Ratchet & Clank Dev Debates Graphics vs. Framerate, 'Probably' Not Making More 60 FPS Games

Absolutely not, gaming should be in "real time", period. 60fps has been a rule of thumb on PC, PC is the ultimate in gaming, however console gamers are in the dark and most will never even notice or care, or understand the difference. Hell most people don't even know the difference between network lag and video lag yet...

60fps is a must, it will stay, graphics will go up as Gpu's get more powerful, simple as that. One developer means "nothing" in the overall scheme of things. PC gamers would be completely disgusted if a shooter or racing simulator were produced at 30fps, just to have a few extra textures rendered... While it's still ironic though, a PC gamer will buy the best hardware and turn the gfx options all the way down... Not all, but the majority of the hardcore, it's about "their" performance in the game, not the performance of the game, nor it's looks....kinda...eh it's tough.

Myself, I'm a PC Gamer, always have been, and I'll be damned if I play any game at any time with less than 60fps "by design", and I have nothing to fear, PC gaming is about the elite, in software, hardware, and us enthusiasts. We'll never settle for less, I promise you that. The fact that 100x more people download a benchmark when it comes out rather than watch their favorite tv show is proof enough. Watch benchmark tools, of any kind, when they're released, they're downloaded so damn fast it's incredible, faster than new demo's of games in waiting. This says something, also, look at the technology trend of LCD TV's, up to 240hz now....with 60hz not even the norm, 120 is now. And the other half of the industry is going to simply ignore all of this?????? NEVER

Honestly it doesn't really matter because the human eye can't tell the difference in FPS once it gets faster than 30fps. Which is probably why it hasn't made a difference in review scores.

Another reason game reviewers need to be put to the sword--60 fps is far, far more important than increased graphical detail, if you actually care about how the game plays.

i don't really think it boils down to a "nobody cares about 60 fps" thing, there are a lot of factors going on. It really depends on the type of game, for example i couldn't really imagine playing f-zero gx on anything less than 60 fps since that game was so quick and having things look fluid and smooth helped you be precise when you were racing and it really added to the whole experience of the game. For slower paced games i don't really think 60 fps is a necessity (although if it can be pulled off easily then it's a cool bonus) since having an interesting environment to wander around through is probably more intriguing to the player than having a less detailed area that you traverse a bit smoother through.

There are also tricks that are probably available to developers to make a game running at 30 fps look a bit smoother so the difference between 30 and 60 fps won't really matter as much. It really just depends on the experience that the developers want to present to the player and the fps is a side effect of that

they're honestly justifying not spending the extra development time to obtain 60fps based on review scores??? who the fuck is running that place.

ouch. another blow for hardcore gamers today.

maybe I'm blind or my brain don't compute fast enough but I barely see the difference btw 30 and 60 fps what I do notice is fps drop STEADY is the keyword here for me

I don't know about you guys but this article reads to me that the ps3 is tapped out and it is time for sony to get cranking on a new console. :)

thankfully i'm not a fan of any of their games.

part of the allure of call of duty on consoles is the relative buttery smoothness of the framerate. and given than the biggest console game around runs at 60fps it's hard to take his concern over possibly losing some small percentage on a review score seriously.

Sounds like a very unscientific study and crappy statistics

i think it's fine as long as it never dips below 30

I agree to a certain point, but some games benefit greatly from 60fps. I can't imagine playing a fast paced game like Burnout, Unreal Tournament, or Ninja Gaiden at anything less. In these games the increased framerate enhances the gameplay and makes it easier to track things on screen.

I call bullshit on this. First of all, 30 fps is too low for some games. Any game with constant, supposed-to-be-smooth movement of the camera looks like shit to me at around 30 fps. Second of all, how exactly did they come to the conclusion that it doesn't effect sales? I know plenty of gamers, especially old school gamers, you know, the young adults with money now, who have skipped many games based on them being locked to a low fps. I myself tend to put games instantly on the local ebay instantly if I feel it doesn't run well enough.

I don't play their games, so I wouldn't mind if they weren't making sweeping, pulled-out-of-their ass statements like "There is virtually no advantage in sales or reviews of a 60 fps game versus a 30 fps game". Maybe not for your bouncy bounce, bang bang games, but hell will freeze over before I or most of my friends lay down bucks for a 30 fps car simulation, for example. I'm looking at you, Forza 1.

The problem is not 30fps in gaming, that would be fine if games were'nt riddled with moments and cut scenes that drop the fps to like 15. That's why- and pc gamers know this- you need your machine to run at a good 60 -80fps so that when the "moments" happen your game can still run liquid smooth. Of course it's also all about optomizing the game as well on the dev's side of things. The 360 does the same thing as the ps3 so this article could easily be about either console. Long live the pc!!

