Jump to content
NEurope
Murr

Nintendo Hits Back about Wii U Power Concern

Recommended Posts

Nintendo has hit back at concern over the power of the Wii U.

In an interview with the Globe and Mail, US president Reggie Fils-Aime reiterated Nintendo's line about its first high definition console not being about power, but took issue with the suggestion that the Wii U will appear dated when the PlayStation 4 and next Xbox launch - reportedly next year.

At E3 Sony Worldwide Studios boss told Eurogamer he considered the Wii U to be its own generation - and not a competitor to the inevitable PlayStation 4.

 

"Three comments," the combative Fils-Aime began. "First, it's not about power. If it was about power, then the GameCube would have been the number one system in its generation and the Wii wouldn't have been the number one system in this last generation. It is not about power. It is about fun, it is about the experience.

 

"Second. Our competitors can say what they want about some super long cycle, but let's see what their behaviours are.

 

"Thirdly, the way development works is that the longer developers work with a system, the better they can tune performance. Case in point: Look at the very first GameCube games, and compare them to a game like Resident Evil 4. It was graphically beautiful, and demonstrably more advanced than the first GameCube games.

 

"The same was true for Wii. A great example is Super Mario Galaxy 2. The graphics are just beautiful. And look at the motion control we were able to achieve in The Legend of Zelda: Skyward Sword."

 

He added: "The longer developers work on a system the more they tune it, the more they push the system, the more they learn tricks to really optimise performance. I share this because what you see here at E3 are games that represent a relatively short amount of development time. Imagine what we'll see two years from now when developers have been working with Wii U longer and learn how to push everything out of the system.

 

"Our competitors will do what they want. From our perspective, this is the right time to launch a new piece of hardware. And, the fun, the capabilities, and the experiences that we're offering today with a second screen are demonstrably better than what can be done today on other platforms."

Fils-Aime's comments tally with those of developers Eurogamer has spoken to anonymously ahead of the Wii U's launch. We've been told Wii U versions of multiplatform games will at best look as good as their PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360 counterparts, but games built from the ground up for Wii U will show it to be graphically capable.

 

Meanwhile, Fils-Aime took issue with the suggestion that Nintendo lost its hardcore gaming audience with the casual-focused Wii U.

 

"You know, I really chafe at that comment," he said. "Define the hardcore. I know people who are playing Smash Bros. Brawl competitively today. They're playing hours on that game. People are playing hours on New Super Mario Bros.

"What I'll tell you is that with the Wii we did not have the benefit of multiplatform games from key publishers. I didn't have The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim. I didn't have the best of the Call of Duty games. That's what I missed."

 

With the Wii U, he said, Nintendo will get multiplatform games from key publishers.

 

"With the Wii U's graphics capability, processing power, and HD-output, we'll get those games. That's a huge competitive advantage versus where we were with the Wii."

 

But how will Nintendo do this?

"Well, the proposition for a third-party publisher or independent developer is pretty simple," Fils-Aime explained. "We need to show them that the install base is there for them to sell a quantity of games that represents a profitable proposition.

 

"What we're sharing with these publishers and developers is how first-party games will drive an install base, and how, from a marketing standpoint, we'll reach the type of consumers that they want to create content for.

"Then we have to deliver on it. What will help us are games like Batman: Arkham City - Armored Edition, Assassin's Creed 3, Mass Effect 3 and Zombi U."

 

Source - Eurogamer

 

Reggie Reggie Reggie Reggie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is what I've been insisting all along while people seemed to be power hungry madmen in the run up to E3.

 

Hopefully now that Reggie has said it, people will start paying attention and stop trying to big up the power, as we all know it's going to technically be a generation behind again once Microsoft and Sony make a move (though I wouldn't be surprised if Sony tries a different approach considering their situation).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nintendo Gamer's article was funnier:

 

Then, with tears in the eyes of the poor Globe And Mail reporter who was now fully aware they’d been trying to out-play a player, Reggie properly went off on one.

 

At that point, the room shook, screams could be heard right down the street, and an almighty earthquake separated the entire nation of Canada from the US, at which point Reggie stood up and coldly told the reporter: “I’m the President of Nintendo Of America, foolish man-cub. And now I’m the President of Nintendo Of YOU.”

