"We want to give you guys, our fans and players, the best looking games you can buy on a console," Insomniac developer Mike Acton wrote on his company's blog. There's certainly no doubt that the team's latest release, A Crack in Time, is a very good looking game. But how much better could it have looked if Insomniac was willing to sacrifice its 60fps rate?
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 (100)
Posted: Oct 30th 2009 3:43PM gatotsu911 said
Dude. This is more lame and stupid than can be described by words. That anyone would go out of their way to sacrifice the smoothness of a game's running for shinier graphics just blows my mind. This represents EVERYTHING that is wrong with gaming today. Imagine what developers could pool their resources into if they weren't so concerned with the damn GRAPHICS????
Posted: Oct 30th 2009 4:04PM CaramelZappa said
I remember an interview about god of war 3. They talked about how in 1 and 2, they had areas that they knew had framerate issues, but David Jaffe said something like "I don't care what it does to the framerate, even if its at 20fps I want this this and this happening"
I don't see how whatever epicness you're doing is really worth it if it ends up looking like a choppy mess.
Reply
I don't see how whatever epicness you're doing is really worth it if it ends up looking like a choppy mess.
Posted: Oct 31st 2009 12:25AM (Unverified) said
Except... A lower framerate doesn't actually look worse?
Reply
Posted: Oct 30th 2009 3:56PM Arrogance said
There is no substitute for crisp, smooth-moving visuals. It boggled my mind when I played my first "next generation" titles and, instead of the rock-solid 60fps I expected, I was instead exposed to sub-30 speeds and, of all things, artificial motion blur. Motion blur is this wave's lens flare: Completely unnecessary and (often) counterproductive. Let's not forget how tough it is to render that blurring, either. I'm really disappointed that the trend has been toward flashier effects and a " good enough" framerate. Worse still, the next console iterations may end up not being much more powerful (thanks, Nintendo) so having all those nice effects may still come at the cost of the one that actually matters to gameplay. Here's hoping for a time when 60+ fps is the standard instead of a bullet point.
Posted: Oct 30th 2009 3:58PM (Unverified) said
There is nothing I enjoy more than booting up a game and being greeted with a silky smooth 60 fps from start to finish. And there's nothing more disappointing then a franchise abandoning 60 fps in a future installment (MGS 3 I'm looking at you!) Except maybe teasing you with intermittent 60 fps during a simple scene in an otherwise 30 fps game (MGS 4 I'm looking at you!)
Don't let 60 fps die. I admit that 30 (and 24) looks more "real" and "'cinematic" since thats the framerate used in movies, but, at least to me, 60 fps just looks "better"
Don't let 60 fps die. I admit that 30 (and 24) looks more "real" and "'cinematic" since thats the framerate used in movies, but, at least to me, 60 fps just looks "better"
Posted: Oct 30th 2009 4:12PM gatotsu911 said
Yeah, that's just retarded. I think I just lost even more respect for God of War.
Posted: Oct 30th 2009 4:50PM (Unverified) said
I'm hoping this means Resistance 3 will have graphics as good or possibly better than Uncharted 2's. That is a high standard though. Uncharted 2's graphics are absolutely insane.
Posted: Oct 30th 2009 4:52PM Nobledevil Gaming Optimist said
Fine by me. I'd much rather have more awesome features and a good, normal, steady framerate than a game that needs to sacrifice things to keep a higher FPS rate (and may even fail at doing so despite the sacrifices).
Posted: Oct 30th 2009 4:58PM (Unverified) said
This is so backward it's ridiculous. The capability to hold a steady, high framerate is one of the most significant technical advantages this generation of consoles has over past ones. Of course it's rewarding for a player to 'break' the game by causing so much to happen onscreen that the game chugs, but to incorporate that as a feature is just crazy.
Posted: Oct 30th 2009 5:05PM RKN said
Since the next gen consoles aren't coming for a while and the performance gap between PCs and consoles keep growing, can these developers finally show the PC some love please? Where you don't have to compromise. : )
Posted: Oct 30th 2009 5:15PM (Unverified) said
That depends. Are you guys going to stop pirating everything?
No?
Then NO PC GAMES FOR YOU!
Reply
No?
Then NO PC GAMES FOR YOU!
Posted: Oct 30th 2009 5:12PM (Unverified) said
Goodness. Yes, 60FPS is nice, but it's not essential to the gameplay. Solid reliability and visuals are.
As for the 'games aren't 1080p!' comments, buy a good TV. One that magically upscales the picture beyond what these crippled consoles are capable of.
As for the 'games aren't 1080p!' comments, buy a good TV. One that magically upscales the picture beyond what these crippled consoles are capable of.
