Dev: 'A Crack in Time will probably be Insomniac's last 60fps game'
by Andrew Yoon 
{ Oct 30th 2009 at 2:15PM } 
Consoles only offer a finite amount of resources, and developers utilize various tricks to get the results they want. For example, Bungie noted that a drop in vertical resolution in Halo 3 offered them increased bandwidth for improved lighting effects. Dropping the framerate would allow Insomniac -- and other developers -- to increase the amount of detail in each frame, something the studio is seriously considering. "There is virtually no advantage in sales or reviews of a 60 fps game versus a 30 fps game," Acton notes.
In fact, in some cases, a lowered framerate actually makes a game look better, Acton explains. "A drop in framerate is interestingly seen by some players as a reward for creating or forcing a complex setup in which a lot of things must happen on the screen at once." We nickname that phenomenon the "Otogi 2 effect." With all of these aspects considered, it seems the studio will no longer focus on locking a 60 fps rate. "It means that framerate is still important to us here at Insomniac, but it's not on the same pedestal it was before. And that Ratchet and Clank Future: A Crack in Time will probably be Insomniac's last 60fps game."
[Thanks, Marius!]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
JerJer @ Oct 30th 2009 2:19PM
sounds about right...
but remember burnout 3 at 60 fps? phew. good stuff. sad news bears RIP 60 fps (until next gen?)
Autobot (Now with Vitamin D)! @ Oct 30th 2009 2:29PM
They didn't say whether the frame rate would drop or increase.
Imran @ Oct 30th 2009 2:31PM
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
Hydrophobicfish (PSN: HydrophobicFish) @ Oct 30th 2009 9:32PM
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.
Richard 2.6 @ Oct 31st 2009 12:15AM
"They didn't say whether the frame rate would drop or increase."
They most certainly did, and in a number of ways.
SpyderTaco (PSN: Ar4chNova89) @ Oct 30th 2009 2:20PM
I don't care about the FPS of a game as long as it is constant. If it stutters between 60fps and 30fps then it becomes very annoying and sometimes even unplayable. If a game sits at 60fps or 30fps then I have no problem with it.
However with some games I wonder why they couldn't increase the FPS by just a bit, and with others I am amazed that the FPS is as high as it is.
Shadowbender (Nelson Is Behind You) @ Oct 30th 2009 2:23PM
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.
koehler83 @ Oct 30th 2009 2:25PM
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.
CrabBattle @ Oct 30th 2009 2:27PM
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.
Shadowbender (Nelson Is Behind You) @ Oct 30th 2009 2:32PM
@Koehler83
Yeah, 60 FPS is way too far from 24. Luckily, we have 30, which makes a game seem more cinematic.
Ghen @ Oct 30th 2009 3:33PM
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.
Sly @ Oct 30th 2009 5:43PM
i agree with ghen.
Lionbacker @ Oct 30th 2009 11:20PM
@shadowbender,
24 fps is the speed at which the eye detects the frames, right?
Filthy Assistant @ Oct 31st 2009 12:24AM
24fps is the framerate of (most) films. The human eye can detect 60fps, anything higher makes no difference.
And I agree, 60fps is good for shooters, 30 for third-person games. As long as it's locked at whatever framerate it's fine, a 60fps game with stuttering is far far worse than a constant 30fps.
Fane [Grammar Police - Power Of Pedantry] @ Oct 31st 2009 6:26PM
The point at which the brain can identify individual frames is actually around 45 fps, though people vary a bit. Many people can sense the difference between 30 fps and 60 fps, though they couldn't identify an individual frame at 60 fps.
Kazper @ Oct 30th 2009 2:22PM
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.
copa @ Oct 30th 2009 2:26PM
"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.
DWells55 @ Oct 30th 2009 3:26PM
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.
CrabBattle @ Oct 30th 2009 3:51PM
I do the same, but i dont bother if i lose some. Depends on what game im playing.
bimmy @ Oct 30th 2009 2:27PM
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.
Ghen @ Oct 30th 2009 3:42PM
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.
demonicpascal @ Oct 30th 2009 4:03PM
...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.
Greyseal @ Oct 30th 2009 5:23PM
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!
Freakwincy42 @ Oct 30th 2009 2:30PM
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.
MrAlex @ Oct 30th 2009 3:11PM
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.
Freakwincy42 @ Oct 30th 2009 3:25PM
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.
captainprotonx @ Oct 30th 2009 2:31PM
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!
Andrew Yoon @ Oct 30th 2009 2:36PM
I would pay FROM a lot of money to make an Otogi 3, or an HD version of Otogi
captainprotonx @ Oct 30th 2009 2:43PM
Oh boy! Neither are BC compatible with the 360.
Glad to see NTRA Breeders' Cup World Thoroughbred Championships2 is.
...dammit.
devilsei @ Oct 30th 2009 2:49PM
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).
CFICARE @ Oct 30th 2009 2:41PM
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?
Freakwincy42 @ Oct 30th 2009 3:10PM
hmm, good catch. what's that all about, i wonder?
ymmv @ Oct 30th 2009 4:33PM
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.
CFICARE @ Oct 30th 2009 4:54PM
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.
dued @ Oct 30th 2009 2:44PM
Capcom said a very similar thing about Lost Planet, that 30fps with motion blur was preferred over 60fps without.
Shadowbender (Nelson Is Behind You) @ Oct 30th 2009 2:50PM
Lost Planet had a pretty horrible frame-rate. It was still a great game, but nevertheless, terrible fps.
WINterfang ( Now with the power to piss you off ) @ Oct 30th 2009 2:45PM
Bad framerate is a reward now?
lokar82 @ Oct 30th 2009 2:50PM
I say boo to this, 60 fps is a must!
Shadowbender (Nelson Is Behind You) @ Oct 30th 2009 2:55PM
I say boo to your comment.
Aaron @ Oct 30th 2009 3:02PM
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.
deaftly (PSN,LIVE,STEAM) @ Oct 30th 2009 3:55PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=76p_ncbffCE
CaramelZappa @ Oct 30th 2009 3:01PM
What about wipeouts solution?
http://www.gamersglobal.com/news/1336
CaramelZappa @ Oct 30th 2009 3:01PM
What about wipeout HD's solution?
http://www.gamersglobal.com/news/1336
CaramelZappa @ Oct 30th 2009 3:02PM
Page loads, comment isn't there. Reload it a few times to make sure, post it again, FAIL.
sonicspike41 @ Oct 30th 2009 3:07PM
Perhaps the next version of Joystiq will fix this and add an edit button.
Traceur_Ryuk [Founder of The Anti-EMCB(tm) Brigade] (PSN: Ryuk_shinigami) @ Oct 30th 2009 3:14PM
Maybe you guys just have more trained eyes than me, but I never notice a difference between 30 and 60 fps.
RKN @ Oct 30th 2009 5:07PM
Are you kidding, there is a very noticeable difference!
bm @ Oct 31st 2009 7:24AM
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).
Ark Angel @ Oct 30th 2009 3:16PM
+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.
Chris @ Oct 30th 2009 3:46PM
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.