Who's making the Ico/SOTC remasters?

By Robert Purchese Published 15 December, 2010

And will they run at 60FPS or 30FPS?

Who has Sony tasked to remaster two of gaming's most treasured creations, Ico and Shadow of the Colossus? Bluepoint, the company that remastered God of War I & II for Blu-ray.

Phew.

Sony Santa Monica's director of technology Tim Moss confirmed Bluepoint's involvement.

"I got to play it," Moss added in a tweet to Eurogamer's Digital Foundry blog. "Can't wait for everyone else to get the chance. It makes my inner fanboy happy."

The Blu-ray remasters of Ico and Shadow of the Colossus chiefly add native high-definition resolutions to the old PS2 games.

But they also add stereoscopic 3D, a feature that's led to some confusion about the remasters' frame-rates. Joystiq was told by a Sony rep at a preview event for the Ico and SOTC remasters that both games run at 60 frames per second, as is the requirement of 3D. However, a post on the US PlayStation blog notes that Shadow of the Colossus runs at 30 frames per second. But that could have been down to the blogger playing the game in 3D (and pumping out two 30FPS visuals, hence the 60FPS requirement).

Whether both games run at 60 frames per second in standard 2D, a number halved to 30 by 3D, remains to be clarified. It's hard to believe Sony would want Ico running at 60FPS and not Shadow of the Colossus.

Let's not forget that both are PS2 remasters, after all - something the PS3 should be well capable of, however much SOTC pushed ageing PS2 hardware.

Ico arrived on PS2, originally, way back in 2002. But despite a gargantuan 10/10 from Eurogamer's Tom Bramwell, the game remained obscure and niche - an undiscovered treasure.

That led to Sony re-issuing the game in 2006, which gave Eurogamer editors Kristan Reed (then) and Tom Bramwell (now) the chance to dribble deliriously over "one of the best games ever made".

Shadow of the Colossus, released in Europe in 2006, proved more divisive. Tom Bramwell picked out a catchphrase Eurogamer 8/10 for the game months after Kristan Reed had smothered it in a 10/10.

Picture of Robert.

About Robert Purchese

Bertie is Eurogamer's Senior Staff Writer. When he's not hunting down news stories he's often found playing with his kids or gabbling about fantasy games and strange online worlds. @Clert on Twitter.

Read more articles from Robert by visiting the Robert Purchese archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (66) Latest comment 1 year ago

Comments for this article are now closed, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • PixelPirate #1 1 year ago

    Instabuy cant wait

  • Toothball #2 1 year ago

    I'll probably be getting a PS3 to play this. The PS3 will really be for Last Guardian, but this will serve as an excellent warm up.

  • beep #3 1 year ago

    Can't wait but will wait because saying I can't wait means I literally cannot wait which is is phooey as I can wait because what other choice does an Ico/ SotC freak have other than wait unless access to a time machine is feasible which it very well may be by the time I finish this rubbish sentence.

  • natashaspice #4 1 year ago

    Mind over blowing. Too much exclusives in 2011. Time to get saving.

  • HandOfBeadle #5 1 year ago

    Having either game running at 60fps would be utterly tragic. SotC might have taken liberties a bit as far as low frame rates were concerned but ultimately it added to the sense of heft and drama as a subtle camera technique. They are both games that look better with a more cinematic frame rate, rather than mimicking that of a TV soap like Eastenders.

    60 FPS is not always desirable. It gets chased as a general rule by gamers and studios used to seeing 60fps as a performance benchmark, but when looking at the camera as a storytelling device it is often not the best option. It's great for twitch reaction games or online play but is not suited to epic single player experiences that don't need it, and are better off with the added gravitas you get from 24-30fps.
    Edited by HandOfBeadle at 15/12/10 @ 10:47

  • Lee_Morris #6 1 year ago

    I'm playing the Sly Collection at the mo and it's a joy to have a game running a 100% rock solid. This and the GoW Collection run as smooth as butter. If Ico and SoTC run the same then I'll be as happy as larry (david)

  • Machetazo #7 1 year ago

    This is going to be great!

  • spazmo #8 1 year ago

    Never had a PS2. Having played the GoW collection and Sly Collection this is currently my most wanted. I'm expecting great things but will probably be disappointed considering these games are hyped to the extreme on forums.

