ExpectTheWorst

TauntzE

ExpectTheWorst

sF-Jordz

krwskater25

jayjay92895

krwskater25 Oooo.... 60 FPS.... That don't mean crap if you have a junk host

theres a big diff betweeen 60 fps and 30 fps just saying not ttrying to start a big flame war

Ok tell me what the diff is.

30 frames per second is the difference you ****, seriously how old are you 10?

You told tht **** whos boss. BF3 ftw

YOU'RE clearly the one who is "10" here. Now read this very carefully because you're about to be proven 100% wrong and everyone here who says "DURR MW3 GONNA BE BETTER CUZ WE HAVE 30 MORE FPS~~" will also be in the same boat as you.

To give an idea of what 30 FPS as opposed to 60 FPS means, consider this: Movies you see at the theater are 24 FPS, which is the most common industry standard for film. Humans generally cannot easily detecte differences in excess of 30 FPS. 30 FPS will do just fine for Battlefield 3, as it would for MW3 if it was also running at 30 FPS.

WANT MORE? What it comes down to, and this is what many console players (Including you, derp) and even members of the press (The absolute GENIUSES at IW) fail to understand, is that the decision to make the game run at 30 FPS and 720p is because to do otherwise would come at extreme expense to the quality of the graphics and even gameplay. Console hardware, both PS3 and 360 alike, is very outdated by now. Battlefield 3 is a truly next-generation first-person shooter, and its unparalleled graphical and technological capabilities require PC hardware to be fully realized, which is half a decade more advanced and powerful than console hardware. Even at 30 FPS and 720p, BF3 pushes console graphics and technology to the absolute visual limit of the console hardwares ability WITHOUT risking damage to the gameplay. It is impressive that the only gameplay compromise that DICE was forced to make for the console versions of BF3 is dropping the player limit from 64 to 24 players.

MW3, on the other hand, is running the same engine they've been running since CoD4 (Just revamped) trolololololol

Well said, but you just proved yourself as fanboy #1

Most people on here are going to be playing on console anyways so bringing up PC is going to be superior is pointless because it has and always will be. Graphics doesn't mean much either, it may look pretty but the gameplay is what matters, which we won't find out until BOTH the games come out. So cool your gym shorts and have some patience.

Fanboy? Hardly. I was max prestige on CoD4/WaW/MW2 (On top of almost 25 days of gameplay)/and Black Ops. I actually just started play BC2 a few weeks ago. I'm just stating facts. DICE has a new engine, IW does not. One of the first things Robert Bowling said was that there was no new engine and that they were just improving on the old one, which there is nothing wrong with that. It still looks DECENT. I'm getting Battlefield 3 before MW3 because of DEDICATED SERVERS and a server browser. Host migration? Nope. Lag? Extremely minimal

I'm tired of CoD. They pump one out every year when it's basically a carbon-copy of the last. It's the main online shooter I have played in the past 5 years. I consider myself very good at CoD, and frankly I'm tired of the repetitiveness and how easy it's become for me. I crave something new, thus why I'm getting BF3 and GOW3. Why? Because these games are on a completely different level competitively.

Will I be purchasing MW3? Not before Gears, Battlefield, Skyrim, Minecraft, Batman, Saints Row, Dead Island, and Madden. Hell, I might not EVER get it.

Oh, and regarding the PC argument: Duh. PC will always be better than console. I never stated otherwise. Sure, the FPS drop on PC might feel different with mouse sensitivity, but that's it. And console is where all the sales will be, because I'm sure MW3 will be the most-pirated game on PC (a title that Black Ops ironically holds)

ExpectTheWorst

sF-Jordz

krwskater25

jayjay92895

krwskater25 Oooo.... 60 FPS.... That don't mean crap if you have a junk host

theres a big diff betweeen 60 fps and 30 fps just saying not ttrying to start a big flame war

Ok tell me what the diff is.

30 frames per second is the difference you ****, seriously how old are you 10?

