Resistance 2 at 720p, 30fps

By Tom Bramwell Published 4 June, 2008

But no word on an install.

Insomniac Games' President and CEO Ted Price has said that Resistance 2 is targeting "720p, 30fps" as its resolution and frame-rate.

Price was answering a question from Eurogamer reader ps3owner in our live interview earlier, but he was unable to help senso-ji with his query about whether R2 would need a mandatory install.

"Too early to answer that one," he said. "We're still finishing up the content for the game. That's a question we'll be able to answer as we get closer to launch."

polymorph then followed up by asking for Price's views on installs. "Installs in some form or another are pretty standard for PS3 games these days," Price said.

"And I think for consumers it's a good thing because it generally decreases load times. Or at least it should. Personally, I'd rather have a several-minute install the first time I play a game and then enjoy the benefits of faster loads every time I play the game after that."

Speaking of load times, Resistance 2 won't have a single loading screen. "We do have streaming of textures and other assets now. Not only does this improve the overall look but it cuts down on load times. In fact, you shouldn't notice any loading screens in R2," Price told Darren.

Picture of Tom.

About Tom Bramwell

Tom is Operations director of Eurogamer Network and Editor-at-Large of Eurogamer.net. He joined the company in February 2000.

Read more articles from Tom by visiting the Tom Bramwell archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (70) Latest comment 4 years ago

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

  • Benno #1 4 years ago

    Better than Halo 3 then?

  • Vice.Destroyer #2 4 years ago

    What does KTB mean?

  • SpaceMidget75 Verified Senior Software Developer, Minerva Computer Services #3 4 years ago

    I'm really against mandatory installs on games consoles. If you've got a 20GB you're pretty much fucked by your 5th game purchase!

    Typical fanboy responses:
    "You can buy a new HDD for X amount"

    You shouldn't fucking have to spend more money once you've spent your cash on the system in the first place just to play standard games.

    "Just un-install it when you've completed it"

    Again, you shouldn't have to. The beauty of consoles was that you could get you're mates round whenever and easily play any game from your collection without have to un-install one game to install another.


    It might not seem like a major issue at the moment, but I'll expect plenty of not very vocal 20GB owners pissed off in about 6 months. It wouldn't have been so bad if Sony had stated this from the outset, but obviously they didn't.

  • Nithron #4 4 years ago

    lol, I hate to sound like a fanboy, but remember when Sony were saying the "real next gen" was 1080p and some stupidly high framerate? And now it turns out, when the PS3 has been out for more than long enough to stop using the old "release titles are always dodgy" excuse, games are still coming out at a standard which has been the "barely acceptable" level for PC gaming for about the last 5 years.

  • Les #5 4 years ago

    "things are in a sorry state when 720p at 30 FPS seems impressive :("

    That's what you get when console manufacturers rush tech to the market. This gen simply isn't up to HD.

    edit: despite clever marketing spin, HD Ready (720p) isn't HD
    Edited by 1 at 04/06/08 @ 21:14

  • DjFlex52 #6 4 years ago

    OMG STFU KTB

    KTB = kill the bullshit? lol

  • TRUTH #7 4 years ago

    The 1st Resistance was a crap fps.

  • Xerx3s #8 4 years ago

    I see the usual suspects are at it again then. :/

  • MiY4MOTO #9 4 years ago

    The first one was lack-lustre at best. It fancied itself as a Halo beater but the only thing remarkable about it for me was the glass-breaking effect! It was a competent enough attempt, but rather bland with shit enemy designs. (and oh so very brown)

    Still, I played it thru to the end and didn't trade it in, it's still sat on my shelf. In all honesty tho since I completed it I've never even put it back in my PS3.... maybe I should have traded it in after all!

    If they can learn lessons from the first one (and actually pay attention to their competitors) then maybe, MAYBE this could be better the first decent exclusive on the console.

  • makeamazing #10 4 years ago

    They say they are aiming at 720, doesnt mean they will get it running at that. Not that its a problem for me as I dont have HD tv... .. but i wouldnt be surprised if that changes towards release. If they do achieve it then i will be impressed, just because of the number of games recently that had lower resolution and upscaled.

  • Lutz #11 4 years ago

    "targetting" - So 576p @ 24fps then?

  • dllord #12 4 years ago

    I also seem to remember Sony saying 1080p and 120fps was what the PS3 was going to be capable of!
    Lies, lies, lies!

