Google+

Battlefield 3 vs Modern Warfare 3: “You don’t ship an engine, you ship a game,” says Sledgehammer

Sledgehammer Games’ co-founder gets fired up over MW3’s 60 frames-per-second

Words: on June 29, 2011
Back to Article

58 comments

  • GayforGilbert - June 30, 2011 3:25 a.m.

    @ThatGamerDude: If you think that people defending Battlefield are fanboys, then what exactly would you call yourself?

  • Voodoowolfe - June 30, 2011 3:22 a.m.

    Yeah I agree with everyone that has posted. CoD is the same BS over and over again. I thought they were the top of the pile till I played a demo of Bad Company 2. Oh once that happened I was hooked. "I can take a tank and destroy buildings with it? Really??" How does CoD compare? "Look I can dolphin" Now I see why Activision hasn't been firing back at DICE and such on their verbal sparring. Cause if 60fps is all they got, coming from some loser that just got handed the job. Well I say bring the BF3 and let it rock MW3 to the ground

  • trojan12 - June 30, 2011 3:16 a.m.

    I have to admit, when I first started playing Battlefield, I was off put by how slow everything seemed to move (having come from CoD4/MW2). However, it all feels more coherent, natural, and realistic now that I've played it for a good while, and it makes CoD feel like Doom by comparison. Of course, graphics and frames per second mean jack shit if the gameplay isn't very good. That's where BF3 will have MW3 by the balls >:)

  • ThatGamerDude - June 30, 2011 2:53 a.m.

    AND the battlefield fan-boys keep on bitching again and again. Seriously all they do is complain about Call of Duty and how its graphics are "outdated" and how its the "same thing every year". People are just jealous that COD has grossed more revenue than Battlefield has (which in turn makes it more popular. To me, COD doesn't have to change anything to their games other than the usual setting, plot, etc... people play the game more because it is more easier and that they don't find it too repetitive. As for Battlefield, less people play it because the series is more focused towards hardcore gamer while COD is predominately casual gamers (yes, 7 year old whining kids do count)and if you look at the majority of hardcore vs. casual gamers, you'll see that they're are more casual gamers. In my opinion, graphics aren't what makes a game good. I don't play games just to look at the TV and think to myself "Damn that tree looks so realistic!" Now I leave this rant at the statement that i am both a Battlefield and Call of Duty fan but I just had to clear that whole judgement thing about Call of duty for the people that are interested and/or annoyed by this FPS war.

  • SVC5 - June 30, 2011 2:47 a.m.

    I mean yes I can tell the difference between the smoothness of BC2 (30 fps) and Black Ops (60 fps)but its not a life altering difference and its completely understandable comparing the scale of the two series.

  • Markoose16 - June 30, 2011 1:41 a.m.

    Unless you're runnning the same game, with the same action on screen, side by side you're not going to notice the difference between 30 and 60 fps. If a game is made with the intention of it running at 30 fps then all the action on screen will look natural. This guy is just making excuses for having a very old game engine and the gaming devil incarnate in charge of his paycheck.

  • Jedipimp0712 - June 30, 2011 1:13 a.m.

    " We built brand new tools so that we could put more stuff in. That’s why, you’ll see a level and you’ll come out of the water; so we’ve built all this water. You’ve got New York in the background; you’ve got explosions going on; you’ve got skyscrapers, then you have this huge submarine coming out of the water. We’re able to put so much on the screen because it’s an engine and it’s well-known, it’s very clean and we’re able to easily upgrade it,” he explains." red letter media anyone? "we just have so much going on screen at any given time"

  • SeriousSean - June 30, 2011 1:01 a.m.

    @Spade103 Hey, man! Don't go ripping on my homies at Raven! It's not their fault that Activision owns them! And seriously, I'd be willing to bet money that the CoD engine has massive amounts of Quake 3 code left in it. Quake 3 came out in like '99. It was a great engine, but it's dated as hell. What DICE are trying to do with their Frostbite engine is push limits, rather than just sitting there and festering in a cancerous pool of cash.

  • ThatGuyFromTV - June 30, 2011 12:26 a.m.

    I love how this guy thinks he's so huge when he's heading the development of a game that's been copy-pasted for the last four years. Let's take a look at his arguments, shall we? - His first statement was all about the name of the engine (irrelevant) and the fps being the best. If fps is the only thing you can brag about, might want to rethink your argument. - A tool that lets you put a lot of water and lets you come out of the water... how is he using this as a serious statement? - Don't try to talk about how you can make New York in your game engine and make it look destroyed. It's been done to death way before you got to it. I could look at my game collection and come up with at least 3 different games with New York being destroyed, bunches more if you make it any generic city. - define "upgrading your engine", and explain how you've done it and how much you've done it since the first Modern Warfare.

  • falcon4196 - June 30, 2011 12:13 a.m.

    So the fps of BF3 is going to same as the Bad company games, right? In that case I'm not particularly worried. The variety in gameplay that you get in BF games compared to MW far out ways any visual polish for me. Vehicles really do make a difference.

  • loonyman978 - June 30, 2011 12:11 a.m.

    I know Id much rather have a sea of perfectly good quality rendered enemies than a single ridiculously hightly detailed enemy. 60fps comes at a price

  • Zeipher - June 30, 2011 12:09 a.m.

    Battlefield 2 sucked assballs.

  • Killershadow117 - June 30, 2011 12:09 a.m.

    Well it's easy to run a game at 60 fps when the game has used the same engine as MW. It's probably going to end up just like Black Ops, single player has respectable graphics but the multiplayer is going to drop the ball just for it to run in 60 fps.

  • tr1ggerf1nger - June 30, 2011 12:02 a.m.

    Mw3 will be good, for sure. But bf3 is probably going to have activision running for the hills.

  • helmanruiz - June 30, 2011 midnight

    Dammit Glen, the only reason i am not Rage-ranting is because of your involvement in the Dead Space series. You have been spared.

  • AirickG - June 30, 2011 midnight

    I'm sure its easy to run your game at 60 fps when your maps are 60 sq ft :P

  • Markstone - June 29, 2011 11:59 p.m.

    Seems like Scofield is giving excuses so that it doesn't seem as bad that CoD hasn't had a major graphical (or content) update since MW2 . . .

  • UsernameLoser - June 29, 2011 11:52 p.m.

    I never played any Battlefield games, but CoD has basically been the same thing for every "new" game.

Showing 41-58 of 58 comments

Join the Discussion
Add a comment (HTML tags are not allowed.)
Characters remaining: 5000

Featured Content

Connect with GamesRadar

Connect with Facebook

Log in using Facebook to share comments, games, status update and other activity easily with your Facebook feed.