Insomniac: 60FPS no more

By Richard Leadbetter Published 7 November, 2009

Is frame-rate really that important?

Page 1 of 2

Insomniac Games is "probably" going to turn its back on its long-standing commitment to 60FPS gameplay for its Ratchet & Clank franchise. According to the developer, there is no marketing premium, or review score value, in supporting the highest-possible refresh rate common to all HDTVs. "We want to give you guys, our fans and players, the best looking games you can buy on a console," says engine director Mike Acton, and 60FPS actually gets in the way of that.

To back up his arguments, Acton has produced interesting data based on a large number of game reviews, which indicates that while there is a clear link between graphics and final score, there is little to no evidence that frame-rate has as much influence. He also polled readers of the Insomniac website, and found that while 16 per cent of respondents were firmly in favour of 60FPS, most are not, with the majority favouring a solid frame-rate that doesn't interfere with the gameplay.

Curiously, Acton seeks to play down the already small minority who don't agree with his overall findings by pointing towards general sales figures, saying that the 16 per cent figure can't possibly be true. Also interesting, especially in an argument couched in terms of sell-through figures, is the lack of focus on the mega-selling franchises that target 60FPS gameplay: the Gran Turismos, the Forzas, the FIFAs and, of course, the Call of Duties. Combined sales of all those probably account for a pretty significant chunk of the marketplace, and in the case of FIFA and Modern Warfare 2, a big slice of this year's Christmas sales.

In terms of Insomniac's decision to back away from 60FPS gameplay, it is perhaps not surprising when you consider overall trends. Back in the era where arcade gameplay and 2D sprite-based action was the norm, 60FPS was a given whether you were playing the latest coin-ops or powering up your latest (NTSC) SNES or Mega Drive game; it was the accepted standard. But in the tumultuous move to 3D gaming during the mid-nineties PlayStation era, things changed irrevocably. The enormous leaps in processing power required to create 3D imagery meant that 60FPS throughput from the console was only possible in the minority of cases: undemanding sports titles, the occasional shooter, and fighting games like Tekken and Virtua Fighter.

Two console generations later and 30 frames per second is the norm. Games are more slowly paced and definitely laggier than the 2D generation, but the majority of the audience has become conditioned to them, and, crucially, gameplay styles have shifted to sit more in sync with the lower frame-rates.

While Acton describes Insomniac's latest Ratchet episode, Crack in Time, as a 60FPS title, this is a somewhat best-case description of the overall flow of the game. Looking at the raw stats after Digital Foundry analysis, the performance doesn't quite reach the levels Insomniac aspired to, and - amazingly, bearing in mind the wonderful quality of the graphics - the game is actually sub-HD, albeit with the highest-possible image quality we've seen using its chosen upscaling technique.

Let's have a quick peek at some pixel analysis first, to confirm the findings. Edge analysis can sometimes seem inconclusive when looking at this game, but Ratchet & Clank seemingly works by merging the two buffers generated in the process of creating anti-aliasing. While most of the edge-smoothing effect is lost, Insomniac can get away with the generation of significantly lower framebuffer while making it look pretty damn close to native 720p. Lower resolution means that more frames can be rendered per second and this is undoubtedly a key aspect in A Crack in Time running as smoothly as it does.

It should not be understated how much of a technical achievement this AA buffer merge technique actually is in terms of Ratchet & Clank's implementation. Many games have attempted this technique (the PS3 versions of the WWE games, for example), but none has been convincing enough to fool the human eye into thinking that the game is anything other than sub-HD. To its immense credit, Insomniac appears to have made an impressive breakthrough here.

Similar to the last Ratchet game, we peg A Crack in Time at 960x704 in the final analysis, but the proprietary AA buffer merging technique does an astonishingly good job of creating the effect of native 720p, albeit with a slight blur. Moving down to a solid 30FPS would effectively double the amount of time Insomniac has with which to render a frame - more detail, more objects, more overdraw (it's this latter element that seems to cause the most frame-rate issues in this game). Although there are few complaints about the image quality, the developer could also shift to the native 720p resolution with 2x multi-sampling anti-aliasing - the standard set by many other first-party exclusives in the Sony stable (Uncharted 2, God of War III and MAG, just for starters).

Playing the latest Ratchet & Clank, it's clear that while Uncharted developer Naughty Dog has scooped plenty of plaudits for its tech, Insomniac perhaps isn't getting the credit it deserves. The game is immensely detailed, throws about tons of those difficult alpha transparencies with abandon, renders absurd amounts of objects at almost any given point and works tirelessly in attempting to sustain 60FPS. The only problem is that the developer is so ambitious that it's just too much for the engine to cope with. To its credit though, Insomniac keeps the v-sync fully engaged at all time.

