicated servers properly recently.
Sc00bs
Posted 04:18pm 05/7/11
i really really hope they fix the server issues.

MW2 sucked ass becuase of constant losing connection with servers, host migration etc. Even on the xbox its a constant battle jsut to find some people to play with.

I also hope survival mode is good, i enjoy playing zombies on black ops. but it definately needs some tweaking. So you dont finally reach lvl 20 after an hr of playing, finally get a good gun and then die and have to start the hr long journey over again.

Needs to give you a checkpoint each 10 levels or something that you can retry from a certain number of times and then have a retry count on the "leaderboards" section
Commenting has been locked for this item.
37 Comments
Show
 
Log In
User:  
Pass:  

Advertise with Us | Download Media Kit | Privacy Policy | Contact Us
© Copyright 2001-2014 AusGamers™ Pty Ltd. ACN 093 772 242.
A Mammoth Media web development / Australian VPS Hosting by Mammoth Networks