-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Infinity Ward not fazed by Battlefield 4's move to 60fps
- Thread starter shinobi602
- Start date
I know. I can't believe they cut out fish ai for collapsing skyscrapers!
LQX
Member
They might not have been fazed but I think a lot of COD fans were. For all the shit COD gets all over the place I love each one regardless but the showing of BF4, TitanFall, and Destiny were the first time I have been thoroughly drawn away from COD as those games were so much more compelling. I wanted to know more about those games than COD.
And I think for the first time COD will finally have some worthwhile competition, come next year, where COD fans might actually invest more time in other shooters and may not run to buy the latest if they don't attempt to push off into other areas to make the game as compelling as when MW first came on the scene.
And I think for the first time COD will finally have some worthwhile competition, come next year, where COD fans might actually invest more time in other shooters and may not run to buy the latest if they don't attempt to push off into other areas to make the game as compelling as when MW first came on the scene.
if you're one of those players, by all means, do not buy this game and stick to CoD. no one wants you on their team. serious. please think of your fellow gamers. avoid BF4. pls
Anton Sugar
Member
Thanks. I'm gonna try to hunt down the sources, been getting that question a lot.
How many times do I have to say people love COD because of its fast in your face action. Not because it's "kiddie players," "shallow gameplay," "kills freak" and etc. That's just trying to put the player base down. I have 2 k/d ratio in both COD and BF3, but prefer COD for that reason.
Deadly Cyclone
Pride of Iowa State
I've never heard of anyone who has given 64-Player Battlefield a chance, and still prefers Call of Duty. I'm sure those people exist, though.
I love Battlefield because, in that game, this statement is meaningless.
And Call of Duty does have a shallow gameplay loop. Rewarding, but ultimately shallow. That doesn't make it bad, just different.
And worse.
I love Battlefield because, in that game, this statement is meaningless.
And Call of Duty does have a shallow gameplay loop. Rewarding, but ultimately shallow. That doesn't make it bad, just different.
And worse.
1440p & SLI Titans max settings in BF3 64 player. Guess, I am the first person you know that prefer COD more...
Catchafire2000
Member
There's nothing boring about shooting a bird out the sky with a tank.
Honestly, I don't think CoD is going anywhere any time soon regardless of what Battlefield does. The casuals will always return to it because it rewards their skill level and there's nothing wrong with that. They're not going to find the same experience in other games and that's great because no one wants other games to go after the CoD crowd anyway.
The real evil was never CoD, but other developers trying to imitate the phenomenon of their success (badly).
The real evil was never CoD, but other developers trying to imitate the phenomenon of their success (badly).
3rdamention
Member
What's DICEs response to CODs move to dogs?
Timestamp? I watched is interview yesterday and didn't see anything about that.
-Pyromaniac-
Member
I just love how Dice has been completely unafraid to just show all the gameplay they have so far especially the multiplayer. Always tired of Call of Duty's wait till late summer thing. Just showwwww it.
test_account
XP-39C²
The big difference between Battlefield and Call of Duty, in my opinion, is the pace of the action. In COD, you get instant respawns (not in all modes, but in many of them), so there is no waiting. There is also much less runing around trying to find the enemy.
FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU-
Rebel Leader
THE POWER OF BUTTERSCOTCH BOTTOMS
a skycraper
NullPointer
Member
Infinity Ward shitting bricks confirmed.
yep. been waiting for this day.
Portugeezer
Member
Of course they're fazed. 60fps becomes less special for their game.
Every fucking year they would be like "blah blah blah amazing this... AND at 60 frames per second!"...
Now it's like "and at 60fps... like this game and that game is too!"
Every fucking year they would be like "blah blah blah amazing this... AND at 60 frames per second!"...
Now it's like "and at 60fps... like this game and that game is too!"
Now its all about Dogs, Fish AI, and Lean
INNOVATION
I hope Titanfall is a huge success.
shinobi602
Member
NullPointer
Member
60 fails per second, sure.
Anton Sugar
Member
The sad thing is that IW really has worked their engine for all its worth, and it's impressive in a lot of ways due to that.
I really wanted to see what they could do with an actual NEW engine.
I really wanted to see what they could do with an actual NEW engine.
All this talk about COD's low skill ceiling reminds me how sad it is that I still suck at the game. My KDR in COD is something like 0.6. 0.8 on a good day. I don't know if playing the PC version puts you up against a more skilled playerbase or if I just don't play the game often enough (I only have maybe 20 hours logged on MW3 MP), but I just don't see this "low skill ceiling" people are talking about.
BF3 struggles to stay at 30 on current gen systems, with graphic settings lower than the lowest possible settings on PC with having smaller maps and less than half the players on a map at once. A solid 30 fps is probably out of the question for 360/PS3.
My play style is different. COD is run and gun, while in BF, a slow moving camper. Run and gun is more fun in my book.
Dance Inferno
Unconfirmed Member
I don't see COD moving to a new next-gen engine until next year's iteration. This year they're still heavily courting the PS360 crowd so it makes sense to keep using their current engine in order to reduce costs (and since there really won't be many PS4/XO owners to justify an investment in an all-new engine).