Posted: Oct 30th 2009 5:53PM sonicspike41 said
I bought a rather nice 26" 720p TV, and I absolutely love it to death. It may not be 720p, but it's still a noticeable difference over 480, and it still looks awesome (though I can still set my consoles to output in 1080 and see them on the screen just as if they were 720, which still confuses me).
I was at a friends house playing Left 4 Dead some months ago, and kept wondering why it looked weird on his 17" or 19" screen. Turns out he had it set to 480. After changing it to 720p (component, with the rgb cables) he thought everything looked too small. "What did you do to my TV? It looks so small, eww!" Needless to say I laughed pretty hard that day.
Reply
I was at a friends house playing Left 4 Dead some months ago, and kept wondering why it looked weird on his 17" or 19" screen. Turns out he had it set to 480. After changing it to 720p (component, with the rgb cables) he thought everything looked too small. "What did you do to my TV? It looks so small, eww!" Needless to say I laughed pretty hard that day.
Posted: Oct 30th 2009 5:13PM funkdat69 said
IMO, 60 fps only really matters for twitch games like shooters and such (and even then, only if you are picky about it). Movies are 24 fps. TV is usually 60, although many LCDs up until recently would only do 50Hz refresh.
I'd much rather the devs use the processing power to make the character animation actually look good (i hate characters gliding across the ground with just a canned walk animation that doesn't even match the characters speed). Who cares if you can refresh 30 more times a second when the animation is crap to be begin with?
I'd much rather the devs use the processing power to make the character animation actually look good (i hate characters gliding across the ground with just a canned walk animation that doesn't even match the characters speed). Who cares if you can refresh 30 more times a second when the animation is crap to be begin with?
Posted: Oct 30th 2009 5:43PM Sly C said
i agree with ghen.
Posted: Oct 30th 2009 5:48PM Kinjiro said
60 fps is essential for racing games and thats about it.
Posted: Oct 30th 2009 6:21PM kentuckyfried said
I thought the limit of human perception was at 30 fps? The problem here is not being able to see the same game, run at both 30 and 60, to see if a difference is noticeable.
Posted: Oct 31st 2009 12:28AM (Unverified) said
Uh. There is a very big difference and maybe your eyes are just bad?
Reply
Posted: Oct 31st 2009 12:42AM kentuckyfried said
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame_rate
It's an interesting read. I was misinformed (the 30 fps applies more to film than games).
In any case, whether it's 30 or 60 only adds to the overall quality of a game, but not whether that game's going to be good or not. Resistance 2 was in 60 fps, but it was not as fun as the first, at least not to me.
Reply
It's an interesting read. I was misinformed (the 30 fps applies more to film than games).
In any case, whether it's 30 or 60 only adds to the overall quality of a game, but not whether that game's going to be good or not. Resistance 2 was in 60 fps, but it was not as fun as the first, at least not to me.
Posted: Nov 2nd 2009 10:08AM (Unverified) said
Of course there fucking is. All these console gamers today, man ... Play a PC game and play with the graphics settings, there's a huge difference btw 30 and 60
Reply
Posted: Oct 30th 2009 7:29PM rullers said
Call of Duty?
PC?
PC?
Posted: Oct 30th 2009 7:37PM LaughingTarget said
It's all about minimum frames. What the devs don't tell you is that 60 fps is just an average. Frames drop and increase depending on what's going on. I want my games to never drop under 30. Maintaining a 30 fps average means it'll go under 30. Arguing the benefits of 60 vs 30 is pointless since you're rarely running at 60 in the first place. Minimums are key.
Posted: Oct 30th 2009 7:52PM SnapDragon64 said
Some games have used framerate drops well for dramatic moments. Two examples I can think of:
- Ikaruga when you blew up the bosses
- Street Fighter 2 when you KOed an opponent
- Ikaruga when you blew up the bosses
- Street Fighter 2 when you KOed an opponent
Posted: Oct 30th 2009 9:18PM TreyIM2 said
Guess that explains why the R&C in the Clank demo didn't look so good to me but I just chalked it up as the demo being not polished. I haven't played the Ratchet demo, yet, but have it downloaded and installed. Maybe I should fire it up, tonite....
As Resistance 2, it didn't look as crisp and "pretty" as Resistance 1 but I liked R1, better, for some reason, anyway. Maybe the visuals affected me. I dunno, but I think Insomniac needs to get their skills up because if a game like GT5 can have 1080p and 60fps along with a ton of cars and car model damage, I think Insom. can achieve, as well...but then again, I have yet to play GT5 and I do wonder if Polyphony will "cheat" with the backgrounds, lowering their resolutions. That could be how they pull of "1080p, 60fps" visuals and movement with the vehicles and immediate surroundings.