The first level - with Clank centre-stage - does a decent job of maintaining 60FPS with just a few exceptions. However, a couple of minutes into the video, the Ratchet stages show a much lower average frame-rate.

In Insomniac's own research, one of the conclusions reached was that a solid, sustained frame-rate was important: more important than 60FPS. "Frame-rate should be as consistent as possible and should never interfere with the game," Mike Acton says. "A solid frame-rate is still a sign of professional, well-made product. When there is a trade-off for frame-rate, it needs to be clearly worth it... it must introduce clear improvements on what the player sees, and never used as an excuse to not optimise the game or art."

Page 1 of 2

Comments (80) Latest comment 2 years ago

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

  • Scimarad #1 2 years ago

    Personally I'd go for 60fps and slightly less complex graphics. Forza 3 has convinced me of this, not that the visuals there seem in anyway compromised.

    Generally good art design is superior to throwing about 20 gazillion 3d objects at the screen. Just look at Aion.

  • rodpad #2 2 years ago

    Thoroughly enjoyable read.

  • INSOMANiAC #3 2 years ago

    Its a shame because Ratchet and Clank is one of the smoothest games on any system, the 60fps is a joy, too many games these days suffer from poor frame rate or the blurry effect when moving.

  • ybfelix #4 2 years ago

    I'm the lucky few who ain't too sensitive to framerate so I get more enjoyment out of more titles. Maybe it's because my early gaming is on a crappy computer. This issue is really down to indivual experience and physiologic.

  • Roarster #5 2 years ago

    I'd say Insomniac are smarting at the pre-release hype given to Killzone 2 compared to that of Resistance 2. There's no doubting most of this hype was due to the graphics of Killzone which I'd imagine would be impossible for Insomniac to replicate at 60FPS.

    By dropping to 30FPS, they'll be able to create better graphics, giving better looking screenshots and trailers, resulting, in their opinion, in more hype for their games. And they're probably right.

  • CromeYellow #6 2 years ago

    Having been playing Forza 3 all week, it's obvious that 60fps is part of what makes the game so good. Occasionally when you're on a long straight and you have a chance to look at the scenery, you notice the trees look a bit ropey but it's such a non-issue for the enjoyment of the game.

    I think these articles are a real bonus for Eurogamer, I have not a clue about the technical area of game design but I find all this stuff fascinating.

  • Brianstorm #7 2 years ago

    More likely uncharted 2 has influenced preceedings insomniac and naughty dog have a friendly rivalry, which they're not coming out on top of at the mo...

  • theholyghost #8 2 years ago

    Gets on my nerve this. People see a link, and don't think about cause and effect. They just read it as they want to read it. I can believe there is a link between good graphics and good overall review scores. I can also believe if a game has good graphics, it might make the player feel it is a better game. But, just as likely is that if a game has good gameplay, this might cause the reviewer to up the score for the graphics. Several times I've seen a good game with shit graphics and the review describes the graphics as 'adequate' or 'functional' and a bad game with similarly shit graphics, yet here the graphics are described as shit. Maybe companies should work on making better games, if they want their games to sell well.
    That Valve guy is a nob too, while I'm in 'complain about game company bosses' mode.

  • byakuya83 #9 2 years ago

    If a game runs consistently at 30fps throughout then that would appear smoother than something that aims for 60fps but dips below that quite often. I'd prefer the game to run at 30fps if it meant it was a rock-solid framerate throughout and enabled the developers to improve other aspects of the visuals.

  • penhalion #10 2 years ago

    "Is framerate really that important?"

    Well yes actually, given that it's been know for a very long time now, that we don't see at 30 frames per bloomin' second! Things only get truly smooth at around the 100hz mark.

  • womble #11 2 years ago

    30 fps is just fine for the vast majority of games.

    I'd much prefer 30fps with a lot of detail, than 60fps with a lower resolution or less visual information.

    In the market, Insomniac are 100% correct: it's not even an issue. Only fanboys and purists go on about it for the most part.

    A STABLE framerate is far more important than a possibly high yet varying rate.

  • hiddenranbir #12 2 years ago

    Make it a 50! or a 40!

  • DrStrangelove #13 2 years ago

    Imagine GTA4 with a smooth performance.

  • M4RV #14 2 years ago

    I still remember the good old days, when I actually thought that TOD would run at 720p@60fps. Still, that one is an amazing game, from a visual standpoint and bloody entertaining to boot.