 

:laughing::laughing::laughing:

 

http://www.nintendo-gamer.net/2012/06/14/wii-u-is-not-about-power-says-reggie/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing is though, which he doesn't recognise/address is that if the Wii U falls behind in terms of capabilities to the PS4 and 720, then once again devs will not be able to develop a comparible version for the Wii U and instead will have to put a seperate team to work on a Wii U build which will cost them extra resources will it not? This in turn will lead to third party support gradually reducing as they decide to just focus efforts on the other two.

 

Unless the Wii U can build itself a large enough market and is significantly cheaper and easier to develop for to warrant a good return; because the financial situation of many developers isn't a good one at the moment!

Edited by Retro_Link

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this is essentially avoiding the question. The Wii U is going to be the most powerful console out there on launch. Why doesen't he emphasise on that?

His rethoric here doesen't feel aggressive or combative: it's defensive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The thing is though, which he doesn't recognise/address is that if the Wii U falls behind in terms of capabilities to the PS4 and 720, then once again devs will not be able to develop a comparible version for the Wii U and instead will have to put a seperate team to work on a Wii U build which will cost them extra resources will it not? This in turn will lead to third party support gradually reducing as they decide to just focus efforts on the other two.

 

Unless the Wii U can build itself a large enough market and is significantly cheaper and easier to develop for to warrant a good return; because the financial situation of many developers isn't a good one at the moment!

 

I know people who have spent £2,000 on gaming PCs. The games look better than they do on 360/PS3. In fact game son my PC look better than they do on consoles. But the whilst you can tell the difference the jump in graphics is nowhere near the same as it was between the PS3 and PS2 or the PS2 and PS1. Because of this the games will most likely be far easier to scale to the WiiU than they were to the Wii - in the same way you can simply turn down the level of graphical fidelity to run a game on a slightly older PC.

 

What's more I think to the general public graphics in games are becoming less important. You see plenty of arguments on the internet about how 'terrible COD looks' as it still uses the same engine it used years ago, the people posting this nonsense then talk about how much better BF3 looks. To any average player both look great. This will always be a big deal to those seeking out the small differences. But to the vast majority of people who buy games systems the games will all look great.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The thing is though, which he doesn't recognise/address is that if the Wii U falls behind in terms of capabilities to the PS4 and 720, then once again devs will not be able to develop a comparible version for the Wii U and instead will have to put a seperate team to work on a Wii U build which will cost them extra resources will it not? This in turn will lead to third party support gradually reducing as they decide to just focus efforts on the other two.

 

Unless the Wii U can build itself a large enough market and is significantly cheaper and easier to develop for to warrant a good return; because the financial situation of many developers isn't a good one at the moment!

 

Actually, the WiiU may be in a worse position until the PS4/720 do exist, from what I gather. It's looking likely that the Wii U has a next gen architecture; a GPGPU. Basically means general processing (GP) is shifted to the GPU. So getting the best out of PS360 multiplats on the WiiU will for now take more effort to port and won't be as good as they could be. New PS & MS hardware will have this hardware structure too. So for now, WiiU is (will be) ahead of its time.

 

Epic also confirmed UE4 is scalable. So, I would say from a hardware front Nintendo have future-proofed the U. Yes, chances are the PS4/720 will be more powerful, but the WiiU IS next gen in terms of hardware design.

 

From all I've read, I personally have no fears over the WiiU hardware at this time, it's looking very sufficient.

 

Xbox720/PS4 will partly be made for pixel counters, but these sort of people think everyone thinks like them, but in reality, they're a very small niche in the market. The average consumer will struggle to voluntarily notice a deifference between games on the Wii U and any potential PS4s or 720s .

 

@Dcubed should probably know more about this than me.

Edited by madeinbeats

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually, the WiiU may be in a worse position until the PS4/720 do exist, from what I gather. It's looking likely that the Wii U has a next gen architecture; a GPGPU. Basically means general processing (GP) is shifted to the GPU. So getting the best out of PS360 multiplats on the WiiU will for now take more effort to port and won't be as good as they could be. New PS & MS hardware will have this hardware structure too. So for now, WiiU is (will be) ahead of its time.