As Resistance 2, it didn't look as crisp and "pretty" as Resistance 1 but I liked R1, better, for some reason, anyway. Maybe the visuals affected me. I dunno, but I think Insomniac needs to get their skills up because if a game like GT5 can have 1080p and 60fps along with a ton of cars and car model damage, I think Insom. can achieve, as well...but then again, I have yet to play GT5 and I do wonder if Polyphony will "cheat" with the backgrounds, lowering their resolutions. That could be how they pull of "1080p, 60fps" visuals and movement with the vehicles and immediate surroundings.
Posted: Oct 30th 2009 10:39PM BPMOmega XBL PSN Steam said
I prefer smooth animation over detail. So, sacrificing fps for the sake of more objects/textures on screen... doesn't sound like a good idea to me.
But, it's Insomniac, so I know whatever they do, they'll be great at it.
(even if I have zero interest in Resistance, I'm sure it'll still be a good game for those who are interested)
But, it's Insomniac, so I know whatever they do, they'll be great at it.
(even if I have zero interest in Resistance, I'm sure it'll still be a good game for those who are interested)
Posted: Oct 30th 2009 11:20PM (Unverified) said
@shadowbender,
24 fps is the speed at which the eye detects the frames, right?
24 fps is the speed at which the eye detects the frames, right?
Posted: Oct 30th 2009 11:54PM gatotsu911 said
I was responding to another comment. Didn't know it'd show up in a post by itself.
Posted: Oct 30th 2009 11:55PM Jacksons said
Sorry, but to me, there is nothing more visually stunning than solid 60 fps. The Ratchet titles, Call of Duty, Mario Galaxy, Sly, Burnout ...they're all incredibly impressive. I'm playing through Ratchet: ACiT right now and it's outstanding. Sure, I could do with 30, but 60 fps really adds that "wow" factor.
Probably the best example is God of War: Chains of Olympus on the PSP. Great visuals combined with silky smooth 60 fps, I spent half the game staring dumbfounded wondering how it could possibly be running on my PSP.
Probably the best example is God of War: Chains of Olympus on the PSP. Great visuals combined with silky smooth 60 fps, I spent half the game staring dumbfounded wondering how it could possibly be running on my PSP.
Posted: Oct 31st 2009 12:24AM (Unverified) said
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.
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.
Posted: Oct 31st 2009 1:06AM (Unverified) said
Yeah well look..insomniac is putting out all this games at 60fps (i can't tell the diffference between 30 and 60fps btw),and they get bashed with their latest game aCiT for the graphics not being good enough,yet they don't mention the framerate.and uncharted 2 came out,fps is not same and everyone is applauding them for the gorgeous visuals..imagine how insomniac feels?...i would do that to..and like i said i prefer gorgeous graphics over framerate..i don't want a stop motion fest but i honestly can't tell the difference between 60 and 30 frames per second and i don't care..as long as it's pretty and running at a steady clip..
Posted: Oct 31st 2009 1:42AM Jacksy said
I find it amusing when guys say things like, "PC rulezz", yet it's missing masterpieces like uncharted 2 and killzone2. Yeah good luck with that guys. Yes, I know that PCs are upgradable and blah blah, and there's always that one guy, the one douche where he disses at the consoles for having "limited power", OK YES WE GET IT, now go play fairy tales and dragons. Just look around here, you'll find them. Let's play find Waldo, nevermind.... -_-
Posted: Oct 31st 2009 5:03AM SolidSnakeEyes said
60fps? Hmm, maybe that's why the anti-aliasing doesn't look so good in Crack in Time. They used too many resources on the frame rate. The graphics in Crack don't impress me, they are very good but almost feel like a step back from Quest for Booty. The image is slightly blurry, not sharp.
Posted: Oct 31st 2009 9:38AM (Unverified) said
Maybe Insomniac should be talking to Digi-Guys (the dev behind Wardevil). If they think they've hit the ceiling it's because they're not working the hardware efficiently. There's a good feature with Digi-Guys in the Nov issue of Edge magazine. Even if the game turns out to be mediocre, the tech is going to be revolutionary.
Posted: Oct 31st 2009 9:44AM (Unverified) said
one more thing- for anyone who can't distinguish 30fps from 60. Pan the camera. At 60 fps the motion is smooth, at 30 it's pretty juddery. Artists can use motion blur to help cover it up.