  • #13 4 years ago

    i remember when Microsoft denied there was RROD problem..


    Lies, lies, lies!

  • anonim1979 #14 4 years ago

    The first one
    Resistance The Fall of Man
    was
    1280 x 704

    So I think Resistance 2 will also be the same

    1280 x 704 because of full 64x64 fitting nicely into 1280x704
    ( 20 x 11 squares of 64x64 pixels - very good for cache in RSX and extra Cell postprocessing)
    Edited by 1 at 04/06/08 @ 23:24

  • zedzee #15 4 years ago

    @ SpaceMidget75:

    I pretty much agree with you there. I've been screaming to ThreeSpeech about this for MONTHS! That any of the PS3's HDD sizes are far too small, considering what you can get on X360. I agree that, if a console is to become one's 'media hub', then surely it needs to have more than a measly 20GB, right? Wrong! Sony don't seem to agree...or is it because it keeps the still inflated price tag of the console down?

    Developers should give gamers an OPTION - not force HDD installs on them because they're being rushed to release the game and their programmers never quite managed to get that (to coin a phrase) Load'n'Play routine working properly to load data in the background, while the gamer is still playing.

    As for R2 and it's res and frames...well...that's just pathetic, isn't it?

  • vegard #16 4 years ago

    three news items from the same interview? come on...

  • Psiloc #17 4 years ago

    "despite clever marketing spin, HD Ready (720p) isn't HD"

    Since when?

  • jmctavish #18 4 years ago

    When did screen resolution become the most important thing on earth? It's possibly the cuntiest thing ever to moan and wind people up over.

  • BobsUncle #19 4 years ago

    "Since when?"

    Since always. 720p was the shitty not-quite-true-HD-that-they-have-in-Japan type of HD. It is higher definition but 1080p is true HD.

  • frogslegs #20 4 years ago

    This is going to be epic .
    The resolution and frame rate is good enough .
    I prefer HD installs but it shouldn't be mandatory .

  • polymorph #21 4 years ago

    That was me!! i asked the install question which i thought was valid. Oh i remember the days when a console game meant you put it in your box and it worked, (cries a little inside).

  • polymorph #22 4 years ago

    BobsUncle , show me the difference on any tv smaller than 60 inchs and ill agree with you.

  • Nithron #23 4 years ago

    @jcmtavish: Yeah, you're right, screen resolution aint particularly important, unless it's so low that it starts looking crappy, which 720p isn't. I think people comment on it less because it's an important part of the game, and more because Sony kept going on and on about how important it was and then it turned out their console couldn't handle particularly high resolutions anyway.

  • polymorph #24 4 years ago

    or any resalution above dvd to be honest.

    Edit, game wise that is, dvd's and blu ray look fine.
    Edited by 1 at 05/06/08 @ 00:47

  • Bounty_Hunter #25 4 years ago

    Nithron

    Your full of shit much like the other plums writing stats which you've read somewhere, Its early days!

  • BartonFink #26 4 years ago

    So 720p is no longer HD then? What muppet/idiot/moron/ignoramus said that?
    Good luck with that.

    I really hope the term True HD (1080p for the interested) in terms of gaming comes back to haunt Sony for a long time to come.

  • polymorph #27 4 years ago

    Bounty_Hunter, im not looking into getting into a slanging match with you, but wasn't the ps3 sposed to have 2 hdmi out ports because itr was so powerfull it could play twice through it's ports in effect. And now 720p 30 fps is considered good performence?

    EDIT bad spelling and i don't care!
    Edited by 1 at 05/06/08 @ 01:01

  • penhalion #28 4 years ago

    @Bounty_Hunter

    You make yourself look like a sad fanboy when you call people names for quoting back EXACTLY what Sony said so forcefully when the 360 was released. I'm a PS3 owner and I can see that the Sony specs are nowhere near the claims thay were making. This is going to haunt them for a long time to come so you'll just have to live with that fact.

  • Nithron #29 4 years ago

    You what, Bounty Hunter? I didn't say any "stats", I said Sony claimed PS3 would handle 1080p. You saying they didn't?

    I don't care if it's early days, I don't give a shit what resolution it runs at, I was just pointing out why everyone mentions resolution - not 'cause it's important, but because Sony were acting like it was.