YOU'RE clearly the one who is "10" here. Now read this very carefully because you're about to be proven 100% wrong and everyone here who says "DURR MW3 GONNA BE BETTER CUZ WE HAVE 30 MORE FPS~~" will also be in the same boat as you.

To give an idea of what 30 FPS as opposed to 60 FPS means, consider this: Movies you see at the theater are 24 FPS, which is the most common industry standard for film. Humans generally cannot easily detecte differences in excess of 30 FPS. 30 FPS will do just fine for Battlefield 3, as it would for MW3 if it was also running at 30 FPS.

WANT MORE? What it comes down to, and this is what many console players (Including you, derp) and even members of the press (The absolute GENIUSES at IW) fail to understand, is that the decision to make the game run at 30 FPS and 720p is because to do otherwise would come at extreme expense to the quality of the graphics and even gameplay. Console hardware, both PS3 and 360 alike, is very outdated by now. Battlefield 3 is a truly next-generation first-person shooter, and its unparalleled graphical and technological capabilities require PC hardware to be fully realized, which is half a decade more advanced and powerful than console hardware. Even at 30 FPS and 720p, BF3 pushes console graphics and technology to the absolute visual limit of the console hardwares ability WITHOUT risking damage to the gameplay. It is impressive that the only gameplay compromise that DICE was forced to make for the console versions of BF3 is dropping the player limit from 64 to 24 players.

MW3, on the other hand, is running the same engine they've been running since CoD4 (Just revamped) trolololololol

TauntzE

ExpectTheWorst

sF-Jordz

krwskater25

jayjay92895

krwskater25 Oooo.... 60 FPS.... That don't mean crap if you have a junk host

theres a big diff betweeen 60 fps and 30 fps just saying not ttrying to start a big flame war

Ok tell me what the diff is.

30 frames per second is the difference you ****, seriously how old are you 10?

YOU'RE clearly the one who is "10" here. Now read this very carefully because you're about to be proven 100% wrong and everyone here who says "DURR MW3 GONNA BE BETTER CUZ WE HAVE 30 MORE FPS~~" will also be in the same boat as you.

To give an idea of what 30 FPS as opposed to 60 FPS means, consider this: Movies you see at the theater are 24 FPS, which is the most common industry standard for film. Humans generally cannot easily detecte differences in excess of 30 FPS. 30 FPS will do just fine for Battlefield 3, as it would for MW3 if it was also running at 30 FPS.

WANT MORE? What it comes down to, and this is what many console players (Including you, derp) and even members of the press (The absolute GENIUSES at IW) fail to understand, is that the decision to make the game run at 30 FPS and 720p is because to do otherwise would come at extreme expense to the quality of the graphics and even gameplay. Console hardware, both PS3 and 360 alike, is very outdated by now. Battlefield 3 is a truly next-generation first-person shooter, and its unparalleled graphical and technological capabilities require PC hardware to be fully realized, which is half a decade more advanced and powerful than console hardware. Even at 30 FPS and 720p, BF3 pushes console graphics and technology to the absolute visual limit of the console hardwares ability WITHOUT risking damage to the gameplay. It is impressive that the only gameplay compromise that DICE was forced to make for the console versions of BF3 is dropping the player limit from 64 to 24 players.

MW3, on the other hand, is running the same engine they've been running since CoD4 (Just revamped) trolololololol

Well said, but you just proved yourself as fanboy #1

Most people on here are going to be playing on console anyways so bringing up PC is going to be superior is pointless because it has and always will be. Graphics doesn't mean much either, it may look pretty but the gameplay is what matters, which we won't find out until BOTH the games come out. So cool your gym shorts and have some patience.