Posted: Oct 31st 2009 11:49AM zochmenos said
Isn't this the wrong time in the console lifecycle to be lowering framerate expectations? When new machines come out, and every game is pushing sheer graphic fidelity I can understand slowdown and less fps. But three years in?
I think the couple of recent comments from Insomniac are telling. I think this sort of commentary is designed to mitigate expected poor sales of a traditionally high volume series.
Sony lost nearly 300 million dollars just this quarter, this has to directly affect three of their best developers (all second party), Naughty Dog, Sucker Punch, and Insomniac.
I think the couple of recent comments from Insomniac are telling. I think this sort of commentary is designed to mitigate expected poor sales of a traditionally high volume series.
Sony lost nearly 300 million dollars just this quarter, this has to directly affect three of their best developers (all second party), Naughty Dog, Sucker Punch, and Insomniac.
Posted: Oct 31st 2009 11:55AM zochmenos said
You're simply wrong.
Firstly, there is no "standard" that declares that a game's framerate is an exact, and average, or anything. No controlling authority.
Secondly, Metroid Corruption, Mario Galaxy, Call of Duty, Ratchet and Clank, Sly Cooper, Resistance, and many others run consistantly at 60fps. Are there drops, yes. Is 60fps an average, no. It is the norm in these titles.
Firstly, there is no "standard" that declares that a game's framerate is an exact, and average, or anything. No controlling authority.
Secondly, Metroid Corruption, Mario Galaxy, Call of Duty, Ratchet and Clank, Sly Cooper, Resistance, and many others run consistantly at 60fps. Are there drops, yes. Is 60fps an average, no. It is the norm in these titles.
Posted: Oct 31st 2009 6:26PM Fane1024 said
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.
Posted: Nov 1st 2009 11:27AM buzski said
Did the developers ever consider having the game run at 45 fps, or 50 fps? These are the values to which most of our eyes can sense so it would be reasonable to put them around that speed.
Posted: Nov 1st 2009 4:02PM (Unverified) said
To you people crying that it's a terrible sign that the "standard" is being lowered "already" in this console generation, consider this:
- Some developers drop framerate to acheive new level of visuals
- Then they maintain visuals and increase framerate over time
- Thus, 60 fps is not dead; it's just less important in many genres
I personally prefer better graphics if the framerate is locked at 30, but the point is that they're shifting resources while unlocking potential. That is why it isn't contradictory for Insomniac to say they aren't making 60 fps a priority though it should take two more years for the PS3 to be "maxed out".
- Some developers drop framerate to acheive new level of visuals
- Then they maintain visuals and increase framerate over time
- Thus, 60 fps is not dead; it's just less important in many genres
I personally prefer better graphics if the framerate is locked at 30, but the point is that they're shifting resources while unlocking potential. That is why it isn't contradictory for Insomniac to say they aren't making 60 fps a priority though it should take two more years for the PS3 to be "maxed out".
Posted: Nov 2nd 2009 2:08AM Windmill said
This sounds about right. My boyfriend was talking with me about how the eye can't see about 25 frames per second. If thats the case why is there so much hoopla over a game being 60fps? The only benefit is that if it drops in frames for a bit its got a lot of room to breath. But if it stays firm at 30fps, thats more than adequete.
Posted: Nov 2nd 2009 10:10AM (Unverified) said
tell your bf, to, I don't know, play any PC game ever made so he can learn to not comment on stuff he has no clue about
Reply
Posted: Nov 2nd 2009 10:05AM (Unverified) said
Stop teling devs it's OK to have suckier framerates. 60 FPS gaming is something I miss GREATLY. Everytime a new system came out that was sooo powerful, I couldn't figure out why everything can't just run at 60 frames.
I remember when MGS2 came out and being AMAZED that not only it looked better than any console game ever, but it ran like a dream too. Dunno why, esp for 1st-person shooters, devs have thrown this out the window. Bullshit.
Some PC games even CAP the framerate at 30 no matter your hardware. What a giant crock of shit.
I remember when MGS2 came out and being AMAZED that not only it looked better than any console game ever, but it ran like a dream too. Dunno why, esp for 1st-person shooters, devs have thrown this out the window. Bullshit.
Some PC games even CAP the framerate at 30 no matter your hardware. What a giant crock of shit.
Posted: Nov 9th 2009 1:06PM (Unverified) said
What this really says is "we care more about graphics than making a smooth, playable gaming experience".
Featured Stories
Super Joystiq Podcast 004: 38 Studios meltdown, Gravity Rush, Civilization 5: Gods & Kings, Dragon's Dogma
Posted on May 25th 2012 3:30PM