  • Ryze #30 4 years ago

    I'm pretty sure that the PS3 can do an arcade perfect rendition of Hard Drivin' in 1080p @ 120fps.

    :¬p

    /runs

  • Ryze #31 4 years ago

    2008 target render:

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

  • David_Snakes #32 4 years ago

    Shouldn't we expect 720p? And really now, 30 FPS is the bare minimum for a shooter. This will surely lead to someone assembling a YouTube montage containing all of Sony's bullshit about 4D and 1080p for everything juxtaposed with this crap. Heh, I bet they end up lowering it to 612p anyway. Cell Processor's really coming through, huh?
    Edited by 1 at 05/06/08 @ 01:37

  • moles200 #33 4 years ago

    "Since when?"

    Since always. 720p was the shitty not-quite-true-HD-that-they-have-in-Japan type of HD. It is higher definition but 1080p is true HD.

    ER? you say its not HD then you say it is!!!!!!!!! make your fkin mind up!!!!!!!! 720p certainly looks like HD to me unless their is something wrong with my eyes

    As for resistance yet another next generation game running at only 30fps-what is it with this generation with so many games running at only 30fps FFS -why is 60fps so hard to achieve? i can think of hardly any games that run at 60fps -forza 2 does i think and gt5 prologue-but that game is so full of slowdown you wondrwhy they bothered-oh well maybe the next generation will be up to the mark.

  • Yaz #34 4 years ago

    "As for resistance yet another next generation game running at only 30fps-what is it with this generation with so many games running at only 30fps FFS -why is 60fps so hard to achieve?"

    I had arguements over this years ago when gamers were arguing that 60fps will become standard this gen.

    The fact is, there's always a trade off between framerate and detail. Hence for the next generation of consoles (after 360 and PS3), you will still see many top games running at 30fps. :|

  • J.C #35 4 years ago

    I think true HD, and true next gen graphics can be found on the PC. so i have been told :)

  • Darren #36 4 years ago

    720p @ 30 fps is the minimum I'd expect from a PS3 or Xbox 360 game (so none of this sub-720p rubbish, thank you) but I'd rather have a more detailed game packed with effects than one severely compromised to run at 1080p @ 60 fps. Let's face it, neither the Xbox 360 nor PS3 are really powerful enough to run *all* games at the expected image quality at 720p nevermind 1080p so in that respect both Microsoft and Sony lied about or rather exaggerated the power of their respective systems. Yes, they can run 1080p games but usually they have relatively simple graphics (PSN games, Virtua Tennis 3) or horrid framerate problems/screen tearing (Lair, Ninja Gaiden Sigma). Also not many people own 1080p HDTVs compared with those that own 720p ones so 1080p as a standard for games is simply not a requirement for this generation. Perhaps when the Xbox 720 and PS4 are released we'll finally see all games supporting a minimum of 1280x720 native and many running at 1920x1080 but until then 720p is absolutely fine IMO.

  • des #37 4 years ago

    As somebody said it will probably be 1280x704 which is like 712p...
    As for the 60 fps vs 30 fps debate,graphics whores are to be blamed.
    Next-gen will be the same story unless 60fps rendering becomes a must(0.01% chance).

  • Darren #38 4 years ago

    @des - 1280x704 is actually 704p not 712p since HD resolutions are measure only by their vertical resolutions not their horizontal ones. Thus 1280x720 is 720p and 1920x1080 is 1080p.

  • Diomedes117 #39 4 years ago

    The thing is the Xbox 360 didn't support 1080p at the beginning. Sony filled us with crap about 1080p & 120fps. Now, at June 2008, the 360 supports quite reliably, through gpu upscaling, 1080p for all games. The PS3 on the other hand...

  • JackB #40 4 years ago

    720p and 30 fps is just fine. Look at COD 4, Halo 3, GTA 4 etc.

    I don't mind, but I would give my left nut to hear Sony come out and say, "We were full of crap when we said 720p isn't HD and the Xbox 1.5 couldn't hold a candle to the power of the Super Computer that is the PS3".

    I'd give my right nut to hear the PS3 Fanboys who laughed at the 360 eat their words now. The PS3 is a lot closer to the PS2.5 than the 360 is to an Xbox 1.5.