 

Epic also confirmed UE4 is scalable. So, I would say from a hardware front Nintendo have future-proofed the U. Yes, chances are the PS4/720 will be more powerful, but the WiiU IS next gen in terms of hardware design.

 

From all I've read, I personally have no fears over the WiiU hardware at this time, it's looking very sufficient.

 

Xbox720/PS4 will partly be made for pixel counters, but these sort of people think everyone thinks like them, but in reality, they're a very small niche in the market. The average consumer will struggle to voluntarily notice a deifference between games on the Wii U and any potential PS4s or 720s .

 

@Dcubed should probably know more about this than me.

 

Current rumour mill states that Wii U and PS4 (Codename: Orbis) have GPGPUs (Basically a GPU that can take on CPU functions), 2GB of GDDR5 RAM each and relatively weak CPUs, while the Xbox 3 (Codename: Durango) has a conventional architecture with a relatively weak GPU, but a stronger CPU and 8GB

(yes 8! :o ) of slower DDR3 RAM.

 

Edit: Like clockwork, seems another leak has just come out that puts it at 4GB of DDR4 RAM now! http://www.scribd.com/doc/92821757/XBox-720-9-24-Checkpoint-Draft-1 Maybe the old rumours were referring to 8GB of RAM for the Debug Kit then? (Debug units usually have twice the RAM of final retail consoles) - because the rest of the leak matches up with what we already knew!

 

That actually makes a lot of sense when you look at what we've seen. The Wii U's CPU was supposedly kinda weak in comparison to its GPU; if it featured a GPGPU, that would explain the discrepancy (since the system would be designed in such a way that the overpowered GPU would compensate for the CPU)

 

Since all the 3rd party stuff is made up of quickie PS360 ports, they wouldn't have been optimised for the Wii U's new architectural features (nor its GPU's Shader Model 5 featureset), so devs aren't getting much greater performance out of it right now (like what was suggested before in the Wii U speculation thread)

 

If this is all true, then Wii U may actually be in a pretty good position overall... assuming that Xbox 3/Durango doesn't win the 3rd party battle. It's easy enough to get Xbox 360 + levels of performance out of those quickie ports and it should be able to handle PS4 downports fairly easily (similar architecture, same RAM - with the PS4's GPU being about 2-3 times as capable as Wii U's - kinda similar to the PS2/Xbox situation)

 

In regards to getting 3rd party support, I don't think hardware is going to be much of a barrier (it should even be able to handle UE4, going by what we know). No, the big problem is one of developer mindset and that's one that Nintendo have never been able to tackle properly since the SNES. Those draconian methods used back then still haunt them to this day and while they've mostly recovered in Japan (only a few devs are still holding back out of personal grudge reasons - Q Entertainment and Hideo Kojima spring to mind instantly), in the west they are still struggling to shake off the "Kiddy" (AKA "Casual") label that scares off devs who grew up playing/modding/working on PC/XBOX games.

 

I expect plenty of excuses for not releasing Wii U versions, that make no sense and have nothing to do with hardware capability, across the Wii U's lifetime (hell we're already getting them! - I'm looking at you Kojima/Crystal Dynamics...)

Edited by Dcubed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aye, then's the point that if MS do go with CPU power over a GPGPU setup, WiiU and PS4 will be similar in DNA, will PS4 be the lead dev platform with WiiU getting easily developed alongside with the Xbox720 getting hacked up ports. This upcoming 'next-gen' could be a lot stranger than what you think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aye, then's the point that if MS do go with CPU power over a GPGPU setup, WiiU and PS4 will be similar in DNA, will PS4 be the lead dev platform with WiiU getting easily developed alongside with the Xbox720 getting hacked up ports. This upcoming 'next-gen' could be a lot stranger than what you think.

 

Yeah, it's looking to be an odd ball alright. PS4 has a similar setup as with Wii U, but with a CPU of different architecture (Wii U = Power PC, PS4 = x86), while the Xbox 3 is going in a very different direction.