  • Cappy #9 1 year ago

    Happy to hear that ICO and Shadow of the Colossus will be done justice. Some of the other HD remasters *cough-Prince-of-Persia-Trilogy* were worryingly shoddy, I guess that's just Ubisoft.

  • MaoZedong #10 1 year ago

    Post deleted at 09:40:08 17-12-2011

  • gillri #11 1 year ago

    hope it 30FPS over 60 FPS

    will retain its artistic look

  • andywilkie35 #12 1 year ago

    8/10 for SotC?!

    A nightmare was had that day, bad day at the office!

  • ant72 #13 1 year ago

    I normally like 60 fps for games, but in this case 30 would be my favourite. Gives it a film-like look.

  • mr2ange #14 1 year ago

    @gillri

    What? Why on earth would you prefer it to run slower?

    A slick smooth framerate will enchance the look of the game so much,

    IMO SOTC was borderline unplayable on ps2, often dropping to sub 10 frames per second,

    I personally welcome our 60fps overlords...

    Negatives? Why?

    Ok well from now on dev's might as well make all games run at slow framerates i guess?
    Edited by mr2ange at 15/12/10 @ 12:18

  • StolenGlory #15 1 year ago

    "8/10 for SotC?!"

    As good as Fifa Street then.

    :)

  • smithdown #16 1 year ago

    I'll be getting this for Ico, which is probably in my top 3 games ever played. SotC is no slouch either, but didn't resonate with me as much as Ico and Yorda's tale.
    Instabuy, despite the fact I still have both the limited editions for the PS2 in mint condition.

  • Zebula77 #17 1 year ago

    Already own both games on PS2 but I'm definitely getting this. :D

  • teabagger #18 1 year ago

    Anyone know what 3D modes it supports - stereoscopic and/or coloured lenses? (I'm interested in the 3D, but can't afford the new telly - booo!)

  • neilka #19 1 year ago

    Get Blueprint working on a GT5 HD remaster next.

  • Bleemo #20 1 year ago

    Woo, never played either of these or the sly collection, even more grown man xmas excitement goo-iness at getting a PS3 now.

  • Steroyd #21 1 year ago

    *explodes in excitement*

  • SeesThroughAll #22 1 year ago

    This is it.

    PS2 backwards compatibility is, as of now, irrelevant.

  • higgins78 #23 1 year ago

    Not a hope in hell these 2 titles will be running at 60fps when this package hits the shelves. otherwise I can only imagine that the makers would be already bragging about the fact. Also, for people who haven't played both ICO or Shadow will be sorely disappointed I feel, both titles while a breath of fresh air were never incredible, many more titles surpass their achievements. I feel what we are getting here is more GT5 syndrome, hype before the inevitable realization...

  • HandOfBeadle #24 1 year ago

    mr2ange

    I thought we explained why 60fps isn't as good as 30fps as a cinematographic design choice. All you have is smoother = better, but that simply isn't true. There is no reason for movies to still be filmed at 24fps but they still are because of the look and feel it gives to the film. A lot of TV programmes of late are using reduced frame rates to give their shows that filmic quality and more of a high budget feel (though in many cases you can't polish a turd).

    A lot of TVs have the image smoothing software that can make the Godfather look like Coronation Street, but it's intended for sport where you need to keep up with a fast moving object, like a tennis ball or a football or Usain Bolt. If you use your TV's image smoothing to add frames into movies or TV shows then you should probably have your right to vote taken away from you.

  • darkmorgado #25 1 year ago

    @higgins78

    Ico very much was incredible. In 25 years of gaming it remains the only game I have ever finished where I instantly restarted it the second the credits had finished rolling.

  • dominalien #26 1 year ago

    @spazmo

    I can see you being disappointed at Ico (as I was). I can see no way in hell how you can be disappointed by SotC, though ;-)

  • GrandpaUlrira #27 1 year ago

    I would genuinely consider getting a PS3 for this and Uncharted 2.

  • sfp_noodle #28 1 year ago

    Agree with darmorgado.

    Although I must add, these games look rather poor on HD displays today even when played through a component cable. SOTC has a HD mode which helps, but it still doesn't do it justice. Also, I don't think a 60fps frame rate is really needed in these games. Their cinematic and very artistic. Fast moving scenerey would just turn it into a fast paced adventure game. I liked the slow moving camera in the originals. It allowed you to be sucked into the world.

