| Mail |
You might also like: WoW Insider, Massively, and more

Reader Comments (100)

Posted: Oct 30th 2009 2:19PM jefwif said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
sounds about right...

but remember burnout 3 at 60 fps? phew. good stuff. sad news bears RIP 60 fps (until next gen?)
Reply

Posted: Oct 30th 2009 2:29PM I AM IRONHIDE said

  • 1 heart
  • Report
They didn't say whether the frame rate would drop or increase.
Reply

Posted: Oct 30th 2009 2:31PM joeboosauce said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
NOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!! I demand 120 fps!!!! Its got to better cuz the number is higher! Bigger always better!!!! We the regular consumers and not the techies who work in this profession know better!!!! /sarcasm
Reply

Posted: Oct 30th 2009 9:32PM HydrophobicFish PSN ID Hydrophob said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
Getting a racing game to have 60 FPS is different from a first person shooter, action game, or potentially an RPG... stuff changes REEEEEALLY fast in a racing game... not so much in a shooter.
Reply

Posted: Oct 31st 2009 12:15AM jrr said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
"They didn't say whether the frame rate would drop or increase."

They most certainly did, and in a number of ways.
Reply

Posted: Oct 30th 2009 2:22PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I can't say I don't understand them - and to be honest it's something that needs to be looked at on a case-by-case basis to maximize the result. And that's how I read what they're saying too. But it's just not true that 30fps is always (or mostly) as good as 60fps. If it's a game with a high degree of action a higher framerate IS almost always better than a few extra tweaks to the graphics. And since Ratchet is and always has been a heavily actionbased title a 60fps goal makes *perfect* sense for it - just as it'd do for eg Wipeout.
Reply

Posted: Oct 30th 2009 2:23PM Shadowbender said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
What really gets to me is when you're playing a game and it switches to a cutscene and suddenly, you feel like you're playing a whole different game due to the change in frames per second. Consistency in the frames is key to keep a good flow within a game.
Reply

Posted: Oct 30th 2009 2:25PM koehler83 said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
I agree, locking is what's important. Variations above or below are obnoxious.

For the most part, I usually prefer 30 frames over 60 if it's constant. It feels more like a movie at 30 frames. At 60, you feel like you're playing a video game, even if a well made one.
Reply

Posted: Oct 30th 2009 2:26PM copa said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
"There is virtually no advantage in sales or reviews of a 60 fps game versus a 30 fps game."

That is not correct. Infinity Ward has owned the FPS genre this generation by maintaining a fluid 60fps on their games. It makes a significant visual difference, and it it very helpful when you are trying to aim with split-second timing.

For a year or two, EA was releasing their sports games at 30fps on PS3, and 60fps on XBox 360. Their was a noticeable difference in the animation, and this was reflected in review scores between the two consoles.

A fluid 60fps does much more to enhance my enjoyment of an action title than packing in some extra texture detail here and there.
Reply

Posted: Oct 30th 2009 3:26PM DWells55 said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
60FPS brings a huge improvement in the responsiveness of the controls. The screen is updating twice as often compared to 30FPS, which means you see a response in half the time. Go play Halo 3 and aim for a bit, then pop in Call of Duty 4 and aim. It's a huge difference.

Anyone who plays shooters on PCs knows the importance of framerates. I always turn my visuals down so I can get a solid 60FPS - it just makes games a lot more enjoyable.
Reply

Posted: Oct 30th 2009 3:51PM CrabBattle said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I do the same, but i dont bother if i lose some. Depends on what game im playing.
Reply

Posted: Oct 30th 2009 2:27PM CrabBattle said

  • Half a heart
  • Report
Theres a huge difference between 30 and 60, the first being utter garbage. I just wish that the developers "standards" wouldnt be so low. IMO 45 would be a sweet spot.
Reply

Posted: Oct 30th 2009 2:27PM bimmy said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
i remember playing NES games that would slow down drastically when too much stuff happens...that used to be the shit...it made you feel like you were in an action movie when the slow motion kicked in...especially if it was at a cool part like jumping out of the way of an explosion.
Reply

Posted: Oct 30th 2009 3:42PM Ghen said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
It can also go the other way and not be all that great. Megaman's flicker for example. People like it now because it's become some sort of cult favorite, but at the time seeing him flicker when stuff happened on screen was really lame.
Reply

Posted: Oct 30th 2009 4:03PM (Unverified) said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
...or it can be totally lame, like in Sonic when the game slows to a crawl as your 127 rings fly from your body after landing on some spikes.
Reply

Posted: Oct 30th 2009 5:23PM greyseal said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
That's not the same as frame rate... the action doesn't slow down in a PC game when the frame rate stutters, you just don't see every step of it anymore.