  • Fr002 #15 2 years ago

    One of the best article I read in months. Good job ! You present very well the two side of the question whith all the expertise that DF have ;p The old Idle Thumbs can go away.

  • M4RV #16 2 years ago

    @captain_HATE080208:< br />
    You're joking right...?! The original Resistance not only ran natively at 720p@30fps, but also included FSAA if I'm not mistaken, unlike the sequel.

  • Syrok #17 2 years ago

    /can't tell the difference between 60 and 30fps

  • M4RV #18 2 years ago

    ^ ^ ^ ^

    Wish I was that lucky. :\

  • Ywap #19 2 years ago

    30 fps with drops smeared out by motion blur is a wonderful sight to behold. But things can get better as you can buy an LCD screen and get additional blur: MotionBluR II - the way moving pictures are ment to be seen.

    Personally i´m dreaming of 10 fps and MotionBluR III

    Maybe in the future we can buy goggles (thanks dominalien :) ) that simulate blur so we never have to see anything sharp ever again, not even in real life!

    Edited by 1 at 07/11/09 @ 13:03

  • Bagpuss #20 2 years ago

    Depends on the genre of game

    Racing Games = 60fps (sheer sense of speed)

    Fighting Games = 60fps (reaction times)

    Console FPS = 30fps ( due to slow joypad movement)

    PC FPS = 60fps ( due to fast mouse/KB movement)

    RPG = 30fps (usually slow plodding things anyway)

    RTS = 60fps (reaction times are critical)

    Platformer = 30fps or 60fps (depends on type of platformer)

  • insincere_dave #21 2 years ago

    Interesting read, thanks.

    Still think that all the console manufacturers should insist upon 60Hz and 1080p for the next gen consoles. By that point, graphics will be so pretty anyway that a lower frame rate is going to make less of a difference visually than in current and previous gens.

  • beckyh #22 2 years ago

    I would have no idea whether a game has 30fps or 60fps. I am sure the vast majority of gamers would not know the difference either. As far as I am concerned, as long as a game has a steady rate then it does not matter at all. Much better to have a game which is a steady 30fps then have a game pushing its limits to 60 and having problems.

  • dominalien #23 2 years ago

    I remember getting the PS2 in 2001 and being wowed by the smoothness of motion of the 3D graphics. For some reason, my PC at that time was never able to achieve the consistency I was seeing on the console. I guess those times are long over :/

    Wouldn't it be possible to use the 24Hz mode of some TVs to get a locked, judder-free 48 fps? Probably not. This, however, could perhaps be less demanding than full 60 fps, but still be low latency and smooth.

  • dominalien #24 2 years ago

    Maybe in the future we can buy googles that simulate blur so we never have to see anything sharp ever again, not even in real life!

    Goggles (I assume that's what you meant?) are so impractical! Let's all get artificial eyes with the pleasing blur effect built right in!

  • local_celebrity #25 2 years ago

    An eloquent defence of 60fps gaming. Nice. I just hope it gets read by the people that matter: Acton and the wider developer community.

    I can't imagine the site without these articles now. They’re so readable and informative. Well done, EG! Digital Foundry is truly a feather in your cap.

  • BadBoyBonner #26 2 years ago

    Eyes already have the pleasing blur effect built in - that is why you can see an after image after looking at bright things - and why the 24Hz image appears smoother in a darkened cinema.

  • knightmt #27 2 years ago

    Definately a genre issue, what games should we be comparing?
    I am sure you can get away with less in platform. Films must really suck for frame junkies.

  • Demiath #28 2 years ago

    Stability and reliability is what really matters when it comes to frame rates. Maybe we can get 60fps as well (as some developers seem capable of producing), but if we don't that's not the end of the world.

  • mr_goop #29 2 years ago

    60fps isn't about smooth looks, it's about feel.

  • Keivz #30 2 years ago

    I game on the PC and, generally speaking, if it isn't running at 60fps, then it's time to upgrade. But the whole 'it's 60 fps or it's 30 fps' thing really irks me as I find 45 fps to be just as acceptable as 60 fps. If only displays had more dynamic refresh rates... granted the more end-user options you provide the trouble you're likely to run into.

    And is it just me or is judder more appreciable in some games (e.g. NFS:S) than others (RE:5)?

  • Buran #31 2 years ago

    "For example, Resident Evil 5 running on a good PC can look exactly the same as its console counterpart"

    ...In a low gaming PC. If your PC has a 8800 GT or better -mine have a GTX 275- it looks light years better in PC.