    Here we are 2 1/2 years into the life of the 360 and the PS3 still can't beat it in graphics capabilities. Every year it's the same thing. Wait 'til next year or the next game etc. Take a look at MGS4... It's graphics certainly aren't a step up from anything else on the market. Fanboys will say, "wait 'til FF XIII...". It's always wait wait wait. Wait 'til 2012. What's the point if you have to wait to 2012.

    Anyway, I wish Sony eat some crow. They tried to destroy the 360 with their lies like they did the Dreamcast. It didn't work this time. I can't imagine people will believe the lies when the PS4 comes out, but then again there is probably a group of PS3 fans, that will believe almost anything.

  • Les #41 4 years ago

    "ER? you say its not HD then you say it is!!!!!!!!! make your fkin mind up!!!!!!!! 720p certainly looks like HD to me unless their is something wrong with my eyes"

    No, he says 720p is not-quite-true- HD, higher definition than standard definition. Higher definition isn't equal to high definition. And whether or not you can tell the difference between 1080p and 720p or not doesn't change the fact that one is the HD standard and the other is an intermediate state to be able to bring lower cost sets to the market under the clever moniker of HD Ready.

  • BartonFink #42 4 years ago

    What is that smell?

  • des #43 4 years ago

    @Darren

    It is 712p in the same way as MGS4 665p,it has roughly the same number of pixels.
    To say that it is 704p is like saying MGS4 is 768p.
    That is what i meant...

  • Psiloc #44 4 years ago

    According to Wikipedia 720p is a HD resolution. SDTV is 480i or 576i, EDTV is 480p or 576p and HDTV is 720p+.

    At the risk of sounding like the SDF, I really don't have a problem with 720p rather than 1080p, and I will always prefer a rock solid 30fps to a choppy/tearing 60fps. I know we were promised a lot more though.

  • muscleblade #45 4 years ago

    Better than Halo 3 then?

    You wish

  • Darren #46 4 years ago

    @des - I'm still not clear on what you're trying to say. HD resolutions are *only* defined by their vertical resolution not their pixel density. 720p is typically accepted as being 1280x720 according to HDTV standards so 1280x704 isn't 712p it's 704p in my book. 480p is 640x480 or even 720x480 (4:3) and 852x480 (16:9 widescreen), 576p is 640x576 or 720x576 and 852x576, etc., etc. Thus games like GT5 Prologue which run at 1280x1080 are still 1080p games book since the HD definition does not mention horizontal resolution at all, only the number of vertical lines.Of course 1080p HDTVs have a resolution of 1920x1080 which means that ideally all 1080p games should be but their is no set criteria for the horizontal resolution so whether a game runs at 1280x1080, 1440x1080 or 1920x1080, they are still technically 1080p games.

    And, yes, if MGS 4 has a vertical resolution of 768 lines then it is 768p. ;)
    Edited by 1 at 05/06/08 @ 09:33

  • ps3owner #47 4 years ago

    I am famous :) yeah ^^

  • hoster #48 4 years ago


    I bet if somebody did a next gen update of vib ribbon, that would look amaziongly crisp and smooth, run at 1080p and 120fps.

  • ps3owner #49 4 years ago

    oh and one other thing. it can output 1080p bluray

    so why shouldn't it be able to do the same for games, just a though. I suppose it's all down to the games engine?! to be honest I still don't understand the PS3 Hardware. (the Cell that is)

    seems like a lot of hype for nothing.

  • des #50 4 years ago

    @Darren
    Hd tv resolutions are 16/9,if you know vertical res you know horizontal.
    768p=1366x768 and yes it is classified as an Hd tv res.
    According to you even 1x720 would be 720p.

    720p=1280x720,16/9
    768p=1366x768,16/9-native res of majority 720p/1080i TV,they cant display 1080i it is just an input.
    1080i=1920x1080,16/9
    1080p=1920x1080,16/9

  • Darren #51 4 years ago

    @des - No, not according to me, according to the HD definitions as used by HDTVs, 1x720 would still be 720p, yes, although such a resolution for a game is highly unlikely! LOL

    I didn't create the definition but it seems to me that people, like yourself, are creating their own "unofficial" definitions for what 720p and 1080p are in terms of pixel density. Yes, HDTVs are indeed widescreen but as I said above so long as a game or movie outputs 720 or more lines then it is considered by definition to be high-definition. Thus Gran Turismo 5 Prologue is still a 1080p game even though its horizontal resolution is less than the expected 1920 pixels that all 1080p HDTVs have. Of course, HDTVs were created for displaying high-definition TV content not games as such and such programmes and HD discs are output at 1280x720 (Sky HD) or 1920x1080 (BD). The definition really applies to them not games, many of which use scaling to achieve 720p or 1080p as we all know.