Im not sure I understand all the bitching from the PC crowd.
Insomniac only makes games for the PS3, and if they actually made cross platform games,
PC gamers should be better off with games that focus on better graphics, as you can always get a better fps output than the aging consoles. A game might only run 30FPS on a console, but for the PC, that game has no limit.

Wow this game is gorgeous.

i agree.. graphics are standing still for the last 2 years... nothing better than crysis thusfar... where are the early 2000 years where I was amazed year after year with stunning and groundbreaking visuals coupled with awesome and new gameplay...

ah the times...

I don't fucking care what reviewers have to say. Most of these guys are utterly clueless.

The new game is really fun. I didn't notice the framerate than that's all I ask for in future games. I really kinda thoughtthis game would be terrible, that's how much I hated resistance 2, but no, it's quality.

lol..wtf are they smoking

mario galaxy is way more fun that rachet.. and not even in HD.


gameplay rules all.

Interesting contrast to the comments in this video, starting at 3:10 http://www.shacknews.com/onearticle.x/60823

One of the reasons this is discussed is that Crack in Time and the earlier PS3 game, Future are not rendered in 720p and the game, the final product (not the bullshots) looks soft due to it. The game looks good but it's also blurry

If it were true 720p there were be more buzz and sales for the game and the hard work of the artists wouldn't be sacrificed to the frame rate. The game doesn't even need better textures or higher polygon models. They are excellent as is, it's the vaseline effect that hurts it.

He mentions the effect of frame rate on gameplay in passing, that the frame rate must be consistent. Otherwise it will affect the gameplay score. There are quite a few action games that don't have consistent frames and the responsiveness suffers, sucking the fun out of the game.

The most extreme example is Crysis. There were no systems that could run that game reasonably in the months following its release and reviews judged the gameplay through that lag of display and control input. Playing the game on a system that runs it smooth is dramatically more fun.

Man, and we were just talking about this over the past few days in the PC/Console threads. The ever-present console-angst over framerates. I think this is a good decision by Insomniac.

Haven't played Ratchet and Clank, but I hear where he's coming from. A fast response feels so good, but is unappreciated by a lot of gamers. Insomniac probably jumped through some major hoops to accomplish 60 fps and most gamers probably wouldn't even notice.

What are they talking about? Their game looks straight out of a pixar movie. How much more graphic fidelity do they need?

"as a reward for creating or forcing a complex setup in which a lot of things must happen on the screen at once. As in, 'Damn! Did you see that? That was crazy!'"

I have not once considered engine slowdown to be a reward so much as the action on-screen that caused the slowdown; which is to say, the slowdown itself has always been viewed by me a negative side-effect of having fun rather than adding to the fun. I have a background in PC gaming though, where slowdown is either the result of a badly written game, or a computer where I almost always have the (less-desirable) option of eliminating the slowdown with the purchase of a new component.

This guy has got it right, but it's all dependant on the type of game it is. Ratchet & Clank is a fairly 'easy going' platformer, not a fighting game that requires a 2/60th of a second window to counter an attack, or a racing simulator that requires a high framerate to help portray every bump in the road that the physics engine is calculating.

I'm perfectly happy with games like Uncharted or Gears of War running at 30fps, as long as the framerate is locked. Anyone who has played the new Ratchet & Clank will tell you that, whilst it often runs at 60fps, it just as often dips massively. I would much rather they stuck with a consistent 30fps and upped the visuals of the game.

Of course, keep 30fps away from my Forza though!

I think to most people are more worried someone will tease them abut their favorite game/console running at only 30FPS. Oh no the humiliation that would be involved. How would one show their head outside of their parents basement ever again.

"However it does appear that gameplay scores are also influenced by graphics scores. i.e. Better looking games appear to be more 'fun' to reviewers."

I'm surprised they needed some kind of an analysis to see that. Oblivion, Fallout 3, Gears of War, BioShock. Pretty obvious, really. The best looking games usually get the highest scores. Doesn't matter how mediocre they are.

I'm just glad people are done saying the human eye can't perceive frame rates greater than 30 fps....i really hated that

I don't think that most console gamers care about 30 FPS or 60 FPS. In a single player game like R&C, there's not much of a reason to go for 60 FPS because if the game slows down a little bit, you don't have a disadvantage against another player.

Personally, as a PC gamer, I care more about frame rate than graphics quality. Low frame rates make me sick.

Crazy kids and their 60 FPS.

Torchlight has some of the most dated graphics of games to come out to date. But that dont mean shit, the game is awsome as hell and I bought it.

as much as I wish this wasnt the case he is absolutely right. Maybe once graphic tech has reached a plateau performance/gameplay will become the focus

I'll be the anal guy and say that when people start talking about correlation of abstract parameters like that to scores and sale values, it's when games start to die a little. Turning it all into an equation.