But I agree... slowdown was part of the game back then. It was the original Bullet Time!
Reply

Posted: Oct 30th 2009 2:30PM (Unverified) said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
does anyone remember Black on PS2? when a lot of crazy action took place, the game went into this sweet slow-down effect, to disguise the frame-rate drop. it was one of my favorite features of that game, it really did feel rewarding. Criterion, bring us another Black! anyway, it should always be done on a case-by-case basis, whatever makes sense for the feel of the game being made.
Reply

Posted: Oct 30th 2009 3:11PM MrAlex said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Black had a horrible story but it was a fun, challenging game nonetheless, really enjoyed that game, especially when I blew up the gas towers or set off a landmine chain reaction.
Reply

Posted: Oct 30th 2009 3:25PM (Unverified) said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
wait, i must be confused... that game had a story? i had no idea. i loved how you could shoot an rpg into pretty much any building and bad guys would get flung out the windows during the resulting explosion. fantastic! there's a scene in Uncharted 2, involving a sniper rifle, an enemy with an RPG, and the structurally unsound building the enemy inhabited that totally reminded me of Black.
Reply

Posted: Oct 30th 2009 2:31PM CaptainProtonX said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
Consistency is more important to me. I can't stand a high frame right suddenly diving mid action because of activity.

And I have to replay my Otogi games now. Thanks, Joystiq!
Reply

Posted: Oct 30th 2009 2:36PM Andrew Yoon said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I would pay FROM a lot of money to make an Otogi 3, or an HD version of Otogi
Reply

Posted: Oct 30th 2009 2:43PM CaptainProtonX said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Oh boy! Neither are BC compatible with the 360.

Glad to see NTRA Breeders' Cup World Thoroughbred Championships2 is.

...dammit.
Reply

Posted: Oct 30th 2009 2:49PM DevilSei said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Same here, it really boosted my respect for these guys for referring to that series. I wish I could find a copy of the first one, but at least I have the second copy. That game was just too much fun, specially the Nine-tailed version of the final boss (try fighting that version first instead of the Eight-tailed, there IS a huge difference).
Reply

Posted: Oct 30th 2009 2:32PM Shadowbender said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Koehler83

Yeah, 60 FPS is way too far from 24. Luckily, we have 30, which makes a game seem more cinematic.
Reply

Posted: Oct 30th 2009 2:41PM cficare said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
Oct 27th: "Insomniac says PS3 won't be maxed for at least another two years"

Oct 30th: "Dev: 'A Crack in Time will probably be Insomniac's last 60fps game' "

Not so confident in all that untapped potential now, huh?
Reply

Posted: Oct 30th 2009 3:10PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
hmm, good catch. what's that all about, i wonder?
Reply

Posted: Oct 30th 2009 4:33PM ymmv said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
Groan... The first statement is completely irrelevant to the second statement. Insomniac is simply stating that a game running at 30FPS will look better than a 60FPS becaue more CPU/GPU cycles can be used: more polygons, better lightning, more fx, better anti aliasing. This will always be the case, today but also in 2011 when the Insomniac devs have found hundreds of new ways to make their new game engine run faster than the one they used for R&C:ACiT.

Since most gamers don't care that much about 60FPS but they care a LOT about graphics fidelity, Insomniac will abandon 60FPS in order to compete graphically with the big boys (Killzone, Uncharted), They're right when you see critics give the new Ratchet & Clank a lower score for the graphics compared to other game without taking into consideration that the game is running at 60FPS.
Reply

Posted: Oct 30th 2009 4:54PM cficare said

  • Half a heart
  • Report
You know, silence is also an option. Why make a statement or hammer out a press release about this? Just STFU and make your next game and justify the decision that went into it. These statement are totally related when you sit there and say "there is untapped potential! 2 years worth!" then "we don't think that potential will be able to make a prettier 60fps game - we are going to put it into textures and ray tracing and particle effects. Ahem, good reviews don't correlate to....boo hoo hoo" Saying shit like this at the get-go of a new title/property just don't sit well with me. This also comes on the heels of the Resistance "our fans don't like us" bitch-a-thon. Someone in their PR department/upper management needs to reign this Jerry Springer-esque shit.
Reply

Posted: Oct 30th 2009 2:44PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Capcom said a very similar thing about Lost Planet, that 30fps with motion blur was preferred over 60fps without.
Reply

Posted: Oct 30th 2009 2:50PM Shadowbender said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
Lost Planet had a pretty horrible frame-rate. It was still a great game, but nevertheless, terrible fps.
Reply

Posted: Oct 30th 2009 2:50PM Cranky Penguin said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I say boo to this, 60 fps is a must!
Reply

Posted: Oct 30th 2009 2:55PM Shadowbender said

  • 1 heart
  • Report
I say boo to your comment.
Reply

Posted: Oct 30th 2009 3:02PM aarond12 said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
I agree with Lokar. If games like Gran Turismo 5 can pull 60 FPS at 1920x1080, then lesser games should be able to pull 60 FPS at 1280x720.