The way I see it Treyarch has overtaken Infinity Ward as the "main" COD developer, so they're probably the ones who are leading the charge on creating the new COD engine.
As far as COD vs. BF, I'm not a fan of multiplayer shooters in general, but I had tons of fun with BF2 and BF2142 and their large-scale battles. Hopefully BF4 will pull me back in the same way those games did. I hate what killstreaks have done to COD.
The way I see it Treyarch has overtaken Infinity Ward as the "main" COD developer, so they're probably the ones who are leading the charge on creating the new COD engine.
As far as COD vs. BF, I'm not a fan of multiplayer shooters in general, but I had tons of fun with BF2 and BF2142 and their large-scale battles. Hopefully BF4 will pull me back in the same way those games did. I hate what killstreaks have done to COD.
ALBOFIGHTER
Member
You know I wouldn't mind if the cod team was a small studio with limited resources to put out high quality games. It just pisses me off that they're one of the most if not the most profitable company in console gaming who just rehash their shit instead of doing their best like many other snall studios are. There's no excuse for it.
Lionheart1827
Member
This is what was keeping me from moving to BF from COD on consoles. Looks like I'm gonna try the BF party this time 
No, back in 07 CoD4 looked incredible. I suppose mostly because no one could actually run Crysis oe how good it looked. But damn, CoD 4 was good.
Anton Sugar
Member
Yeah, this too.
They should be worried. I've bought every CoD since MW2 for 360 and have played essentially every game in the series. I'm a fan for sure. I haven't really played any BF since 1942 but even I had to take note of the fact that not only does BF4 look much better than COD Ghosts, it actually plays at 60 fps now as well.
It was one thing when your competitors were running at a slower frame rate to not look as good, but when they're on even footing in that regarding, then you need to step your game up.
For what it's worth, I thought the BF4 footage looked too busy for my tastes. I personally like the smaller maps of COD since it provides more of a balls-to-the-wall action rush but graphically, I was blown away by BF4.
It was one thing when your competitors were running at a slower frame rate to not look as good, but when they're on even footing in that regarding, then you need to step your game up.
For what it's worth, I thought the BF4 footage looked too busy for my tastes. I personally like the smaller maps of COD since it provides more of a balls-to-the-wall action rush but graphically, I was blown away by BF4.
Ya it would put you up against a higher skill range on PC because of the mouse and keyboard.
I've actually hear it argued that the game is completely different on PC because of the input.
I've played over 400 hours of BF3 and have over a 2.0 K/D and all I do is run and gun.
Probably not getting BF4 though, at least not right away.
Eclectic Jabber Monkey
Member
This stuff killed the franchise for me. It destroys gameplay balance. The helos in CoD4 were atrocious and nuke in MW2 put the stake through CoDs heart.
Holly Caust
Banned
COD4 still looks better than any cod after it imo.
It just looks more colorful than any of the others,
I doubt IW is calling the shots here. They just do what the publisher tells them to do at the end of the day, which means they will pump out CoD until the cow gets milked dry. If the original IW team stayed at Activision, there would have been ZERO chance for something like TitanFall to exist.
ActiveRush
Member
I like Call of Duty's gameplay better than Battlefield because it feels smoother and more responsive. That might be a product of COD being 60 fps and BF being 30 fps.
Triggerhappytel
Member
Bullshit. So Uncharted 2, Gears of War 2, Demon's Souls and Halo Reach aren't worth playing entirety due to their frame rate?
Mass Effect
Member
I'm really hoping this will be the case, but I don't want either TF or BF to be the "next big thing."
I'm hoping for an equal balance between these games. No more singular FPS franchises dominating the market.
Actually, I hope FPS are less popular next gen so they aren't flooding the market, but I can't really see that one happening, by the looks of E3.
Casanova
Member
BF4 and CoD are two entirely different genres of shooters. CoD is an arena-style shooter whereas Battlefield is a war simulator.
60 FPS or 30 FPS - the dudebro's cannot and will not know the difference.
CoD is a great game to play when my more casual friends are over and for the Search and Destroy gametype on CoD, which is the only gametype I really like to play.
For me, personally, 60 FPS Battlefield is alluring but not a "game-changer". That's like saying a minor framerate increase in Dark Souls will inherently grab Elder Scrolls fanboys for that reason alone.
Infinity Ward is not phased by this because the FPS improvement is barely acknowledged - and even then, only by an exiguous portion of their target demographic.
60 FPS or 30 FPS - the dudebro's cannot and will not know the difference.
CoD is a great game to play when my more casual friends are over and for the Search and Destroy gametype on CoD, which is the only gametype I really like to play.
For me, personally, 60 FPS Battlefield is alluring but not a "game-changer". That's like saying a minor framerate increase in Dark Souls will inherently grab Elder Scrolls fanboys for that reason alone.
Infinity Ward is not phased by this because the FPS improvement is barely acknowledged - and even then, only by an exiguous portion of their target demographic.
For one thing people bunnyhop Quake-style on the PC version.
COD4 on PC was an utterly different game because of the unrestricted player counts. You ever try to play Shipment with 40 players?
NullPointer
Member
They do, they just can't explain it.
Nah, BO2 is definitely more colourful. But the simplicity and freshness of CoD4 at the time was amazing.