    It's easier to just talk about games in terms of their resolution though. Haze and Ninja Gaiden 2 are not HD games, running at 1024x576 and 1120x585 respectively, but GRID and Virtua Tennis 3 are as they run natively at 1280x720 (or higher in the case of the latter). MGS4 runs at 1024x768 so it is an HD game by definition.

  • muscleblade #52 4 years ago

    "so why shouldn't it be able to do the same for games"

    Because the PS3 is designed to be a Blueray player first and a gaming console second. You cant get the best from both worlds it seems.

  • des #53 4 years ago

    What?
    "I didn't create the definition but it seems to me that people, like yourself, are creating their own "unofficial" definitions for what 720p and 1080p are in terms of pixel density."

    How can you even claim that pixel density is not defined?According to you there are infinite numbers of resolutions associated with 720p,1080p,we are here talking about real-life specs not infinity theory.

    Also MSG4 is sub-hd game.1280x720 is the line,like it or not.

  • T4RG4 #54 4 years ago

    Neither the X360 nor PS3 are up to the bullshit performance claims made by either camp - I think Sony fall somewhat harder in this area because they really did big their console up, it came out later and is more expensive (or was on launch for a long time) yet it's games are often inferior (I suspect this is down to complicated architecture and development tools).

    I run my games (X360) on a 24" monitor output at 1080p, the image is handled pixel to pixel (so finally I don't get any weird stretching that I had on my 22" monitor because the X360 doesn't have enough high-end res options, PC's output a slightly different format). The picture is good, but I have to say the lack of AA in some games really shows up, this generation of machines really isn't up to HD yet, unless you are playing HD films via disc ;)

  • monkie_king #55 4 years ago

    The unofficial convention is that XYZp means XYZ lines, in a 16:9 aspect ratio. So anamorphic rendering resolutions like those in GT5 can't be described using the "p" convention, as they're not 16:9.

    Anyways, there are very good reasons to render 704 lines on PS3, as it's a multiple of 64. It's not worth rendering another row of 20 64x64 tiles just to get the last 16 pixels. Insomniac talk about it in some Powerpoint describing the tech used in RFoM, which you'll be able to Google for.

    In practice, you'll just get 8px of letterboxing at the top and bottom of the screen, nothing you'll really notice, especially if your TV overscans the picture.

  • septimus #56 4 years ago

    Why the fuck, out of that whole interview, does EG think that is news worthy enough to post front page?

    FFS. It loves to give Xbots something so say. Even when it is the standard internal res for 360 as well. (1080P games on 360 are next to non existent also).

  • Widge #57 4 years ago

    The PS3 isn't anything first or second... it does all. Which is nice for people who want a bit of everything in their life.

  • monkie_king #58 4 years ago

    (apart from games)

  • Darren #59 4 years ago

    @des - *sigh*

    MGS4 has a vertical resolution of 768 lines so it an HD game because the definition used by HDTV manufacturers to clarify that their TVs are HD-ready specifically states HD is anything with 720 or more lines vertically thus this game fits the criteria. Haze doesn't because it only has 576 lines. Go look it up if you don't believe me. Some plasma TVs have resolutions of 1024x768 because they use rectangular pixels so by your definition they're not HD displays which, of course, is rubbish because they're the equivalent of 1360x768 LCD HDTVs. On the PC, 1024x768 is most certainly an HD resolution too despite being 4:3. And that's the last I'll say on the subject as we clearly disagree on how the official definition should be interpreted.

  • BobsUncle #60 4 years ago

    @Ps3owner "oh and one other thing. it can output 1080p bluray... so why shouldn't it be able to do the same for games"

    Because when outputting a signal from a Blu-ray disk all it needs to do is take the source file from the disk and copy it straight to the screen buffer (Possibly with a bit of de-compression jiggery-pokery).

    But for a game it has to also run A.I., physics, game logic, audio, networking, and then most (if not all) primitives will be shaded on a per pixel level by shaders which will requre a lot more time than the simple copy required by playing a movie.

