| KylieDog said:
Sorry but this framerate theory is silly. If that is what people cared about they wouldn't be buying 360s or PS3s. Call of Duty MW1/2 are dumbed down and about as steamlined/noob friendly as you can get. That is why it is popular, because anyone can pick it up and instantly qualify as 'good' at the very least thanks to auto-aim assist and almost instant kills and numerous other things. Then from these people word of mouth spread it along.
The only problems with KZ2 controls was the massive deadzone and high slow aim acceleration it had at launched. It turned off many people. Sure, they patched it months after release to fix the problems but the damage had been done by then. Unlike MW spreading by good word of mouth KZ2 had people doing the opposite and not recommending it.
Word of mouth is why WaW didn't sell as well either. Too many people spouting the 'TreyArch suck' nonsense ignoring the fact it was superior on a technical and content front. |
People don't care for frame-rates in just the same way they don't care about the technology of the games engine. If a game looks good and plays good then thats enough for most people. Better frame-rates make a game play better and better game engines make a game look better. The fact that they don't know what anisotropic filtering is doesn't matter, anyone can see badly filtered textures and say that it looks bad. People like the responsiveness and speed of the controls and that would not be possible with the title running at 30FPS. It would be impossible to make a Call of Duty game as good if it ran at Killzone 2 speeds that sold as well as it did. Its a fact that a responsive game is easier to control than an unresponsive game.
Killzone 2's controls are a design decision to optimise the game engine for parellel loads which means they sacrafice latency for visuals. Its the same deal as Uncharted 2 having a completely linear game designed around their streaming system where the player cannot back track. A good design hides the design tradeoffs to make the game appear to be all pro and no con. Guerilla games failed to do this somewhat and the control system was dictated to them in order to hide the slow response.
As for Call of Duty World at War, yes I enjoyed that game more than both MW2 but less than Killzone 2 personally. In terms of some of the design choices with regards to gameplay I felt that it was a little bit lacking, but it never got in the way of the fun. I never finished MW1/2 but I did finished WAW and Killzone 2 more than once.
Tease.