    Either way, whoever didn't get to play these the first time, don't miss them now. The upgraded graphics, 3D if you have the luxury, and now trophies mean it's a no brainer. They are 2 of the very best games of any gaming generation and deserve an audience. They remind you of a time when a genuine, involving and touching gaming experience was more important than bettering shooter #938.

    Get them. Any level of praise showered on them is not enough.
    Edited by sfp_noodle at 15/12/10 @ 11:42

  • YenRug #29 1 year ago

    Why are some people suddenly assuming that 60fps will leave the game running like a video being played fast-forward? This isn't an animation where only those frames drawn exist, thus would be sped up if you increased the fps; it's 3D rendering where a movement in X/Y/Z is defined over a period of time whether that be the camera or a character model, thus the game engine will produce more frames to show that movement. For those saying they prefer the affect of film at 24fps, I can understand that in a movie where a captured image might show motion blur and similar artifacts, but you do not get motion blur in 3D rendering unless it's an added effect; so, once again, the argument for lower frame rates is pointless as the visual effects will look the same at the higher fps still.

  • 5h1nj1 #30 1 year ago

    It's really funny how some people start to prefer 30fps with the 24fps movie speed as an argument. :D
    That's some exemplary incomprehension of the matter.
    Soon we're gonna see a petition: "We want our games to run slow and choppy!"

    edit!: Even weirder stuff gets posted:
    "Their cinematic and very artistic. Fast moving scenerey would just turn it into a fast paced adventure game"
    Don't you realize that the scenery will not be "fast moving" because the game will run 60fps? That the game still will play at the same speed, the pace will be the same, the camera will move the same speed and so on, only the picture movement will be smooth, not choppy?
    When playing SOTC on PS2, I had to take pauses, cause the choppy video gave me headaches. I'm kinda sensitive to that. And that would be the only thing that would go away!
    Edited by 5h1nj1 at 15/12/10 @ 12:00

  • parablax #31 1 year ago

    If only they remaster Jak and Daxter then I will be able to finally lay rest to my ps2.

  • geeza2020 #32 1 year ago

    Not too fussed to be honest. I played both games when they were originally released (loved them both, ICO definitely being one of my favourite games ever) but just have no wish to go back to them. They are fine how they were originally in my opinion, but if you've never played them before, then I can't recommend them enough.

  • Ikaros_O #33 1 year ago

    Never placed Ico but adore SotC, probably one of my favourite games last gen.
    Instabuy.

  • axman303 #34 1 year ago

    You people should listen to what HandOfBeadle is trying to say. 24fps or even 12fps on film with the motion blur associated with the same shutter speed gives movies an 'otherworldy' quality. If movies were filmed at 60fps, they would represent reality much more starkly and, for the most part, would be less effective.

    While 60fps is desirable for certain types of games, SoTC and Ico are not two of them. I think some people are confusing jerky frame rates with no motion blur, with lower frame rates with realistic camera blur. Getting the camera blur right, however, remains illusive.

  • drxym #35 1 year ago

    Remastering probably involves recompiling 95% of the code against PS2 compatibility libs, and tweaking the 5% remainder for performance, resolution, packaging & localisation changes.

    Money for old rope basically, but I'll probably bite assuming the price is reasonable.

  • vizzini #36 1 year ago

    A locked higher frame-rate of 60fps would most certainly be desirable for a game, as it is regularly the same as the quantization frequency of the controller's input. Ie the frequency the gamer gets to control a game. Which was why the Force Unleashed 2's proposed framerate upscaler would have offered no real benefit to gaming interaction, just cutsequences.

    At 30fps you have to wait an extra 16ms to see the results of the buttons you pressed, and that means that the games logic typically won't allow you to break that animation sequence for 33ms.

    If you are running/rolling towards a Colossi; to draw their attention, yet want to change direction just before you collide, then as a gamer you need to guesstimate how far you(and it) will travel in 33ms which regularly results in trial and error.

    This is the biggest issue I have with all the action platformers running at 30fps; whether it be Batman Arkham Ayslum(which uses bullet time; slower animation to help in places) or an Assassins Creed game or even this masterpiece.

    Mario Sunshine with its fully controllable camera (unlike 64 or Galaxy) still represents (for me) the game with the best controllable motion fidelity in a 3D action platformer to date.

    SotC could still have its cinematic feel locked at 60fps, just by utilising motion blur to blend previous frames; giving a similar feel of films; that shoot at higher frame-rates(60fps or greater) and post-process with tone mapping and downsampling to 24fps with motion blur.