Even older games, like Ridge Racer 7 and Tekken 5 maintain 60 FPS at 1920x1080 resolution.
Reply

Posted: Oct 30th 2009 3:01PM CaramelZappa said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
What about wipeouts solution?

http://www.gamersglobal.com/news/1336
Reply

Posted: Oct 30th 2009 3:01PM CaramelZappa said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
What about wipeout HD's solution?

http://www.gamersglobal.com/news/1336
Reply

Posted: Oct 30th 2009 3:02PM CaramelZappa said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Page loads, comment isn't there. Reload it a few times to make sure, post it again, FAIL.
Reply

Posted: Oct 30th 2009 3:07PM sonicspike41 said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
Perhaps the next version of Joystiq will fix this and add an edit button.
Reply

Posted: Oct 30th 2009 3:14PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Maybe you guys just have more trained eyes than me, but I never notice a difference between 30 and 60 fps.
Reply

Posted: Oct 30th 2009 5:07PM RKN said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
Are you kidding, there is a very noticeable difference!
Reply

Posted: Oct 31st 2009 7:24AM bm111 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
You can see the difference, anyone can. Anyone who says they can't simply hasn't come into a situation where it is noticeable, such as a sudden frame drop from 60 to 30, or two games running side by side, one at 30, the other at 60. In the latter case especially, you'll just go "holy shit, this game runs so much smoother/faster!" while you wouldn't normally notice if you were playing each game in isolation.

Sometimes 30fps may be preferred, because it does make the movement and everything look a bit less... hasty? A bit quieter? Dunno. I like it for slow-ish RPG's or something. Also, 30fps is a good fit for celshaded games like wind waker, that are supposed to look like a cartoon (those don't usually have such a high frame count).
Reply

Posted: Oct 30th 2009 3:16PM ArkAngel said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
+1 for Edit button.

I for one agree that a steady Framerate is better. But If both the 360 and PS3 still have untapped potential, then why not keep working on 60FPS standard.

I also think that the PS3 still holds plenty of potential for some REALLY good looking games, so far there are very few. That's why i prefer my 360 over my PS3, just more exclusive titles.
Reply

Posted: Oct 30th 2009 3:46PM DrChristopher said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Most, if not all, of the quality Xbox exclusives are available on the PC. The PS3 has been releasing far more quality exclusives that can only be played on that system.

I suppose if you don't have a gaming-capable PC, you'd appreciate your 360 more.
Reply

Posted: Oct 30th 2009 4:04PM ArkAngel said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
No, I have a gaming quality PC, which I plan to put to good use with Starcraft 2 and DIablo 3, til then.. I prefer my 360.. but I have a PS3 to play the games that are exclusive on it like Uncharted and Infamous. But as for the Xbox exclusives being on PC... hmmm which ones exactly are you referring too. I know of a couple... but.. not many. And comparing PC gaming and console gaming when I try to compare PS3 to Xbox.. both being consoles.. what's your point exactly in that. It's like trying to say Mets are better than Yankees and someone says Yeah but the Patriots are better. See my point?
Reply

Posted: Oct 30th 2009 3:29PM DjFIL said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
I do agree that a steady frame rate is #1 priority... but if they aren't going to push for faster frame rates, what's the point of these 120hz & 240hz LCD TV's?
Reply

Posted: Oct 30th 2009 3:34PM CaramelZappa said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
More stuff to spend your money on. It's like someone who spent big bucks on a 1080p tv to play games on, only to find out almost all games this generation aren't going to support 1080p, and big blockbusters like the Call of Duty series and Halo get away with not even pulling off 720p.
Reply

Posted: Oct 30th 2009 3:52PM DrChristopher said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
The point for me is watching HD media content on my console (bluray and other 1080p videos).

It would be great if I could play all my console games at higher resolutions. Wipeout looked real good at 1080p, but the gameplay would have been just as much fun at 720p.
Reply

Posted: Oct 30th 2009 5:08PM RKN said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Right now, those 120 and 240hz are used for mostly sports, forget about game consoles until the next gen maybe.

Reply

Posted: Oct 30th 2009 5:47PM Hedgeson said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
With 120 and 240 Hz, you'll have less ghosting. Some 120 and 240 Hz methods introduce black or white screens to reduce ghosting. The image still plays at 60Hz max. I don't think there's an HDMI standard at 120Hz yet. No TV accepts such a signal.
Reply

Posted: Oct 30th 2009 3:33PM Ghen said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
I personally prefer 60fps in games with a first person view. Anything else, including 3rd person shooters like ratchet and clank, are fine at 30.
Reply
Sorry, you must be logged in to leave a comment.

Featured Stories

Rhythm Heaven Fever review: Crazy into you

Posted on Feb 9th 2012 12:00PM

Remedy not done with Alan Wake

Posted on Feb 9th 2012 10:30AM

Engadget

TUAW

Massively

WoW