Visceral: Why 60FPS is "a must" for Dante's Inferno

By Richard Leadbetter Published 6 February, 2010

"Visuals benefit from higher frame-rate."

Visceral Games has said that Dante's Inferno is a better-looking console game because it runs at 60 frames per second, as opposed to more standard 30FPS.

In a wide-ranging interview with Gamasutra, creative director Jonathan Knight explained how the team had "a fair amount of angst" over the decision, but worked hard in evangelising the call to lock at 60 and getting the development team on-board.

"I think any artist would be lying if they said that they didn't prefer to have more bandwidth," he said. "Any milliseconds you give them, they're going to use it on just one more effect, or what-have-you. But what we found is, it's more of a question of willpower than a technology question. And you just have to commit to it, and say, 'Here are your budgets. Here's the box we're gonna play in.'

"30 frames is a very challenging box to play in as well, and so once you just get everybody bought into that, then what I've found is that the visual effects artists, and the environment artists, and so forth, they just found ways to make stuff look good at 60, and you just have to hold them to it."

Knight also believes that smoother motion helps improve the quality of the graphics:

"If you were to take a screenshot, you might be able to point out, like, 'OK, here's the compromise you made because of your frame-rate,' but when you sit and play the game, the overall visual experience is enhanced by the fast frame-rate. So, I can't really decouple graphics from frame-rate; I don't feel like it's an either/or situation."

The Dante's Inferno performance level certainly is impressive. In Digital Foundry tests on the demo code, the game performed at an almost completely uniform 60FPS in all gameplay situations, while in the recent Face-Off Dante's Inferno proved to be effectively identical in both visuals and frame-rate on PS3 and Xbox 360

Knight's comments are somewhat at odds with those made by Mike Acton of Insomniac, who has committed the PS3 developer to "the best-looking games", inferring that the more standard 30FPS is the best way forward. Our take is that it all depends on the game, a view shared by Turn Ten's Dan Greenawalt in an interview this week with VG247.

"It really turns into a trade-off for the type of visual direction you're trying to achieve, and with Forza Motorsport, the visual style is clear, crisp graphics, and highly-detailed environments and textures," he said. "But in truth, the decision is less about graphics than feel. We prioritise 60FPS as an important feature because it gives the games a feel you just can't achieve at 30; for instance, the responsiveness and feedback of the controls, or physics calculations and visual manifestation of that on how we model our tyre flex and body roll.

"While those calculations are decoupled from the graphics and run as high as 360 frames per second, we found that graphical frame-rate impacts the feel of those systems as well. Simply put, we couldn't have achieved the experience we wanted if the game only ran at 30FPS. I'm sure you would get a similar response from Infinity Ward regarding Call of Duty."

Greenawalt also agreed that smoother motion can produce better-looking visuals.

"The reality is that racing games running at 30FPS have to deal with visual shuttering artifacts in the environment and backgrounds that fly by your field-of-view when the car is traversing at high speeds. So you then go and mask that using motion blur for your environments, which end up eating into your GPU cycles, which take up resources from other features you want on-track."

Picture of Richard.

About Richard Leadbetter

Rich has been a games journalist since the days of 16-bit and specialises in technical analysis. Commonly known around Eurogamer as the Blacksmith of the Future.

Read more articles from Richard by visiting the Richard Leadbetter archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (33) Latest comment 2 years ago

Comments threads automatically close after 30 days, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • Gearskin #1 2 years ago

    You definately feel it in the gameplay. I'd take the game, fluid as it is now, over it looking more detailed.

  • Liam64 #2 2 years ago

    Nine times out of ten, I'd prefer a better framerate at the expense of detail.

    R&C: Crack in Time is a prime example of this. The game looks prettier in screenshots, there are more fancy effects and there's more stuff happening on screen, but it doesn't look as good as its prequel. They chose visuals over framerate, and as such lost their constant 60fps, and the overall look of the game suffered as a result.

  • briguy05 #3 2 years ago

    Yes the game is excellent 60fps... really really loving this game thumbs up ! :)
    10/10

  • menage #4 2 years ago

    @Liam

    CIT looked 10 times better than Future imo, Future looked like a PS2 titles with HD textures and plastic sheen. And CIT played a hell of a lot better than that one as well. Nothing to do with framerate. Shootercontrols FTW.

    I fucking hate Dante's inferno, instead ofd tech they should have made the game less cheap with the constant enemy wave spamming, the stupid autolock cross which has a mind of it's own (no fucker, the small annoying bat which spams fireballs in my back is to the right, aaargh) and the platforming is horrendous. I must have dies 100 times already from missed jumps.

    Edited by 1 at 06/02/10 @ 13:56

  • Geordiemp #5 2 years ago

    Liam and Menage

    You can set up BOTH Crack in Time and tools of destruction to have normal shooter controls so right stick controls camera and there is a dot at centre of scren for easy strafing etc. Both are rubbish without that option, yes its in the menus, but I would have prefered if it was the default control option.

    Both R&C run 60 FPS at 720 P, with full cemera control and large maps. Cant compare with small static maps with no camera control and fixed images (yawn).