    It's exactly the same principle on a PC, if you run at a higher resolution it gives the GPU a lot more work to do, which quite possibly it can't handle. So you end up with frame rate issues until you drop the resolution and de-stress your GPU.

  • SpaceMidget75 Verified Senior Software Developer, Minerva Computer Services #61 4 years ago

    @des

    I'm sorry to say that everything Darren said is completely true and you couldn't be more wrong if you tried. 1024x768 is HD - FACT.

    Some other points...

    720p IS HD. It might not be the marketed "True HD" of 1080p but it is still a HD resolution regardless.

    The p is for progressive and has nothing to do with 16:9, 16:10, 4:3 or anomorphic encoding. Monkie_king you do not need a 16:9 resolution to be progressive.

  • Widge #62 4 years ago

    I have games. I play games. Or have I some special version which no-one else has?
    Or is this from the "generic console war" box of comments where "no games" and "RROD" are bandied about from because we all need to know we have "the best"?

  • bitesize #63 4 years ago


    console warz fanboy comments 101: ps3 has no games, 360's never work and wii is for kids + grannies.

    keep up man!

  • Ryze #64 4 years ago

    I've just read a load of utter uninformed shite written by des

    I demand my 5 minutes of life back.

  • Les #65 4 years ago

    "720p IS HD. It might not be the marketed "True HD" of 1080p but it is still a HD resolution regardless."

    OK, if you insist... ;)

    But still, PS3 and 360 often struggle to even get fluid 720p graphics. And that's without doing anything ground breaking gameplay-wise... They were dropped on the market way too soon and didn't bring the promised HD revolution.

  • Ryze #66 4 years ago

    When I finished GTA III on the PS2 in 2001, I remember thinking 2 things:

    - The game would benefit from a higher resolution and draw distance

    - The game would kick ass with a full online multiplayer mode.

    I'm now able to go home every evening I want to, and play GTA IV with those features and MANY more.

    I also have a 360 - so I'm satisfied, game-wise.

    /thread over (not arsed about Resistance)

  • des #67 4 years ago

    Sony fans 2 years ago were claiming that only 1920x1080 is HD.
    And now 1024x768 is HD resolution,oh how the standards have dropped lol

    I started playing 1024x768 games in like 1998...

  • Bounty_Hunter #68 4 years ago

    Bounty_Hunter, im not looking into getting into a slanging match with you, but wasn't the ps3 sposed to have 2 hdmi out ports because itr was so powerfull it could play twice through it's ports in effect. And now 720p 30 fps is considered good performence?

    Both ms & sony have quoted things that have never materialized but its early days it can only get better, And it will only get better if ms & sony are in a constant battle its good for everyone!

  • Ryze #69 4 years ago

    Exactly, des. Sony continually pass PR talk off as tech talk.

    Yes, some of us were playing Quake II and Half-life in 'HD' resolutions in 1998-99.

    There were few/no 16:9 monitors or resolutions then, and no minimum standards, i.e 1280x720 @ 30fps. Reason: It's difficult to achieve while keeping things looking good and not severely stifling creativity. Now - this is why I'm ok accepting GTA IV at slightly less than 30fps some of the time (on the 360).

    It was hard for most PCs to achieve 1024x768 with quality 3D games, but it did look great with the best rigs, the best games and the best monitors (Trinitron @100Hz ftw). This is why the PC should never die as a game platform, if treated right.

    example: [link url=http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=138492
    ]http://ww w.eurogamer.net/article.php?art...[/link]

    I don't mind Sony working hard to market their product, but they need to cut the fucking bullshit, as it's ruining gaming as the public waste several hundred pounds on paperweight PSPs and Blu-Ray player PS3s for several years, and making gamers lose faith in Sony and jump ship.

    They won me with the PS2, then lost me with PS2 online & DVD drives, PSP missing features & PS3's... nearly everything.

    Now I'm actively avoiding Sony products, while my Sony phone is being repaired for an issue that Sony deny exists, that I've had since it came out of the box a year ago. My friends with the phone have the same issue!

    IDIOTAS! They've done it to themselves.

  • Pasco #70 4 years ago

    After all the Ratchet games, I hoped that Insomniac would be making their first person shooters run with 60 fps as well. Since I hate the art direction this would be the last redeeming feature but it isn't. I hope Timesplitters does better.