 

I bet MS are planning to run a variant of Windows 8 on their system (hence the absurd amount of RAM - and the slow type of RAM used), with the Xbox 3 being basically a glorified set-top box that just happens to play games.

 

It's not just hardware, but in terms of philosophy, we may well be looking at 3 very different systems again :D It'll be nice to see heterogeneous hardware again, I'm so sick of this PS360 generation with two basically interchangeable consoles...

Edited by Dcubed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The thing is though, which he doesn't recognise/address is that if the Wii U falls behind in terms of capabilities to the PS4 and 720, then once again devs will not be able to develop a comparible version for the Wii U and instead will have to put a seperate team to work on a Wii U build which will cost them extra resources will it not? This in turn will lead to third party support gradually reducing as they decide to just focus efforts on the other two.

 

Unless the Wii U can build itself a large enough market and is significantly cheaper and easier to develop for to warrant a good return; because the financial situation of many developers isn't a good one at the moment!

 

Hit the nail on the head. The main comment to take away there is that they think they've addressed the issue of lacking multifomat big titles. In 3 years when the new PS/MS consoles are likely pushing out more than the WiiU can (I say likely going by graphical jump ups from previous consoles) the WiiU may likely fall behind again.

 

You have to remember that most people wanting to play FPS games or games like Assassin's Creed are already PS3/360 owners who are likely to remain loyal to one of the two consoles. WiiU would likely have to be better than the competition with a decent online infrastructure to compete, which we can be pretty sure if won't have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Man, shit like this really wants me to see Nintendo not push graphics any further than they already are...

 

http://www.computerandvideogames.com/353788/ea-we-dont-want-to-pss-off-our-fans-with-dead-space-3/

 

EA says it "definitely do[es] not want to piss off our fans" by taking Dead Space 3 too far from its horror roots, but at the same time concedes it needs to make the series "more broadly appealing".

 

Speaking to CVG in a just-published interview, EA Labels president Frank Gibeau said he's confident that new features such as co-op will help the next instalment become "a great game and our biggest Dead Space."

 

He explained: "What we've tried to do with each instalment is tell a different story about Isaac but at the same time bring in new features and ways to turn the game into a more connected experience.

"... so we embraced [the co-op] idea and we tried to open up the accessibility of the IP a little bit by adding a little bit more action, but not undermining the horror. We can't not be a horror game because that's what Dead Space is."

 

The exec listed environment and co-op as areas the new game will push, "and at the same time we definitely do not want to piss off our fans by taking it too far from horror," he said.

 

"We're very self aware of that - we listen to the fans and we hear them. We're going to be releasing more assets over the coming months that show you how deep the horror is. It's definitely not getting away from gore or horror, but at the same time it's opening up to a larger audience by adding some elements."

 

Gibeau listed Ridley Scott film Prometheus as a particular inspiration for EA, which he says managed to attract a broader appeal thanks to casting and imagery.

 

"In general we're thinking about how we make this a more broadly appealing franchise, because ultimately you need to get to audience sizes of around five million to really continue to invest in an IP like Dead Space.

 

"Anything less than that and it becomes quite difficult financially given how expensive it is to make games and market them.

 

"We feel good about that growth but we have to be very paranoid about making sure we don't change the experience so much that we lose the fanbase."

 

At its E3 press conference EA confirmed a February 2013 release date for Dead Space 3.

 

All greater graphics do is increase risk and kill creativity! If Pikmin 3 turned out to be the peak of Nintendo's games visually speaking, I'd be very happy :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
All greater graphics do is increase risk and kill creativity! If Pikmin 3 turned out to be the peak of Nintendo's games visually speaking, I'd be very happy :D

 

The astounding graphics (especially sand/snow/etc) of Journey really hampered it's creativity.

 

Also, with that kind of comments, they kept saying that for Mass Effect 3 and that was actually more RPG-like than the second. They're simply saying stuff like that to entice the Halo/CoD crowd.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is a bit rediculous. It happened to the Resident Evil series... then people said well at least we have Dead Space filling that market... and now it's happening to Dead Space too.

 

I think it was on Invisiable Walls or somewhere, that this seems to be happenening to these games because there is a market out there that wants to play survival horror games, there is a gap in the market, but right now developers just want to sell 5-10 millions units of everything.