    Playing R&C as a FPS on hard level is one of the hidden gems of gaming (ignore the crappy poor reviews like Ellie on EG saying you only need level up you 2 favorite guns or whatever rubbish, fine on easy or normal for a 7 year old. Lay on hard or very hard and you need every bullet from every gun maximised and used at the best time
    Edited by 2 at 06/02/10 @ 14:41

  • GamesConnoisseur #6 2 years ago

    60 fps in screen update and control lag at minimum is so much better AT giving you the real commands of the game, ability to react so much quickly.

    Neg me but is why I found so hard to love Killzone 2 style of supposedly weighty feel, when its more to do with the decision to have the screen visual which is indeed very beautiful but at expense of smooth control? I would prefer more games to have 60 fps and control at the very minimum lag and yet reasonably nice looking enough.

    Graphic is not what always MAKE a great game great.

  • menage #7 2 years ago

    GeordieMP

    Oh, didn't know Future had they same control setup, I'm sure I tried, ah well.

    Still think CIT shits all over it.

  • Kaminari #8 2 years ago

    "Visuals benefit from higher frame-rate."

    Yep. That's why Dante's Inferno looks so drab. Go figure.

  • overcorpse #9 2 years ago

    "Visuals benefit from higher frame-rate."

    You'll may also want to look at retarded save points and redemtion placement ,dodgy collison detection,stupid mini games,god awful QTE's.

    But hey we got 60 fps.

    Crap game is crap.

  • lockload #10 2 years ago

    Depends on the type of game

  • Dizzy #11 2 years ago

    Framerate is the number one requirement for any game IMHO. Everything else is an added bonus.

  • Geordiemp #12 2 years ago

    @ Menage,yes future has, but its called something differenet.

    Note, future when you play on hard is also a good game with the proper shooter controls....only found them out after enjoying crack time with the shooter controls and had a go changing the old game and guess what....
    Edited by 1 at 07/02/10 @ 11:40

  • Ywap #13 2 years ago

    Two thumbs up! 60 fps should be the no.1 priority regarding the visuals for most games.

  • KillerMonkey #14 2 years ago

    High FPS is very important to me, I fucking hate playing shooters that run under about 40 FPS minimum.
    Good thing I have a PC, where you can lower graphical detail to improve framerate.
    It's also kinda stupid consoles don't have that option. Let console users decide if they like bloom or motion blurring, or if they think SSAO is worth the performance hit.

  • Murton #15 2 years ago

    While it would be nice to see consoles gamers get the ability to set their own balance between visuals and performance it would bring so many problems it's just not worth it. One reason that console games don't have these options is because of the certification process, it would create a load of extra work for the Sony and MS QA (that publishers have to pay for btw) and could potentially block a game from being released if found not to work properly. Maybe next gen we'll see something like this happening but current gen I don't see it, V-Sync and gamma options yeah, but not things like resolution, shader quality, particle effects etc. they're just far more hassle than they're worth from a development/publishing point of view.

    Connoisseur: I found the "weighty" control of Killzone 2 added to the immersion of the game when taken in consideration with the excellent visuals and superb sound, perhaps it was a little overly heavy but far preferably to the floaty feel of the majority of other FPS games on the market.

    On the subject of frame rate vs visuals, there's no real reason you can't have both. Rather than push out a billion shit looking frames or 10 masterpieces every second why not have 30-40 that just look great? It's worked for a load of GOTY winning titles already, may as well continue the practice in my opinion.

  • leafmulch #16 2 years ago

    Bayonetta is 60fps on x360 and that's nice... but is it really essential? Hmmm. I'd say for MW2 yes, 3rd person slayer it's just a nice to have. Forza etc. YES - Mass Effect.... NO. Anyway - I don't see it as a must have for every game/genre, but for some it truly makes all the difference.

  • bumgut #17 2 years ago

    Chalk up another fan for 60fps.

    Weren't these the guys that did Dead Space? Playing that game now... It's truly amazing. Get on that sequel!

  • hesido #18 2 years ago

    Finally, love for the 60fps.

  • funkateer #19 2 years ago

    I'm all for 60fps in action games if that helps responsiveness and smoothness, but I can't shake the feeling that Dante's Inferno's controls and gameplay have actually suffered from 60fps:
    They seem to have opted for a fixed camera in an attempt to have more control over the frame rate, and that makes things kind of awkward and static sometimes.

    Despite being only 30fps, for example Uncharted 2's controls felt much more natural and the responsiveness didn't seem to suffer from 30fps, and had much better visuals to boot.

    It seems 60+fps is not always the holy grail in games.
    Edited by 1 at 08/02/10 @ 11:04

  • dudefella #20 2 years ago

    Definitely noticed the drop in frames going from MW2 to Bad Company 2 demo. MW2 just feels smoother. On the flip side, BC2 has these huge battlefields with much more to render and happening, so you get a lot of scale out of the hit in framerate. 30fps is still smooth, just not silky. But you get used to it soon enough. You just can't have both, the consoles aren't powerful enough for it.