    Anyway, looking forward to these regardless of 60/30fps.

  • windflaw #37 1 year ago

    Nicer box cover than the God of War Collection please!

  • HandOfBeadle #38 1 year ago

    Shinji, Yenrug. It would be a lot easier if you just stuck to the negging rather than having a guess at what we mean. Nobody said the game would therefore be twice as fast. It's not about speed of the game. It's about the look and feel you get from a filmic frame rate.

    It's not as if it isn't going to be a guaranteed buy from me - I'm just making a point that 60fps does not equal better by default.

  • mr2ange #39 1 year ago

    @HandOfBeadle

    I have all image filters turned OFF on my tv, films smoothed to 100 or 200hz look awful i agree.

    To be honest i hate watching tv shows that are at full framerate - they do indeed jsut *feel* cheap and nasty.

    However - Playing a game at 60 simply looks better, the world feels more real, you dont have to have a low framerate to get an epic feel, God of war 3 for instance - would that have been better if it ran at half the speed?

    Just take a look at the render that eurogamer did a while back of SOTC running at 1080p @ 60fps and then tell me that you'd rather have it at 30...

  • orangpelupa #40 1 year ago

    im confused about this
    <strong>
    The Blu-ray remasters of Ico and Shadow of the Colossus chiefly add native high-definition resolutions to the old PS2 games. </strong>

    so..... the "new" Ico is now "native" HD just in output render resolution, OR the assets now also in HD?
    If its just the renderer now in HD, i'll just stick with PCSX2....

  • Cataferal #41 1 year ago

    Native means the internal resolution. Don't worry, we're not getting an upscaled 720x576.

    Also, some screenshots of Ico indicate that the textures have undergone an update too. This should have clear advantages over an emulated PCSX2 version (besides the stable code).
    Edited by Cataferal at 15/12/10 @ 12:40

  • YenRug #42 1 year ago

    @HandOfBeadle

    I was covering two points of contention in the one post: some people are arguing that it will affect the pace/playing speed of the game, I'm pointing out that 3D movement does not change dependant on higher frame rates just the smoothness of it; you're arguing that film at lower fps produces certain analogue visual effects which are desirable, I'm pointing out that in a videogame those visual effects are added in and are therefore independant of the frame rate. In both instances, arguing for a lower frame rate is pointless because the arguments being used are not relevant.

  • SpookyTang #43 1 year ago

    I do like these HD conversions, would love ps2 on my ps3 but meh !

  • Psiloc #44 1 year ago

    I can totally see the point the pro-30fps crowd are making. I honestly didn't even notice the low framerate of the original SotC until that DF article simply because it worked so well in the original game (whether it was by design or not). Same goes for Ico.

    That being said I'll probably get used to it being 60fps in about 2 seconds.

  • Psiloc #45 1 year ago

    "I'm pointing out that in a videogame those visual effects are added in and are therefore independant of the frame rate."

    Except when the visual effect is a lower framerate, of course.

  • Stop-gap #46 1 year ago

    woo-hoo! :)

  • HandOfBeadle #47 1 year ago

    Yenrug,

    You can't add in the visual benefit movies receive from running at lower frame rates. It's not about motion blur. It's not about graphical technology. It's about the aesthetic qualities a slower frame rate yields even in relatively static shots where you just have actors talking, or a young man on a horse overlooking a barren landscape as the wind sweeps through his hair and his steed shifts his weight from one foot to another. It's not the sort of thing that Digital Foundry (as great as it can be) was set up to explain.

    Edit: You're all indirectly negging Fumito Ueda.
    Edited by HandOfBeadle at 15/12/10 @ 14:34

  • dllord #48 1 year ago

    Cant wait to play these in 3D

  • retr0gamer #49 1 year ago

    If it's 30 fps I don't care as long as it's a stable 30 fps.

  • Darren #50 1 year ago

    I bought Shadow of the Colossus when I had my launch PS3 but cannot finish it as that machine died and had to be replaced with a slim model that lacked PS2 compatibility. So thanks for that Sony!

    I can see now why they ditched PS2 emulation in the PS3 as these 'HD remastered' games are a very good way to make easy money out of porting old classics to the PS3. Not that I'm complaining as I'm sure I'll buy this double-pack anyway; it will be worth it for the smoother framerate.