 

I remember really liking the gamecube, and Resident Evil 4 especially because we reached a stage where games felt more real, but they still felt and looked like gamesm which I kind of like.

 

Sometimes gameplay nowadays seems to be getting dumbed now with long cutscenes, on-rails sections and quick time events in order to keep a more cinematic experience, with the time actually spent playing the game getting reduced.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Every company wants to have a franchise like COD, that's just business.

 

The problem is that can be bad for franchises as often something that's different and engaging won't be snapped up by the masses like COD.

 

So studios then take something different and engaging, water it down, add co-op, add multiplayer, add more enemies, a cover system, more ammo, more cutscenes, a few on rails sectons and a sprinkle of Michael Bay style set pieces in order to give it broader appeal.

 

The problem is, the product they've ended up with is no longer different and engaging - it's just another COD clone with a different skin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Every company wants to have a franchise like COD, that's just business.

 

The problem is that can be bad for franchises as often something that's different and engaging won't be snapped up by the masses like COD.

 

So studios then take something different and engaging, water it down, add co-op, add multiplayer, add more enemies, a cover system, more ammo, more cutscenes, a few on rails sectons and a sprinkle of Michael Bay style set pieces in order to give it broader appeal.

 

The problem is, the product they've ended up with is no longer different and engaging - it's just another COD clone with a different skin.

 

Ah, so that's how it works:bowdown:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The astounding graphics (especially sand/snow/etc) of Journey really hampered it's creativity.

 

Yeah, I've never understood this. To me, just because you've got powerful hardware, it doesn't follow that every game has to be very expensive to make. In theory, it could just allow sharp resolution, a smooth framerate and outstanding draw distance, but with relatively simple graphics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah, I've never understood this. To me, just because you've got powerful hardware, it doesn't follow that every game has to be very expensive to make. In theory, it could just allow sharp resolution, a smooth framerate and outstanding draw distance, but with relatively simple graphics.

 

The problem is not so much in the marching forth of technology, because (as you rightfully said) it can be used to make good quality (GCN/Wii or even higher) graphics with nice image quality, a smooth framerate and no nasty technical issues like pop-in, much more easily (and more cheaply!) than even on Wii.

 

Sadly that's not the way the "core" market works. Rather the big publishers like EA, Activision, Ubisoft and Take Two have a vested interest in raising consumer expectations and the minimum bar for budgets across the board, in order to snuff out the little guys (Hi THQ!) and the marching forth of greater graphics tech is enabling them to do just this.

 

Their goal is to turn the VG industry into Hollywood, leaving the main industry as a wasteland where only 2 or 3 "safe" types of games can be made that appeal to the typical 12-24 year old Dudebro audience, where $100 million budgets are the norm and only 1 or 2 publishers can survive (giving them total market dominance)

 

This is very close to happening with the PS360 already (where everything is basically turning into either COD, or a Gears of War/Uncharted clone). You saw it yourself at E3! All the big major games are basically a brown, violent, Dudebro, quasi-interactive movie now - and it's only gonna get worse next generation.

 

And even on the download services like PSN & XBLA, they're suffering the same fate too. The mid-tier of games that would've been sold at retail otherwise (Like Lara Croft The Guardian of Light or Hydrophobia) are being pushed to these services (killing off the lower budget games like Geometry Wars or Marble Blast Ultra in the process). That's why XBIG was created in the first place, to relegate lower budget games to the shit tier that nobody checks out and give more breathing room to the higher budget titles. Once the consoles go DD only, the mid-tier titles currently on there will also get squeezed out - forced to go iOS only or die out completely.

 

That's why I don't want to see graphics go any further. I want to see the industry saved from these tyrants and to see mid-range games (like Journey and Sly Cooper) thrive! This is also something that Iwata has constantly gone on about how he wants to create a market with Wii U and 3DS, where all ranges of budgets can thrive (at full or budget price)

 

So far I think he's succeeding with 3DS, at least in Japan (where games like Dragon Quest Monsters and Inazuma Eleven Go can outsell Kingdom Hearts DDD and Resident Evil Revelations) and the Wii U lineup is wildly varied as far as budgets go. I hope that this can fully spread throughout the west and continue on the Wii U as it's more or less the only hope left for the ending of this trend! (lest everything become either a $100 million "safe" AAA blockbuster or a £0.69 iPhone game)

Edited by Dcubed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The problem is not so much in the marching forth of technology, because (as you rightfully said) it can be used to make good quality (GCN/Wii or even higher) graphics with nice image quality, a smooth framerate and no nasty technical issues like pop-in, much more easily (and more cheaply!) than even on Wii.