  • Retro_ #21 2 years ago

    Of course, when the next gen consoles hit, we'll be having exactly the same discussions but instead of 60 vs 30 fps, it'll be 120 vs 60. bottom line, we'll never be truly satisfied.

  • neems #22 2 years ago

    It'll be years before the new consoles hit, and when they do, it'll still be 60 vs 30, only with more effects on screen. If you're unlucky it might even be 15vs30, or on 3d titles it'll be 120fps but at a resolution of 640x480.

    Modern consoles are perfectly capable of running games at 1080/60, but developers look at the rendering requirements and decide to put the extra power into on screen effects and poly counts. That won't change until you have a console with a massive 'power' surplus, which will probably never happen, or at least not for some decades.

  • berelain #23 2 years ago

    I think these kind of arguments only work for specific games. In the case of Dante's Inferno, you do benefit from those 60fps, because the action is extremely fast and requires swift responses. In a standard RPG, I'll happily settle for 30fps and prettier visuals if thats the tradeoff. Forza 3 feels much more responsive and fluid than the likes of GRiD thanks to its superior framerate.

    Dante's Inferno does feel like a graphical compromise a lot of the time, though. Outside of the fast-flowing action, some of the visuals look awful.

  • butler` #24 2 years ago

    They join the few devs that 'get' the advantages of frames per-second. And as someone said above, it's one of the many (related) issues that stopped me loving Killzone 2.

    edit: engrish
    Edited by 1 at 08/02/10 @ 14:49

  • butler` #25 2 years ago


    @neems: Modern consoles are perfectly capable of running games at 1080/60

    not games you'd want to look at / play :p

  • Zebula77 #26 2 years ago

    Currently playing Dante and yes, the 60fps really does make the game look prettier and more importantly, feel better. The controls are more intuitive and response times quicker. I'll pick frame rate over visual density any time.

    Slightly off-topic, but I think the EG review was too harsh. Game is very entertaining and certainly well-polished and full of wow-moments. No classic by any stretch, but a good alternative to games like Darksiders or Bayonetta.

  • Tallon4 #27 2 years ago

    ^ I feel the same way...this game deserves more. Pity that God Of War 3 isn't 60 fps ( confirmed by Sony )...I don't mind some low-res on grass etc.

  • thubie #28 2 years ago

    Nice article.
    I really think dev should do this.
    Go for fixed 60 fps or go for better graphics at 30 fps.
    Not something that drops from 60 to 30 fps.

  • RobotRocker #29 2 years ago

    60FPS seems more of a technical wank really. Most players have been playing at 30FPS or less most of their lives (Stand up all N64 owners) and we didn't see games truly locked in at 60FPS with full detail till the Dreamcast. Granted, some genres do well with it but it really shouldn't be a make or break decision and seems more like primitive dick waving than an actual feature.

  • FooAtari #30 2 years ago

    Can't agree there RobotRocker. For some genres 60fps is not willy waving. It is a definite advantage.

    For example in racing sims higher frame rates results in better control of the car as it decreases the latency between your input and what happens on screen. Then you have the extra immersion created by the added smoothness which more lifelike.

    Other games that benefit hugely from high frame rates are technical fighting such as Virtua Fighter 4 where timing is critical, or twitch FPS (same reasons as racing sims)

    Often a 60fps game can look better than a 30fps game with better visuals, simply because it looks more smooth and fluid. This doesn't come across in screen shots and usually not videos but does when controlling the game.

    60 fps definitely isn't a requirement for every game. But it definitely isn't technical wank either, some games benefit greatly from it.

  • Mr_Bogus #31 2 years ago

    To all those saying it'll improve as consoles become more powerful: Pre-1995, almost all (2D) console games ran at a solid 60fps.

  • freakzilla #32 2 years ago

    I'm being a cynic but maybe this was a convenient way to avoid making high quality assets and save some time on optimisation. I don't think 60fps is all that noticeable in hack and slash games, it didn't matter in UC2. All you need is stable framerate.

  • Josh128 #33 2 years ago

    Mr. Bogus, actually to this day most 2d titles still refresh motion at 60fps--they didn't stop in 1995! There have always been 2d titles that refreshed at 30 though...Streets of Rage 1, Chakan, and several others on the Sega Genesis come to mind. POP refreshed at like 16 fps (not just character animation, but also motion) on all platforms.

    60fps does add to the wow factor though. Tekken 3 on PS1 looked better than most any fighter on N64 (which only had 2 60fps fighters), yet most certainly lacked the detail of N64s Mace: The Dark Age, which sported outstanding poly counts and art direction, but suffered because of the 20-30fps rate.

    Rogue Leader is notable as it was ABSOLUTELY JAW DROPPING when first released on Gamecube-- I still think to this day it looks better than most Xbox 1 games, it certainly looked better than any Xbox launch title-- thanks in large part to its stunning 60fps frame rate, which was far from rock solid, but combined with the quality of the art direction and poly counts was extremely impressive IMO.
    Edited by 2 at 09/02/10 @ 17:07