MatthewSteier I'm definitely not getting either games because of FPS, it is the game play the defines the fun. And there really is no better game, its exactly that, a game. Its the individuals job to determine their preference. And just because they have an opinion doesnt mean their wrong. The flame wars between MW3 and BF3 are like two people fighting because one is left handed and one is right. Just play both and respect them for what they are.

triksta2k11 I think 24 fps is the limit for the human eye to pick up on.
So anything over that just looks the same really to the human eye.

krwskater25

ExpectTheWorst

sF-Jordz

krwskater25

jayjay92895

krwskater25 Oooo.... 60 FPS.... That don't mean crap if you have a junk host

theres a big diff betweeen 60 fps and 30 fps just saying not ttrying to start a big flame war

Ok tell me what the diff is.

30 frames per second is the difference you ****, seriously how old are you 10?

YOU'RE clearly the one who is "10" here. Now read this very carefully because you're about to be proven 100% wrong and everyone here who says "DURR MW3 GONNA BE BETTER CUZ WE HAVE 30 MORE FPS~~" will also be in the same boat as you.

To give an idea of what 30 FPS as opposed to 60 FPS means, consider this: Movies you see at the theater are 24 FPS, which is the most common industry standard for film. Humans generally cannot easily detecte differences in excess of 30 FPS. 30 FPS will do just fine for Battlefield 3, as it would for MW3 if it was also running at 30 FPS.

WANT MORE? What it comes down to, and this is what many console players (Including you, derp) and even members of the press (The absolute GENIUSES at IW) fail to understand, is that the decision to make the game run at 30 FPS and 720p is because to do otherwise would come at extreme expense to the quality of the graphics and even gameplay. Console hardware, both PS3 and 360 alike, is very outdated by now. Battlefield 3 is a truly next-generation first-person shooter, and its unparalleled graphical and technological capabilities require PC hardware to be fully realized, which is half a decade more advanced and powerful than console hardware. Even at 30 FPS and 720p, BF3 pushes console graphics and technology to the absolute visual limit of the console hardwares ability WITHOUT risking damage to the gameplay. It is impressive that the only gameplay compromise that DICE was forced to make for the console versions of BF3 is dropping the player limit from 64 to 24 players.

MW3, on the other hand, is running the same engine they've been running since CoD4 (Just revamped) trolololololol

Nuff said!

ExpectTheWorst

sF-Jordz

krwskater25

jayjay92895

krwskater25 Oooo.... 60 FPS.... That don't mean crap if you have a junk host

theres a big diff betweeen 60 fps and 30 fps just saying not ttrying to start a big flame war

Ok tell me what the diff is.

30 frames per second is the difference you ****, seriously how old are you 10?

YOU'RE clearly the one who is "10" here. Now read this very carefully because you're about to be proven 100% wrong and everyone here who says "DURR MW3 GONNA BE BETTER CUZ WE HAVE 30 MORE FPS~~" will also be in the same boat as you.

To give an idea of what 30 FPS as opposed to 60 FPS means, consider this: Movies you see at the theater are 24 FPS, which is the most common industry standard for film. Humans generally cannot easily detecte differences in excess of 30 FPS. 30 FPS will do just fine for Battlefield 3, as it would for MW3 if it was also running at 30 FPS.

WANT MORE? What it comes down to, and this is what many console players (Including you, derp) and even members of the press (The absolute GENIUSES at IW) fail to understand, is that the decision to make the game run at 30 FPS and 720p is because to do otherwise would come at extreme expense to the quality of the graphics and even gameplay. Console hardware, both PS3 and 360 alike, is very outdated by now. Battlefield 3 is a truly next-generation first-person shooter, and its unparalleled graphical and technological capabilities require PC hardware to be fully realized, which is half a decade more advanced and powerful than console hardware. Even at 30 FPS and 720p, BF3 pushes console graphics and technology to the absolute visual limit of the console hardwares ability WITHOUT risking damage to the gameplay. It is impressive that the only gameplay compromise that DICE was forced to make for the console versions of BF3 is dropping the player limit from 64 to 24 players.

MW3, on the other hand, is running the same engine they've been running since CoD4 (Just revamped) trolololololol