Insomniac: 60FPS no more Comments by Richard Leadbetter

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.

thats funny, i dont remember the 16 bit consoles playing 60fps!? in fact it was rarely 30fps. To be honest as long as the frame rate is a solid 30fps then thats fine with me, i think were gonna have to wait till next gen for a pretty much standard 60fps 1080p .

Thoroughly enjoyable read.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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...

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.

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.

"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.

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.

Imagine GTA4 with a smooth performance.

Depends on the game. Playing Call of Duty 4 online at 30fps would suck but for most console games a solid 30fps is absolutely fine.

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.

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.

@captain_HATE080208:

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.

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

^ ^ ^ ^

Wish I was that lucky. :\

Bad move. Good quality games first, graphics second. Or you end up with Crysis.

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!

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)

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

depends on the game/genre. for example, I would rather see Uncharted 2 triple-buffer 30fps stunning visuals, then ~60 fps with not so stunning visuals.
On Gran Turismo- 60fps definitely, you must have that response time, where split seconds decide, and we know that gfx will be great in GT. as for the shooters,
I definitely prefer style,look and pace of KZ2 with no aim assists like in COD.
You must be absolutely deadly precise, move smart, flank and work as a team, Slower pace suits KZ2 well, with complex animations, precise weapons and great hitboxes.
I ABSOLUTELY HATE FPS GAMES WITH SPRAY&PRAY+AIM ASSIST+LOCK ON+LAG+SUB HD GFX.I know that kind of games are more accessible, and what's sad sold much more,
No opinion on fighters like Tekken,Street Fighter etc.

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

-_-

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)?

"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.

"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.

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

KIDS THESE DAYS

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?

@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.

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.

I still don't think call of duty requires 60fps. I have played 30fps shooters that really felt no different to me and I wouldnt think it made a difference in the gameplay. The assumption is made that the 60fps games that sold well have done so partly because of the fps and I argue that it made no difference. CoD for example simply fills a hole that no other game was taking up impressively. THe multiplayer with its perks, ranks etc was unique, and it introduced a new compelling story bundled up nicely with good action and presentation.

If its a solid 30fps the difference wouldnt stand out much at all.

@captain_HATE080208

The resistance games looked good to me. THe presentation in re1 was a bit dated but I guess they were rushing with core elements. The problem I think most ppl have with the graphics is the colour. Besides that it has some nice effects.

Preeetty

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ii9Eek0CShM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JyuY3-SLuDA

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.

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.

@StooMonster

That really depends on how you look at it. The first game you mentioned was on PC so thats irrelevant and c64? You want to go back to C64 graphics be my guest. Anyway, there are still 60fps games, your argument only holds if you want games to have unlimited graphics and still maintain 60fps. This is a developer choice and not so much a console limitation taking variables into account.

@freakzilla

Half a second delay is 500ms? Which game even has response times approaching that?

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.

That could be a decent innovation in video game technology. Special hardware to allow the film effect with lower FPS games.

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...

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.

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.