Infinity Ward working on 'next-gen' Call of Duty?

[keefy]

It hink you all should just shut the fuck up.

[Metfanant]

It hink you all should just shut the fuck up.

im sorry, did one of us put a gun to your head and force you to read the thread?

[Xelios]

and there was me saying I wanted to get rid of the hall of fame/shame because it was getting pointless

His entire post history belongs in there

[Inzane2050]

I'd love to hear this.. IW/Sledge, ND, etc., will be dying to get their hands on this piece of info.

Funny how you all quote things from two different threads and act like I am talking about the same thing in both for the sake of twisting the context. You are not helping your case.

The problem I have with CoD is its an annual rehash of the same exact game. It's like Pokemon but for consoles. CoD can at least add new animations and new gameplay mechanics or new particle. Assassin's Creed has added on to the gameplay with a lot of new things to keep you in anticipation of the next game. But CoD is just releasing the same game over and over. That's my gripe.

[GeorgeDubya]

It hink you all should just shut the fuck up.

I think YOU should just shut the fuck up. See what I did there?

Back to the convo, I didn't take anything out of context. I referenced something you said a couple weeks ago about not being a developer so you don't know specifically how to make a game better. It doesn't matter if it's about graphics or game play. Now you are seemingly one of the best programers in the world. So that my last sentence wasn't taken out of context no developer has ever made a console game that looks as good as BF3 that runs at a solid 60 fps. If you somehow knew how to make any engine handle 60 fps regardless of hardware you would be unquestionably one of the best developers in the world. So please lay out for everyone a detailed description of how you would do that. You offered to enlighten me, so go right ahead.

[T0PGUN]

Does Infinity Ward working on 'next-gen' Call of Duty?

actually mean for the PS3/360?

[Metfanant]

Funny how you all quote things from two different threads and act like I am talking about the same thing in both for the sake of twisting the context. You are not helping your case.

are you gonna fill us in on how 60fps is so easy to achieve?

[F34R]

I'd rather he explain just what he said he could, how 60fps isn't a hindrance.

[Inzane2050]

I'd rather he explain just what he said he could, how 60fps isn't a hindrance.

I already explained this for you F34R, of all people. Don't you remember? I used sarcasm to help you undstand the point I was making. Remember?

[Soldier 95B]

btw...off topic sidebar question...have you tried the new Tapatalk HD for the iPad...trying to decide which i want to spend money on because id rather not buy both lol

I did NOT know there was an HD version. Thank you for the 411. I will go check it out. I will probably buy it then. I just assumed the one I have was the only one!

I have actually done a lot of work with computer graphics and programming.

So the answer is no.

It hink you all should just shut the fuck up.

I probably should shut the fuck up. Wife says that to me once in awhile

[F34R]

I already explained this for you F34R, of all people. Don't you remember? I used sarcasm to help you undstand the point I was making. Remember?

I read back through the entire thread and I can't find a single rational explanation from you about how 60fps isn't a hindrance.

[BoyBettaKnow]

Reeling you in F34R, he's reeling you in

[GeorgeDubya]

If you followed the convo, then you would have seen I was talking about gameplay there. It can be annoying when things are taken out of context. I can explain for you how 60fps is not a hindrance if you'd like to hear what I have to say.

I would like to hear what you have to say. You may have explained this to F34R already, but not me. I don't know what sarcasm is, so please be very straight forward.

[Inzane2050]

I read back through the entire thread and I can't find a single rational explanation from you about how 60fps isn't a hindrance.

You always put out an empty retort when you are backed into a corner. You did this also when you claimed Sony lacked innovation.

But here:

The question was to ask what prevents BF3 textures from being used in place of Call of Duty's. So aside from obviously texture resolution, what is more demanding about BF3 textures vs Call of Duty?

BF3 runs perfectly fine on consoles bcuz it was optimized to do so. Saying that DICE can't make a good looking 60fps console bcuz it already runs at 30fps on consoles is the same as saying DICE can't make a good looking 30fps game on consoles bcuz it is already too demanding on PC. BF3 will obviously have more of a 60fps look to it, but is to stop them from surpassing Call of Duty in both artistic and technical fidelity?

And then read on foward.

[GeorgeDubya]

I thought I was going to get a technically detailed description of how to make a game run 60 fps? Aren't you a programmer? Just going off what you quoted from yourself, who's to say that BF runs perfectly fine on consoles? I think it does because I'm a console gamer. Put a PC gamer in front of the console version and he's going to say it's crap. There's a reason the console version looks worse than pc and has a 30 fps cap. Now don't be like our friend F34R and put out an empty retort when you are backed in to a corner. Directly answer the question and everyone will leave you alone.

[Inzane2050]

It's not an empty retort. And why would I get all technical when these simplified explanations are better for helping you understand. Do you want me to use a bunch of nonsense terminology and values instead of simply telling you something like "BF3's textures are no more demanding than CoD's textures shader-wise?" I had enough trouble getting Met to understand that BF3's textures can indeed be used in CoD to achieve BF3's unique visual style. Not that BF3 needs to mimic CoD; the point was to help him understand that BF3's unique and beautiful visuals can be achieved at 60fps. And no, no one will leave me alone until I tell them what they want to hear vs the truth. It's the same if when I try to explain that the PS3 is more powerful than the 360 visually or when I try to explain that Witcher 2 is first and foremost a PC exclusive and not by any means an Xbox exclusive. It's a never-ending circle.

