Sledgehammer talks up MW3 frame rate and engine improvements

Thursday, 30th June 2011 01:29 GMT By Brenna Hillier

Sledgehammer Games co-founder Glen Schofield has said Modern Warfare 3′s frame rate is its “competitive edge”, and dismissed critique of the game’s engine.

“This game will run at 60 frames a second. Not sure any of our competitors will,” the studio head told Ausgamers of Modern Warfare 3.

“Not sure I’ve seen any of our competitors – on the console especially – running at 60 frames a second, and I’d be a little scared at this point – in June – if I was looking forward to a particular game that wasn’t on the console and running at 60. And I think 60 is our competitive edge and you just don’t throw that away.”

Schofield’s comments, made at E3, predate DICE’s confirmation thatthe console version of Battlefield 3 will run at 30 frames per second.

A recurring criticism of Modern Warfare 3 is its failure to introduce a new engine, but Schofield said this is nonsense.

“We really re-vamped this engine. We put a whole new audio system in and it is as competitive as anybody out there. You can go out and name your engine and call it whatever you want, right.

“… What you do is you build upon it, right? And build and build and build. And we build new tools that make us more efficient. We built brand new tools so that we could put more stuff in.

“… 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. So I don’t know what the future holds for the engine. But you don’t ship an engine, you ship a game.”

Modern Warfare 3 is due on PC, PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360 in early November.

Thanks, gamesradar.



  1. ExxonValdez

    …they still fail

    #1 4 years ago
  2. Talkar

    Damn he is happy for those 60 fps, like that is the only thing MW3 has. And no, you don’t just build and build and build on top of an existing, aging engine, sometimes you’ve got to recreate an engine, preferably something that works.

    #2 4 years ago
  3. DSB

    “You don’t ship an engine, you ship a game”

    Nuff said, really.

    #3 4 years ago
  4. Phoenixblight


    Tell that to Valve they are using an 8 year old engine and even the engine is derivative of a much older engine.

    #4 4 years ago
  5. jr512

    @#4 I agree

    Listen EA can come out and say everyyear they got a cod-killer (bc2,moh) it fails
    Battlefield may look nicer but doesn’t mean it gonna outsell cod which by the way preorder for BF3 have yet to pass 500,000 compare to what a rep for gamestop said mw3 already gonna surpass cod blacks ops record of fastest selling title around 4 million and counting

    #5 4 years ago
  6. JimFear-666

    all they have found to talk about is the framerate cause its the only thing that is supperior in this war of mw3 vs bf3

    even if bf3 framerate is at 30fps on console, its still 60fps on pc and every video i saw of bf3 really kicked the ass of mw3.

    The sad story about that is that even if this game will be shit like mw2 it will sell a shit load just because its a cod.

    With his stupid comment “you dont ship an engin you ship a game” all i have to say is that… He’s partially right but when you have a verry weak and outdated engine like cod…. You should think about doing something new.

    #6 4 years ago
  7. mathare92

    Gotta love the anti-COD sentiment in the Eurogamer 150+ comments thread for this story. Some highlights:

    “So basically – ‘Our engine’s shit, but at least it’s fast shit!’”

    “60 Frames of shit is still shit. Smooth shit but shit.”

    “Lol, as if the average IQ challenged MW purchaser will even know what 60fps or 30fps is……”

    “I’d rather have 30 frames of quality, than 60 frames of shit.”

    “I would love it if EA/DICE responded with something really silly and equally school ground in style like… Hey Glen guess what else is 60fps… your mum! While Riccitiello is dancing around sticking his fingers up :)”

    And so on. :D

    #7 4 years ago
  8. stretch215

    @1 I didn’t know record-breaking sales meant failure, trizoll. : ) @6 he’s clearly talking about console. On PC with a nice rig battlefield will be INSANE. But those with high powered rigs are in the minority. I don’t think activision gives a shit about PC. Why should they when they sell so much on console?

    #8 4 years ago
  9. ExxonValdez

    @8 so when I speak my mind I’m a troll? lol Its not my fault that people like to buy shit over and over again.

    #9 4 years ago
  10. galaxy366

    Someone becoming nervous from seeing BF3? and all the promotion on VG247.