  • Collymilad #32 2 years ago

    "60fps isn't about smooth looks, it's about feel. "

    Indeed. People can quote all the human eye data they want, but when you hit 60, it's totally different. There's a very noticable point when a game goes from say 55 to 60fps, where everything goes completely smooth and it's a much better experience.

    People who are saying you can't tell a difference between 30 and 60 need to go to specsavers. Once you have seen 60fps you know it when you see it, and you know when a game isn't running at 60fps. I'm not saying that 30 isn't good enough, but if given the choice I'd choose 60 every time.

    I love how Sony and their "arms" seem to think they can just dictate what is the base standard for things. People have realised the benefit of 60fps and I was under the impression that if you could hit it that was the number to go for, but obviously not now that it suits them. It's about gameplay, and 60fps trumps 30 every time. Fact.

    Edited by 3 at 07/11/09 @ 13:34

  • mkreku #33 2 years ago

    I remember playing Elite on my Commodore 64. It had 2-3 fps.

    KIDS THESE DAYS

  • jimboton #34 2 years ago

    thats funny, i dont remember the 16 bit consoles playing 60fps!? in fact it was rarely 30fps

    Really? what framerate did they run on then?

  • NotSoSlim #35 2 years ago

    @Collymilad

    Sony and there''arms'' dictating?? They are not dictating they are seeing what level of detail ND and others have achieved with 30fps and have decide its better for there future games. Its not ideal but no ones complaining that UC2 is 30fps are they??

    Insomniac also have Resistence to think about and KZ2 was 30fps and look at the detail they achieved. Unfortunately higher detail in graphics gets noticed first for majority of gamers.

  • Obiwanshinobi #36 2 years ago

    I can forgive compromises such as aliasing, screen tearing, low resolution, low polygon count etc., but low framerate virtually ALWAYS spoils my enjoyment, even when the gameplay is 100% turn based. It's not only about responsiveness and sense of speed in, say, racers. It's also about the quality of animation. That's why I respected the last gen Capcom. Go and try to make a game as beautifully animated as Okami, yet running at 30 fps. Personally I don't believe it's possible, motion blur or not. And yes, notoriuos framerate drops (slowdown rather than frameskipping) in Okami are forgivable precisely because that particular game doesn't necessarily require the most responsive controls possible. Beautiful animation remains baeutiful even whilst slowing down.
    I'm not a fan of the distinctively American aimation typical of Sony platformers, but heck, the original Ratchet & Clank wasn't even the best looking PS2 platformer at the time, yet the high framerate makes it arguably even more enjoyable today, when console games aiming at 60 fps are such a rare breed. High framerate can be a selling point. Who cares about the screenshots when you can play a demo?
    Moreover, "rock-solid 30 fps" in action games will probably always be only about just as solid as in Killzone 2. The game looks good, it's playable, and the framerate is solid, in a way, yet even the slightest framerate drop is bloody obvious. THAT is a big elephant in the room, although how big it is depends on how much it spoils your fun.
    Edited by 1 at 07/11/09 @ 14:18

  • StooMonster #37 2 years ago

    Ten years ago I used to play Half-Life Death-Match on a 4:3 Sony monitor at 1280x1024 at 150Hz or 1600x1200 at 120Hz, oh it was so silky smooth; combined with my outrageous 128kbps dual-ISDN gave me an edge over lesser equipped competitors.

    A quarter-of-a-century ago, back in the mid-1980s, we used to get C64 titles to work at 50Hz for PAL and 60Hz for NTSC versions -- for ultra smooth parallax scrolling etc.

    It's a shame that modern consoles are more PR than performance and cannot handle decent graphics at high frame rates.
    Edited by 1 at 07/11/09 @ 14:45

  • freakzilla #38 2 years ago

    I don't care if its 30 or 60 but I do care about the controller latency, and if 30fps means that there's even a slight delay then graphics can f*ck right off.

    I think that's what they were doing with dirt 2, the response was delayed by at least half a second.

  • Obiwanshinobi #39 2 years ago

    Films must really suck for frame junkies.
    Have you ever seen a still frame taken from a dynamic scene? It's blurred. Almost every frame depicting things in motion is smudged; only the sequence of frames creates the illusion of sharpness. That's how films can get away with 24 fps. For some reason no matter how the animation calculated in real time tries to emulate that trick (motion blur, interframe blending or whatever), it never looks quite as convincing as either the film or the animation running at higher framerate.
    Edited by 1 at 07/11/09 @ 14:53

  • Kerome #40 2 years ago

    Beyond 60 fps, no, there's not a lot of value imho. Human action lag is about 1-10th of a second anyway, movies play at 24 fps, and vertical blank on tv's is either 60 fps or 50 fps (depending on whether you're in America or the rest of the world), and for a very long time that was enough for pretty much anything. Granted there is some quality gain up to maybe 100 fps, but seriously that's it.