  • 5h1nj1 #51 1 year ago

    I'm not having a guess at what you mean, handofbeadle, as you quite clearly stated, what you mean, so I don't have to guess. :D The note about the pace change was obviously meant for the other poster, who is utterly confused.
    Your main point is that slower frame rate yields those "aesthetic qualities". That is a terrible misconception and you are wrong. The stuff that you describe vaguely, comes from the whole technique of recording a movie with a camera through an optical system. It's quite a complex process. Those aesthetic qualities don't just magically appear only because I shoot a movie at 24 fps. :)
    It would also be wise not to put a game and a movie to a direct comparison. Both are totally different media. Image in a game is computer generated and will look the way, that it is programmed to look, it's not about capturing the reality. You also don't need to control a movie and don't need the lowest possible response time in it as you need in a game. Both just works differently and time has proven that games are best to run at the highest framerate because of the response times and a good handling feeling. Sometimes also because of the smoothness of graphics. Many added effects can improve the look of a game, of course, like the motion blur (which is even present in the original SOTC), DOF and other stuff and those will work at 15fps, 30fps or 60fps. So, yes, ideally we can make a game to look like a movie (shot at 24fps for that matter) with the help of those effects, but still run at 60fps, which is best for the handling.
    Running a game at 30fps has visually absolutely no advantage over a game running at 60fps (not taking into account the computing power needed, of course). That would be the main point.

  • f01re #52 1 year ago

    Errr did everyone miss a meeting ?

    Fumito Ueda's already stated they're 30 fps to keep the atmosphere

    Here's the link

    [link url=http://www.1up.com/news/fumito-ueda-ico-guardian-ps3
    ]http://www.1up.com/news/fumito-ueda-ico-...[/link]

    "Ico will run at 30 FPS"
    ...
    "With Colossus, we're anticipating keeping things at 30fps as well, and we'll retain that even in scenes where the framerate dropped in the PS2 version."
    Edited by f01re at 15/12/10 @ 13:58

  • HandOfBeadle #53 1 year ago

    Sorry Shinji, that's way off the mark to the extent that I'll just leave it there. Especially since f01re is a link away from confirming that Ueda himself agrees that the frame rate affects the atmosphere, adding his name to a list that would include any cinematographer worth his/her salt.

    Edit: There we are. What a hero Fumito is.

    [link url=http://www.1up.com/news/fumito-ueda-ico-guardian-ps3
    ]Link[/link]

    What about the framerates, one of the few consistent criticisms people make about Team Ico's PS2 games? "Ico will remain running at 30fps," Ueda said. "Regardless of whether 60fps is possible or not, we're not changing that aspect, because it'd make the atmosphere feel completely different. With Colossus, we're anticipating keeping things at 30fps as well, and we'll retain that even in scenes where the framerate dropped in the PS2 version."

    Brought to you by the Ministry of Knowing-What-They're-Talking-About...
    Edited by HandOfBeadle at 15/12/10 @ 15:14

  • Siberian_Khatru #54 1 year ago

    Balls to that. Thought it was the original team remaking it. Don't want no shitty ass dev messing with Ico and SoTC, these games warrant a different treatment. I hope they aren't doing anything to visuals or anything else, just up the res and framerate and leave everything else intact.

  • varsas #55 1 year ago

    @Siberian_Khatru: Given the Fumito Ueda appears to be overseeing things I think we're probably safe for a good remaster.
    Edited by varsas at 15/12/10 @ 14:13

  • Kaminari #56 1 year ago

    Bramwell has really been going down the drains lately -- professionally speaking.

  • ToAks #57 1 year ago

    2 of the best games ever made.

    I hope there will be a special bundle with this and TLG like the Ultimate GOW Collection :)

  • NotSoSlim #58 1 year ago

    Look at the God of War collection and then come back with the different dev argument. Sony trust them for a reason also look around for hands on impressions as that may cure the worries

  • darc #59 1 year ago

    "I would genuinely consider getting a PS3 for this and Uncharted 2."

    Do it. And grab Demon's Souls while you're at it. I still feel that DS is spiritually connected to SotC somehow. It's SotC's demented evil twin brother. They're exact opposites in some ways, comparable in others. But the meditative tone, lightly sketched plot, vast lonely environment and washed out aesthetics of DS immediately brought SoTC to mind. DS is somewhat less "lonely" however in so far as it throws bzillions of homicidal minions your way in addition to the bosses. :)

    Besides DS can now be had for $20 retail, which is insane. I was so excited to even find a copy back when it was $60 - and no regrets.