    #10 4 years ago
  11. ASBI

    @10 why would he become nervous? his game will sell at least 5M copies day one , while the other game or so called “competitor” will be happy to reach that number in total sales

    dont get me wrong , I enjoyed BC2 , but sometimes I dont feel like running for 4 or 5 mins without killing or shooting anyone

    besides why would EA compete with Acti?? FFS the two games are totally different

    I dont see Noughty dog trying to compare U3 to Gears 3

    #11 4 years ago
  12. endgame

    @7 nice! :)

    @11 “dont get me wrong , I enjoyed BC2 , but sometimes I dont feel like running for 4 or 5 mins without killing or shooting anyone” well maybe if u’d be running in the right direction.. I have almost 1 kill/minute. not that kills matter that much in bfbc2. it is not a lone texas ranger kill as many as u can piece of s**t game. it has objectives. ofc I don’t expect any mw troll to know what the word “objective” is but there r web dictionaries.

    #12 4 years ago
  13. noherczeg


    NOONE said that BC2 will be a COD killer back then, same goes for MoH (rofl, it was even worse then BC2).


    Also this dude is pissed imho. So obsessed with that 60 fps rofl… On what resolution???

    Oh 800*600 right? WOW It’ll look really impressive on a 50″ LED TV right?

    Nice try though :P

    #13 4 years ago
  14. StolenGlory

    So you’ve cranked 60fps out of an over seven year sub-HD resolution engine which as soon as it hits the heady heights of 720p, has to drop down to 30fps with no other significant engine features to compensate.

    What an achievement.

    #14 4 years ago
  15. noherczeg

    Noticed just now:

    “We really re-vamped this engine. We put a whole new audio system in and it is as competitive as anybody out there.”

    So a sound upgrade wich’ll be still inferior to BF3′s sound quality is a re-vamp :D ok.

    #15 4 years ago
  16. ultramega

    Couldn’t have said it any better myself.

    #16 4 years ago
  17. Erthazus

    60 FPS Sledgehammer go fuck yourself with 1024 x 600 resolution and crappy 1999 year textures and crappy quake 3 upscaled models. Seriously.

    “So I don’t know what the future holds for the engine. But you don’t ship an engine, you ship a game.””

    you can’t ship the good game without bugs since MW2 retards. Learn how to make a game that is different from the others. That have something new in it. You FAILED to ship a game with something different since CoD 2. Your next games are just a cheap milk material.
    Your engine is the maximum game design that you can offer AKA QUAKE 3 Arena with Modern Warfare setting shootfest that is old since 1999 year and even then…. Quake 3 is still more competitive then unbalanced shootfest with bad stereo audio and absolutely crappy designed guns that shoot straight at the target in most cases because engine is uncapable of making guns that shoot realistic. (you are doing military game so… go figure) There are no physics in them.

    Modern Warfare 3 showed that you can make a game… that looks like Modern Warfare 2 in terms of the singleplayer. I could understand well… Lets do something new and blah blah blah… Same stupid boat sequences and ridiculous dialogs.

    Also, assholes. Learn how to make a game about Modern Military with Russians that speaks in Russian and don’t hold P90 in the submarine.

    Just when one might believe you’ve reached the apotheosis of idiocy… You find a way to outdo yourself. Congratulations.

    #17 4 years ago
  18. Fin


    Bro, I’m just sayin’, if you’re unable to enjoy a game because it’s running at 1024×600 (upscaled to 720p), maybe you should find a new hobby.
    Or at least stop commenting, if you’ve nothing productive to add.

    #18 4 years ago
  19. Erthazus

    @19, I like gaming. Problem? No? Then get out of here. It’s not your problem how i enjoy it. I will enjoy it how i want. Your opinion does not matter here.

    “Or at least stop commenting, if you’ve nothing productive to add.”

    it’s you who can’t add something productive to the topic except for commenting stupid stuff about my gaming preferences.
    I said my opinion about sledgehammer and it’s comment about MW3, but you failed to read my post except for the first line which still matters to most of the people here. Read first posts.

    Nvidia and AMD makes videocards not to show off it’s power.

    #19 4 years ago
  20. Fin


    Nah man, you don’t like gaming, you like graphics.
    If you liked gaming you wouldn’t care if something was running at sub-HD resolution, as long as it was still fun.

    It’s my problem when I can’t go into the comments of any article related to graphics without seeing you saying “HAHAHAHAHA SHIITY SUB-HD GAME IS SO SHIT”.