    What is pretty important is a steady framerate without spikes...

  • Sharzam #41 2 years ago

    When i play PC games i often have fraps running for its FPS watermark and if a game is regularrly below 60fps i will go into settings and lower the quality to get it.

    I simpley dont play my 360 as much as i used to as doesnt feel as responsive most of the time, partly controller lag but mostly because the fps is just not 60 most of the time.

  • JensonJet #42 2 years ago

    Framerate makes a big difference to me. Perhaps I'm more sensitive to it than others. I have certainly given up on games due to 30fps. For example, after playing CoD4 I was unable to go back to Rainbow Six because the screen was impossible to catch sight of enemies as I turned. Perhaps I have the sensitivity of my controller higher than most. I have the same issue with driving games. After Forza I can no longer even consider a racing game that runs at 30fps. Anyone who suggests they can't tell a difference must either drive very, very slowly, or have their controller speed in first-person shooters set to a very slow setting. Content and execution of a game is paramount, but a higher framerate makes a game more enjoyable than slightly higher textures or complex meshes. I don't buy games based on them looking prettier than the competition.

    On the subject of reviews, I wish all of them would spend a few sentences talking about the technical side of the games too. I will always be more interested in 60fps and far less so in 30.

    Recently I wasted my money on another first-person shooter than only ran at 30 frames. If there are two genres that needs 60 more than any others it's shooters and driving games. Fortunately I don't play Ratchet and Clank but if I did I'd be extremely disappointed with the decision to go backwards to 30 just to try and get a slightly higher review rating. As previously mentioned by another poster, I favour the developers making a good game rather than a game with slightly better graphics than it's competition.

    If FIFA, Modern Warfare and Forza can look good with 60 frames per second, I'd suggest other developers just aren't so good at programming graphics as the makers behind those titles! At least I know now to never bother taking a look at anything Insomniac produce.

  • Emmit_Assassin #43 2 years ago

    Yet more evidence that we've all been sold machines that will never do what they said they would. Whilst I don't mind all this dropping frame rate and definition if its for gameplay's sake, we were all told, 'Buy an Xbox 360 / Fony PS3 and you will be rewarded with 1080p 60FPS as standard gameplay like nothing you've ever seen!'
    I've yet to see this be the norm. Some triple A's manage it, just. But most games are no where near this 'standard' we were promised.
    So yet again we were all 'sheeped' into buying yet another gen machine way before it was due.

    Mind you, I got my copy of Modern Warfare 2 this morning...so fuck it; who cares?

  • butler` #44 2 years ago

    They join a select group of developers that understand about the feel of refresh rates in excess of 30 Hz

    They could have just asked me though. I'm cheap.

  • butler` #45 2 years ago

    I fall into the "I'd rather have it silky smooth than highly detailed". More Quake than Crysis, that's for sure.

    And to the guy on about the differences between 30 and 60 Hz: no, there's not a great deal of difference if you're not actually playing the game -- as others have said, Insomniac have implied, and research shows.

    Pro Quake players don't use 300 FPS for how it looks.

  • malmer #46 2 years ago

    I'd actually rather have better graphics at 30 fps than half as good graphics at 60 fps. Also, 30 fps is more cinematic. 60 fps feels like video or those awful motion reconstruction LCD:s that makes movies look like something filmed on DV.

    I played ratchet and clank and those 60 fps felt too smooth. I love the cinematic feel of 24-30 fps. Motion blur, if correctly done like in Killzone 2, is great. Hey, if developers only focussed on making graphics look good instead of numbers such as 60 fps och 720p things would look so much better. Imagine a game made for 480p, but running on a 360 or PS3. There would be much more room for advanced graphics and high anti-aliasing. Wall-E on DVD with compression looks better than Wipeout at 1080p so resolution isn't everything. And I'd rather have a SD game with 4x anti-aliasing and amazing graphics at 30 fps than a game made for 1080p60.

    Still, the biggest difference between a good looking game and a bad one is design.
    Edited by 1 at 07/11/09 @ 19:50

  • Geordiemp #47 2 years ago

    The original interview also mentioned some lower reiew scores such as Eurogamers, Ellie did not mention the good graphics at 60 FPS...