[F34R]

I'm not the one backed into a corner. I, along with others, have already shown enough information from the developers as to why the game can't look like it does and run at 60fps; regarding BF3. We've also shown plenty of information as to why MW3 CAN'T look like BF3 and run at 60fps. You made some serious claims, and said you can back them up, but you've not said a single thing backing up what you claim. This has become beyond pointless. No one is attacking you, harassing you, etc. You are the one saying, "I can explain X....", and when asked to explain it, YOU CAN'T. You quote some obscure post that contained nothing in the slightest as to what you're claiming. I'm done with this lol.

[GeorgeDubya]

It's not an empty retort. And why would I get all technical when these simplified explanations are better for helping you understand. Do you want me to use a bunch of nonsense terminology and values instead of simply telling you something like "BF3's textures are no more demanding than CoD's textures shader-wise?" I had enough trouble getting Met to understand that BF3's textures can indeed be used in CoD to achieve BF3's unique visual style. Not that BF3 needs to mimic CoD; the point was to help him understand that BF3's unique and beautiful visuals can be achieved at 60fps. And no, no one will leave me alone until I tell them what they want to hear vs the truth. It's the same if when I try to explain that the PS3 is more powerful than the 360 visually or when I try to explain that Witcher 2 is first and foremost a PC exclusive and not by any means an Xbox exclusive. It's a never-ending circle.

Not really. You offered to explain this to me, which I accepted. Now you refuse. BF3's shaders look beautiful because they are high res. You could add the shaders to COD, sure, but the resolution would have to be lowered to the point that it looks like a PS1 game to get 60 fps. Case in point, look at the textures in BF3 for 360 when the game isn't installed. Same shaders, but it looks terrible because the resolution and detail has been lowered so much. And yet the game still only runs 30 fps.

[Inzane2050]

BF3's shaders look beautiful because they are high res.

Texture resolutions are irrelevant as I just said. And Call of Duty's textures have shaders. In fact, the texture shaders are largely identical regarding the outdoor environments.

You could add the shaders to COD, sure, but the resolution would have to be lowered to the point that it looks like a PS1 game to get 60 fps.

Completely false. Even if you were to implement Castlevania's immensely shaded environments, it would still be completely false.

[F34R]

Maybe you can explain why the texture resolution isn't relevant? I find it hard to believe that the texture resolutions aren't relevant in whether a game can run at 60fps or not.

[GeorgeDubya]

Texture resolutions are irrelevant as I just said. And Call of Duty's textures have shaders. In fact, the texture shaders are largely identical regarding the outdoor environments.

Completely false. Even if you were to implement Castlevania's immensely shaded environments, it would still be completely false.

That's nice that you just said texture resolutions are irrelevant. No matter your opinion, the fact is that it is very important to frame rate remains. If the shaders are largely identical then why have you made such a big deal about them? Everything I have read regarding this says that BF runs at a max 30 fps on consoles because they can't keep up with anything faster and still be able render to textures at the same quality. It doesn't even stay at a consistent 30. Not on PS3 anyways. There is nothing anywhere that supports what you are stating. Just explain it and yes, I will leave it alone. If you can't, though, then just give it up. You don't like COD. That's fine. Now go write about something you enjoy.

[Inzane2050]

I never said that texture resolution does not affect the fps. I said texture resolutions are irrelevant to what make BF3's visuals so unique and beautiful. Texture resolution is not very relevant. Simply put texture resolution is not what gives Battlefield 3 its unique and beautiful visuals. Shading, lighting, and the art work are.

Edit: When I say the shading is largely the same, I mean in terms of GPU demand.

[GeorgeDubya]

I never said that texture resolution does not affect the fps. I said texture resolutions are irrelevant to what make BF3's visuals so unique and beautiful. Texture resolution is not very relevant. Simply put texture resolution is not what gives Battlefield 3 its unique and beautiful visuals. Shading, lighting, and the art work are.

Edit: When I say the shading is largely the same, I mean in terms of GPU demand.

Then why did you bring them up? You offered to explain how 60 fps doesn't hold back visuals. When I asked for that explanation you brought up textures. Shading, lighting, and art work can be as beautiful as you want but they will still look terrible if they aren't clear. And where is the explanation you promised?

[Metfanant]

I never said that texture resolution does not affect the fps. I said texture resolutions are irrelevant to what make BF3's visuals so unique and beautiful. Texture resolution is not very relevant. Simply put texture resolution is not what gives Battlefield 3 its unique and beautiful visuals. Shading, lighting, and the art work are.

Edit: When I say the shading is largely the same, I mean in terms of GPU demand.

You can have the best looking textures in the history of video games, but if they are really low resolution they are going to look awful when displayed on your screen...

You say the textures are not what makes BF3 look so good and it makes me wonder if you actually know what a texture is...

As for the lighting and such...i already showed you PROOF that BF3's lighting system is only possible on the consoles because of the half frame rate when compared to MW3...

I'd love to see some evidence to back up your claims that the shaders in MW3 and BF3 create identical demand on the GPU...the rendering engines of the two games are COMPLETELY different IW 5.0 and FB 2.0 approach literally EVERYTHING from different angles

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

[F34R]

Here's a quote from a well respected member of beyond3d. This is a from a PM conversation we are having on this very topic:

Hi there,

One thing to consider about 60fps vs 30fps games is that there are certain rendering overheads at a fixed cost no matter what. So for example, your real budget for the scene might be 13ms instead 16.66...ms for 60-fps or 30ms instead of 33.3. Of course, some developers may even target below that just so that during more hectic scenes, there is still some leeway before the frame rate drops.

MW3 is using a forward renderer, which takes up less memory than the deferred renderer that BF3 uses. That's part of why the games look different. BF3 has more dynamic light sources, but that comes at a heavy cost and it just makes targeting 60fps rather difficult on console.

BF3 uses a more advanced dynamic lighting system (Geomerics Enlighten) than the CoD series, but again, it still costs too much for 60fps.