    You might enjoy things more if you weren’t so cross about graphics all the time :)

    #20 4 years ago
  21. StolenGlory


    Personally I love CoD regardless of the visuals myself (a smooth framerate being crucial to the sort of twitch based immediate FPS experience that CoD strives to provide); I just think that they get out of their depth when they start having aesthetical cock stroking battles with DICE :)

    #21 4 years ago
  22. ultramega

    Would not read again.

    #22 4 years ago
  23. Erthazus

    “If you liked gaming you wouldn’t care if something was running at sub-HD resolution, as long as it was still fun.”

    Graphics are one of the important parts of the FPS|TPS|shooter genre. I don’t care about graphics if it is RPG genre or genre where graphics are not important, so your argument here is invalid. If you think that i write something about graphics in every game you are wrong.

    stupid sentences like “you don’t like gaming, you like graphics.” are absolutely crap, because i play games like ArmA 2 which have more gameplay variety then you ever experienced in your life. So sorry. Your point here is absolutely invalid. No one cares.

    #23 4 years ago
  24. Fin


    Well see, I define “good graphics” (for the genres you mention) as “looks nice” (Halo, CoD, BF, Crysis, Killzone, they all fall under this description), you define “good graphics” as “60fps 1920×1080 with [insert a load of graphics terms like AA and multisampling]“.

    “No one cares.”

    You obviously do, you’re arguing with me ;)

    #24 4 years ago
  25. Maximum Payne

    @25 Problem is Activison is VERY CHEEP that they don’t make a new engine for their best IP ?look at RAGE its open world,great graphics,vehicles and int runs at 60 frames! and cod don’t have: vehicles,big maps,720p,destruction… nothing! So Black Ops 2, MW4,Black Ops 3 they are all going to look like MW2/3
    Its actually same thing with Source engine which I think hit the limit.

    #25 4 years ago
  26. stretch215

    @ fin. Don’t even bother arguing with this guy. Between the horrendous English, constant contradictions, and overall idiocy you’re just going to be frustrated. @ 9 yes either a troll or a moron. To apply the word fail to a billion dollar franchise is, in itself, a failure. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt in my earlier comment.

    #26 4 years ago
  27. DSB


    1. Rage is made by a company that has made millions selling engine technology
    2. It’s some of the most selling games in history, clearly people care about everything but the engine
    3. Ain’t broke, don’t fix – If you’re selling more than 10 million copies of something, then you aren’t going to change a goddamn thing

    I’m not saying it’s stimulating that they keep going with the old engine, but obviously it does what it’s supposed to within an acceptable margin. Once the sales go down, rather than up, then I’m sure it’ll be on the table.

    #27 4 years ago
  28. Lounds

    Just Add

    MW2 was the most fun I have ever had on a mp game period, I was addicted (sad i know), but when COD:BO came out I relised it was shit, MW2 was amazing to me and I can’t see IW/Sledge who gives a fuck out doing themselfs as MW2 was a brillaint MP game, shit SP though. COD4 best SP COD period.

    MW3 @60 fps lol, try playing this shit old game on a PC at 1920x1080p AAx4, running at 120fps.

    People who get shooters for Console are blind.

    Another thing to add, UC3 beta is wicked!!!!!!!!!

    #28 4 years ago
  29. SLKPT

    “But you don’t ship FPS, you ship a game.” :)

    #29 4 years ago
  30. IL DUCE

    It doesn’t even matter what any developer says or what any one game does better than the other…CoD’s brand itself is enough for it to sell like hotcakes every year now since CoD4…they could put out the same exact game two years in a row and the people that play CoD and CoD alone for a year straight until the next one comes out will still go pick it up because they don’t look to see what people are saying on the internet about the game (and forget the casual crowd that’s already money in Kotick’s pocket)…they might watch some trailers and gameplay vids but they probably don’t even know nor care that BF3 exists…

    I think BF3 will do well though, if MoH and BC2 sold over 5 million units each, BF3 should definitely be able to surpass that…I think both games will be good and I will purchase both, BF3 I think will be the closest they come to legitimately competing with CoD to date…CoD will still sell more but I think quality wise they will be competitive, not to mention BC2′s cumulative Metacritic score is better than Black Ops’…

    #30 4 years ago

Comments are now closed on this article.