    Only played the R&C demo, and with the SHOOTER control option it was great (right stick controls camera smilar to most FPS games)...Contrast this to the poor EG review that moaned about camera control (yes,you can control it)....

    I think Insomniacs point is that some reviewers (looking at Ellie of EG) dont appreciate the 60 FPS fluid gamplay and want slide show good graphics instead....


  • Salaminizer #48 2 years ago

    It should be, but like dedicated servers on consoles, if you don't even know what it changes for you, you won't miss it. so it's not important anymore.

  • RobTheBuilder #49 2 years ago

    It's a shame that frame rate doesn't get the credit it deserves in games. Forza 3's 60fps adds a lot to the gameplay, as does high refresh rates in most games.

    The problem is that frame rates are a silent issue. Most people don't care as long as it doesn't get into 10's. Bad frame rate will hinder but good rates don't sell.

    As long as we don't end up with NFS Undercover style ports it shouldn't be bad. But anything below 30fps is rarely acceptable to me personally.

  • womble #50 2 years ago

    " 'Buy an Xbox 360 / Fony PS3 and you will be rewarded with 1080p 60FPS as standard gameplay like nothing you've ever seen!"

    Really?

    I certainly have never expected such a thing. Full HD at 60fps is a HUGE stretch for consoles.

  • Darren #51 2 years ago

    I prefer a smooth consistent tear-free framerate so I don't care whether a game runs at 30 or 60 fps personally so long as that is achieved. The applies to FPSs and racing games too.

    The three PS3 Ratchet & Clank games apparently have a framerate that never drops below 30 fps and can go as high as 60 fps but there's such a huge difference between the two extremes that the game's smoothness can feel inconsistent when it's 30 fps one second and 60 fps the next. I've never understood why Insomniac didn't lock the framerate at 30 fps; it's not a game that needs 60 fps anyway. Uncharted 2 runs at 30 fps and the framerate feels totally smooth at all times no matter how much action is going on. In Ratchet & Clank when you're collecting dozens of bolts you can feel the framerate halve and it's disconcerting. That wouldn't happen if the game was locked at 30 fps.

  • captain-future #52 2 years ago

    60Hz or die!

  • Zaiz #53 2 years ago

    I dunno, 60FPS is love. I rely on it for RTS play(Relic's RTSes don't look 10% as good at 30 FPS, the fun is in the fireworks) and I do get annoyed with FPSes if they don't feel about 60 FPS. That's the exact reason why I'm not a fan of Killzone, the controller lag is ridiculous.

    On the other hand, I still enjoy Oblivion yet I don't think getting 30+ FPS plus in the Market District is actually possible without spending 400+ dollars on graphics hardware.

  • RobTheBuilder #54 2 years ago

    Question is really why "better graphics!!!" has become so important that 60hz frame rate has to suffer. It's our fault for expecting better images every time, and letting lower frame rates become acceptable. Though happily not as acceptable as they were on PS2...

  • Freek #55 2 years ago

    In a platform adventure game, 60FPS isn't as important as in a racing game. 30 FPS is fine for jumping around and shooting things.

  • Obiwanshinobi #56 2 years ago

    Funnily enough, if there is one thing I demand from cinematic platformers, it's uncompromised character animation. The last gen Prince of Persia, Tomb Raider Anniversary, Splinter Cell - I like my action adventure games animated like that (or even better, if possible). This is probably my favourite genre and I don't like the way standards are going south. It begun with MGS3 I think (30 fps were the only significant flaw of that game's presentation), and don't even get me started on SotC (compared to the likes of DMC, GoW, PoP or even Ico, that game's performance was gash). I assume those of you guys who "love the cinematic feel of 24-30 fps" found yourselves in some sort of beyond-cinematic gaming heaven whilst playing SotC. I'm not sure how much fps The Chronicles of Riddick: Escape from Butcher Bay used to run at on my PC, but seems to me like it was more than 30 fps as I wouldn't complain.
    For my money technologies powering cinematic action adventure games must provide decent character animation, smooth framerate and responsive controls first. The hell with pimped up screenshots and trailers. Of course animation designed for 30 fps can be relatively good, but it's never going to be Prince of Persia/Soul Calibur/Tekken etc. good. On the other hand, no amount of fps will make bad animations good (see Legacy of Kain/Soul Reaver games). Rather ironically, when Naughty Dog finally realised that characters in their games don't necessarily have to move like in cartoons for Hitlerjugend demographic, they also compromised the framerate.
    Is God of War III going to run at 30 fps only too?