 

Sadly that's not the way the "core" market works. Rather the big publishers like EA, Activision, Ubisoft and Take Two have a vested interest in raising consumer expectations and the minimum bar for budgets across the board, in order to snuff out the little guys (Hi THQ!) and the marching forth of greater graphics tech is enabling them to do just this.

 

Their goal is to turn the VG industry into Hollywood, leaving the main industry as a wasteland where only 2 or 3 "safe" types of games can be made that appeal to the typical 12-24 year old Dudebro audience, where $100 million budgets are the norm and only 1 or 2 publishers can survive (giving them total market dominance)

 

This is very close to happening with the PS360 already (where everything is basically turning into either COD, or a Gears of War/Uncharted clone). You saw it yourself at E3! All the big major games are basically a brown, violent, Dudebro, quasi-interactive movie now - and it's only gonna get worse next generation.

 

And even on the download services like PSN & XBLA, they're suffering the same fate too. The mid-tier of games that would've been sold at retail otherwise (Like Lara Croft The Guardian of Light or Hydrophobia) are being pushed to these services (killing off the lower budget games like Geometry Wars or Marble Blast Ultra in the process). That's why XBIG was created in the first place, to relegate lower budget games to the shit tier that nobody checks out and give more breathing room to the higher budget titles. Once the consoles go DD only, the mid-tier titles currently on there will also get squeezed out - forced to go iOS only or die out completely.

 

That's why I don't want to see graphics go any further. I want to see the industry saved from these tyrants and to see mid-range games (like Journey and Sly Cooper) thrive! This is also something that Iwata has constantly gone on about how he wants to create a market with Wii U and 3DS, where all ranges of budgets can thrive (at full or budget price)

 

So far I think he's succeeding with 3DS, at least in Japan (where games like Dragon Quest Monsters and Inazuma Eleven Go can outsell Kingdom Hearts DDD and Resident Evil Revelations) and the Wii U lineup is wildly varied as far as budgets go. I hope that this can fully spread throughout the west and continue on the Wii U as it's more or less the only hope left for the ending of this trend! (lest everything become either a $100 million "safe" AAA blockbuster or a £0.69 iPhone game)

 

What a top post! You totally summed up a lot of my feelings on this. I really loved my Wii and one of the reasons was the variation in games. It wasn't just a graphical arms race, publishers and developers often thought outside the box to create games with a different look and feel that simply wouldn't get done on the PS360.

 

If the PS4/XBOX720 are wildly powerful all it will do is serve to push up dev costs even further and lead to an ever narrowing field of titles being released.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah, I've never understood this. To me, just because you've got powerful hardware, it doesn't follow that every game has to be very expensive to make. In theory, it could just allow sharp resolution, a smooth framerate and outstanding draw distance, but with relatively simple graphics.

 

Frame rates have never got better because they just increase detail instead.

Its all about looking great in screenshots.

 

-sigh-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the PS4/XBOX720 are wildly powerful all it will do is serve to push up dev costs even further and lead to an ever narrowing field of titles being released.

 

That's not true at all, the currently more powerful PS3 and 360 have tons of original indie content that never sees the light of day on the Wii, and is usually released via the PSN store / marketplace.

 

Maximum graphic capability is a limit, not a level to which all games on a console must be pushed to. The vast majority of indie games on the PS3 and 360 don't use anywhere near the full potential of the console yet hordes of people still buy them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Frame rates have never got better because they just increase detail instead.

Its all about looking great in screenshots.

 

-sigh-

 

Yep, that's why I love that COD is 60 FPS, people may say BF3 looks better and is a technical marvel, but at 30 FPS give me COD any day!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×