  • axman303 #60 1 year ago

    @HandOfBeadle - nice find. All those who negged you and me earlier on should go back and click that little 'Plus' button. They won't though, 'cos some people are ignorant fools with no concience. Only some, though, so don't neg me for saying that. :)

  • HandOfBeadle #61 1 year ago

    Ta. It was f01re who got there first anyway (thanks for saving my keyboard the unnecessary wear), but at least my point about the value of 30 fps over 60fps has been supported by the man who has made the most atmospheric and poetic worlds in gaming history.
    Edited by HandOfBeadle at 15/12/10 @ 17:29

  • gillri #62 1 year ago

    @handofbeadle


    dont worry, us artistic types would all prefer 30FPS,

  • ant72 #63 1 year ago

    If you want an image to look like "film" you render @ 24/25/30. If you want it to look like "video" you render @ 50/60. Some get the difference, others don't. It's true that there is a complicated optical process in a film camera, but most of the "film look" comes from frame rate. If you ever get a chance to see film shot @ 60 fps it's an interesting experience.

    But lets be honest, regardless of framerate, it's going to be awesome.
    Edited by ant72 at 15/12/10 @ 18:26

  • Pasco #64 1 year ago

    OMGWTFBBQ, I haven't read so much wrong things in a thread in a while.

    >I thought we explained why 60fps isn't as good as 30fps as a cinematographic design choice. All you have is smoother = better, but that simply isn't true.

    Yes it is.

    > There is no reason for movies to still be filmed at 24fps

    Yes there are. One example: when filming in higher frame rates the
    maximum time that the shutter of the camera can be open per frame is
    much shorter. In non-optimal lighting conditions, you can get problems
    with proper lighting of your picture. Higher framerates cost more in
    production and most theatres are not equipped to show it.

    > but they still are because of the look and feel it gives to the film.

    Err, no.

    > A lot of TV programmes of late are using reduced frame rates to give their shows that filmic quality and more of a high budget feel (though in many cases you can't polish a turd).

    Let's ask James Cameron, what he has to say:
    "Of course, the ideal format is 3-D/2K/48 fps projection. I'd love to
    have done 'Avatar' at 48 frames. But I have to fight these battles one
    at a time. I'm just happy people are waking up to 3-D.

    Maybe on "Avatar 2."

    [link url=http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117983865?refCatId=2868
    ]http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117983...[/link]

    > If you use your TV's image smoothing to add frames into movies or TV shows then you should probably have your right to vote taken away from you.

    True but that's because image smoothing techniques reduce the picture
    quality even more and add lag which worsens the input lag of low frame
    rates even more.

    > Mario Sunshine with its fully controllable camera (unlike 64 or Galaxy) still represents (for me) the game with the best controllable motion fidelity in a 3D action platformer to date.

    Yeah, only Sunshine runs with 30 FPS and Galaxy with 60 FPS.

    > However - Playing a game at 60 simply looks better, the world feels more real, you dont have to have a low framerate to get an epic feel, God of war 3 for instance - would that have been better if it ran at half the speed?

    God of War 3 actually runs with roughly half the frame rate compared
    to God of War 1 and 2 and that's the reason I didn't buy it. Fighting
    games that don't run with 60 FPS go straight to the garbage bin, as
    far as I am concerned.

    What's next people? Will you defend the pop-ups and visible
    level-of-detail-switching in Shadow of the Colossus as an artistic
    decision?

  • Reihn #65 1 year ago

    I'm with Toothball - I intend to buy a PS3 the day that Last Guardian gets released (very happy with my 'box until then, thanks) however. . this collection could sway me earlier. : )

  • gillri #66 1 year ago

    @Pasco

    sorry dude, but on games like ICO and SOTC that have such a strong artistic vision, 60FPS wont look better

    in fact it would make it look cheap and tacky, 30FPS is the way to go for these games

    shooters and hack & slash games certainly would benefit from 60FPS because it will slightly enhance the fluidity of the gameplay where reactions times are a key part of the game

    I gotta say your opinion on this matter means you dont have a clue about artistic integrity

    you a PC gamer by any chance?
    Edited by gillri at 16/12/10 @ 11:18