  • M4RV #57 2 years ago

    Is God of War III going to run at 30 fps only too?

    ^ ^ ^ ^

    GoW 3 is supposed to run at 60fps for the most part, but according to the developers, the framerate will drop every so often, during the more intense scenes.

  • Obiwanshinobi #58 2 years ago

    GoW 3 is supposed to run at 60fps for the most part, but according to the developers, the framerate will drop every so often, during the more intense scenes.

    Not quite unlike I&II then, which is fine. I won't be surprised when all those current 30 fps defenders change their tune.
    Edited by 1 at 08/11/09 @ 08:08

  • Geordiemp #59 2 years ago

    And with Ratchets hoverboots you drive Ratchet fairly quickly over jumps and stuff....This R&C is different and the hi framerate is good.

  • des #60 2 years ago

    Yay,30fps from Insomniac...oh wait you have made 30fps games before,what is the big deal then?
    Reasons are stupid,sales,reviews...those things have nothing to do with how good the game plays and feels.
    No matter when you fire MW,now or in 10 years you know that you will be welcomed by 60fps and butter smooth controls,not with some choppy 30fps.

  • Bazfrag #61 2 years ago

    "Forza 3 is a bullshot-free zone by reputation"

    Erm no. Che - Turn 10 community manager claimed all shots were gameplay, and the high detail models were gameplay as well. Seeing as they were photomode shots with higher poly models not used in actual gameplay, which he admitted, I ask what is a bullshot if not this?

    On topic, 30fps is fine for most games, as many have said. Racing and multiplayer fps are much better at 60.
    Edited by 1 at 08/11/09 @ 11:45

  • Pasco #62 2 years ago

    The article started OK, then it became about what kind of anti-aliasing Ratchet & Clank uses which is not the issue and then the conclusion is that the author gets to decide that there is a definite answer to the framerate question (although different people are obviously bothered differently by lower framerates) and then you tell as it was the right decision by Insomniac? Eh, no thanks.

  • kongzi #63 2 years ago

    If developers could get away with 1 frame per minute, they would. A publisher doesn't care if you play or enjoy the game, only that you buy it. But you can only fool people so many times.

  • Trikk #64 2 years ago

    Console players getting shafted by big companies again? Stop the presses.

    I quickly lose interest in games that run slower than 60 fps and I prefer 100 or more fps, especially in multiplayer games.

    The crazies defending low frame rates are generally an Internet-only phenomenon.

  • hesido #65 2 years ago

    30fps platformer? I am glad Nintendo doesn't agree. No no no.. Platformers should better be 60fps.

  • hesido #66 2 years ago

    And, I thought digital foundry was where 0.3 frames per second mattered. Suddenly, a total loss of 30 frames per second doesn't matter :p

  • Hellform #67 2 years ago

    `Forza 3 isnt a `bullshot free zone by reputation`
    When the demo released, we all realized that Turn 10 had been bullshotting us for months. They were showing us high LOD models only available in the menus and at the start of the race. You dont even get them in replays. Calling out PD for bullshots, then citing Forza 3 as a bullshot free zone is a misstep and should be corrected in the interest of accuracy.

  • Grayvern #68 2 years ago

    Framerate is important but really its not a debate of 30 vs 60 thats a red herring. the real issue is stability.

  • Obiwanshinobi #69 2 years ago

    Again, I must admit that so called 60 fps is hardly ever actually maintained through the entire console game (except for the likes of Tekken maybe) - even Burnout 3 on the PS2 had notable framerate drop in about two places, and minuscular hiccup is notorious in Burnout Paradise on the PS3 - moreover, even 60 fps can be jerky if the framerate isn't consistent, but guess what, usually I can tell if they at least tried to make it 60 fps and I always appreciate that more than antialiasing, vertical synchronization, drawing distance...
    An example: Okami vs MGS3. Okami - would-be 60 fps slowing down as a bitch (but never to the point of unplayability), and it takes entering the tiniest location to appreciate how smooth it runs when the engine can take a breath as for the most of time the performance is nowhere near. MGS3 - very steady 30 fps, animations arguably as good as they can be at 30 fps, extremely rare screen tearing and slowdown. That said, for my money Okami's presentation has an edge over that of MGS3, mostly because the animations in Okami are designed for 60 fps by the Capcom artists and it shows. In the animation department Okami is second to none, whereas MGS3 is an underdog despite its all other production values, because 30 fps limit IS a compromise when it comes to the real-time character animation.

  • 3william56 #70 2 years ago

    Insomniac show that no-one cares about Digital Foundry's patented pixel and frame counting w*nk if the game's good enough.
    Sense at last...

  • thesombrerokid #71 2 years ago

    this stuff about 60fps being the norm a decade ago is absolute pish, the standard was 23-30fps depending on pal/ntsc, except in arcades and on pc, home consoles have never ran above 30fps because until pal-60 that's what tv's were limited to.

  • butler` #72 2 years ago

    @designerheadache: The basics of persistence of vision theory dictate that slower moving images,and thus games, tend to be deemed acceptable at lower refresh rates than faster moving images.

  • solidmgsnake #73 2 years ago

    Yes, framerate is important. Its too bad consoles have hardware that limits the games performance in the end. When I played RE5 on ps3- I can tell the framerates can get to the dreaded 20fps mark. I still played the hell out of the game to the point where I was bored with it. WHen the PC version came out- I tried it out with max settings- with resolutions greater than 720p. It was like a fresh game to look at and I played through the whole thing again because it looked much better. but really aside from all the bells and whistles, the framerate made all the difference in the world.
    Edited by 1 at 09/11/09 @ 10:27

  • Rubarack #74 2 years ago

    Wow, that was a comprehensively excellent article.
    Edited by 1 at 09/11/09 @ 13:04

  • Bigglesworth #75 2 years ago

    An interesting insight into Imsomniac's philosophy.

    I'm puzzled about the frame rate display in the accompanying video, though. The article states that the game runs with constant v-sync, but the video regularly shows a frame-rate of between 50 and 60fps. Can someone explain?

  • Trikk #76 2 years ago

    @designerheadache - Frames per second is just a good indicator. You have a lot of different factors such as interacting vs watching, lighting, contrast, sharpness (for lack of a better term), etc, which plays a part in how you percieve motion.

    @thesombrerokid - I suggest you read up on how CRT technology works.

  • Darren #77 2 years ago

    @Bigglesworth - The game is triple buffered which means the framerate isn't locked to factors of 60 (10, 15, 20, 30) as it is with standard double buffering.

  • lowscore #78 2 years ago

    For me, a constant 60fps is important because of the smoothness of the visuals. You can clearly see the frame 'jumps' in 30fps.

    But that's not what bugs me the most. It's actually a side-effect of that, called double-vision, that gets under my skin. Clearly evident when small or very thin objects scroll past, eg. a pole. In 60fps you'll see a pole passing by. In 30fps you'll see two poles passing by!

    Offcourse, everything is seen twice when frames are repeated (just look it up). You'll see that the trunk of a tree appears thinner when moving past because the background shimmers through on both sides (making only the middle of the trunk appear solid because the same color overlays). And it get's sillier and sillier when you notice double-vision like I do: move past a character and you see a guy with 2 heads and 4 arms, and so on. It's atrocious.

    Therefore, to me, 30fps and more detail is a paradox. Sure, when you stand still. But when you move around, you actually see less detail because of the double-vision. Just look at the monitor you're staring at right now, cross-eyed. Now that is how much detail you actually see in a moving 30fps game.

    So, no thanks, I'll stick to 60fps games.
    Edited by 3 at 12/11/09 @ 12:20

  • Quak #79 2 years ago

    What surprises me about the line is that graphics are simply part of an overall package, and gameplay should be king

    He didn't say gameplay doesn't matter, nor did he even say graphics are more important than gameplay. What he said was that it would be the best looking game on the system. Perhaps he even agrees with you that gameplay should be king - who knows?

    Secondly, why do you make out that a 30fps game is going to lose marks for being slow and jerky? Since when is 30fps slow and jerky? Sure, targeting 30fps means a loss of 10fps is easier to notice than if you start at 60fps, but isn't this guy's WHOLE POINT that if they target 30fps that they can maintain that more consistently than if they try to target 60fps?

    There's no point in worrying how you're going to cross the sub-30fps bridge as a result of this guy's direction because it will never happen to any significant level and we'll never get to it. I think that writing about such non-existent problems now smacks of headline seeking and detracts from the usual quality of your articles.

    Your articles are better when you stick to the facts so please leave the unjustified scaremongering to the fanboys.
    Edited by 1 at 12/11/09 @ 12:54

  • Quak #80 2 years ago

    @thesombrerokid

    this stuff about 60fps being the norm a decade ago is absolute pish

    I'm not sure anyone has said it was the "norm", but there were games doing this. Virtua Fighter 2 on Saturn ran at 60fps and was released in 1995/1996.