Really, it needs to stay above 24FPS.. anything faster and the human eye really can't make a distinction. The only problem is if you're sitting right on that edge and turn a corner to a garden or something with a lot of polygons, bam, you see a slow down.
So really, like protector one said, if they can keep it above 30 and keep it locked down above 30 than I really don't care at all what my FPS is. #ratchetclank
@Aphex Ninja: The human eye CAN make a distinction between 24 FPS and 60 FPS. The difference is, in fact, enormous, and I'm not pretending to be one of those cocky graphics whores. It's a very basic difference, and a very noticeable one. #ratchetclank
@RockyRan: You can notice it being smoother, but it's not as dramatic as it once was in older games. Hell, I wouldn't have built the rig I have if I didn't care about high FPS .. my point is basic film FPS, not necessarily gaming as you can take a whole bunch of other factors into play as well .. cpu, ram, etc.. all which help boost FPS .. something that wouldn't exist in film.
So as I do see your point, I can tell you that its not so much a distinction between frames as it is a smoother game. #ratchetclank
This article makes me incredibly angry. Framerate makes a big difference to me and I absolutely agree with him when he makes the statement that it doesn't matter to reviewers. He's right, it doesn't, because reviewers don't know what the hell they are looking at. Reviewers think that Killzone 2 looks realistic. Yeah, I get rainbow glares everywhere I look too.
Just because reviewers don't see it doesn't mean gamers don't see it. Maybe sales aren't driven because you've made the same damn game for seven years and people are finally getting bored of the formula. They said themselves that players weren't enjoying Resistance 2, maybe it's about time Insomniac realizes they can't do sequels right anymore.
Giving up on 60 fps is the saddest thing a game company can do and seeing this news just means I'm more likely not to buy their future releases. Then again, I never bought a Ratchet and Clank game yet, so that won't be so hard to do. #ratchetclank
@John-irl: You haven't been in enough beta tests to know that, yes, really, it is one of the saddest things a game company can do. No, not THE SADDEST, excuse the slight exaggeration, but it is definitely one of the saddest things.
Essentially they are saying that optimizing a game's framerate to be high is no longer a priority. This can easily give way to saying things like high resolution, fast UI, quick loading, and small save files are also lower priority and don't need to be optimized.
Eventually you end up with a company that produces "high end" content at the cost of "shit end" performance, which reviewers and gamers seem to lap-up nowadays so long as it has some fancy lighting, good voice acting, and a great marketing team. #ratchetclank
@DaveKap:
Yes I'v been in plenty of beta tests to know...ok thats actually completely irrelevant here (in struggling to find any connection, low frame rates in a beta mean FA once the game is playable in the released state).
And your making the assumption that one of the most respected developers (for reference, see many, many publications) is suddenly going to start allowing sup-par res/ui/loading times/saves(random...) into their games.
Its a simple fact that the video game business is based on money (the business part), in any business, it makes simple financial sense to cut the area that provides minimal return. The games = art argument is the obvious reply ("money should play no part, give me the best experience regardless of expense" etc etc), but I'd rather Insomniac "push the envelope" in other areas in awesome games (at 30 fps) than start making mediocre ones (at 60). #ratchetclank
@hitmonInfinity: It can pick up more and anyone who tells you different probably thinks that it's safe to be in a car during a lightning storm because the tires are rubber. (It's an urban myth) #ratchetclank
As much as i love Insomniac i don't like that attitude. They are basically saying why should we bother creating a higer quality and smoother game if it doesn't net us better reviews or more sales. I for 1 love 60fps, it makes a game feel so damn solid and actually makes the visuals look better as everything is so god damn smoother. It can also make a huge difference to how a game is played in some cases. CoD for example wouldn't be anywhere near as fast paced if it was less than 60fps. #ratchetclank
@Pyrefly: I think they are looking at it from a resource allocation standpoint. Reducing the framerate, something that the average purchaser does not value, would free up resources to improve the game in an area that's more noticeable. #ratchetclank
@Yertle8: Yea i realise that but 1 of the reasons i love Insomniac is due to their ability to pump out such refined and quality games consistently and i fear that by reducing the framerate they may lose some of that magic that makes them so brilliant in my mind. Fair enough to them though if they think they are putting too much effort in and not reaping the benefits then fair play to them if they want to cut back a little.
I think another reason this upsets me is that so mabny devs plough all their effort and resources into visuals now that we lose out on game performance so much and i don't want to see that happening any more than it is now.
Does 2 lights bulbs make it twice as bright? No, there's a diminishing return the more you add to it. But it does improve it. I do prefer higher frame rates and higher resolution. A lot of games I buy tends to be at least 30fps and 1080p. I can tell the difference. And I certainly notice improvements in a 60fps...but it's not a make or break deal. I also notice that a lot of multiplatform games suck in the graphics department whether it's 1080p or not...and frame rate on those aren't impressive either. #ratchetclank
Why drop framerate over reviews? If it's their philosophy, then they shouldn't abandon it. I mean, Diogenes lived in a barrel, and did he abandon it because everybody thought living in houses was better? NO! He TOOK THAT BARREL and LIVED THE CRAP OUT OF IT. #ratchetclank
@cyber rat: It's not because of reviews. It's the fact that if you drop the framerate in have, you have twice as much processing power per frame to work with. That's why Final Fantasy XIII looks so good, because it's running at 30fps instead of 60fps.
And to be honest, most people wouldn't be able to tell at a lower FPS, but drops in framerate become much more visible (30-20 looks horrible compared to 60-50). #ratchetclank
I'm not going to lie, I dont fully understand how hard it is to implement, or any of the factors involved. But while nice knowing the game your playing is 60fps, as long as insomniac keeps up the grand tradition of quality games, I'm fine with 30fps. #ratchetclank
Movies are still 24 frames/s, its a frame rate that originates from film-projectors, however even modern films are shot at 24 frames/s because the audience perceives it to look 'filmic'.
Contrarily, 30 frames/s is common in video due to NTSC (25 frames/s for PAL), and many videographers consider the look to "videoy".
Think the look of "made-for-TV" movies versus movies shot on film. Virtually all blockbuster films are shot at 24p, even though they could easily increase the fps with modern digital projection. Even high-action/high-motion films like Transformers 2. Why is that?
I'm not suggesting games should be made for 24p, but we should think about the ingrained perception of how we actively see games at different frame rates (or even inconsistent frame rates).
60 frames/s and even 120 frames/s does look smoother and more 'realistic' to the human eye then lower fps motion. The reason is the phenomenon of the persistence of vision.
However, the real issue is how do we perceive and react to different fps. For movies, 24p is frequently preferable to 30p because we are conditioned to subconciously appreciate that nuance in the movie we watch. For videogames this is obviously further extrapolated because fps has a very strong performance implication.
@Scaramanga: Most 24p content is viewed either using pull down or a multiple of 24p, so it is not like we are even watching the content in 24p. #ratchetclank
@Scaramanga: There's only on problem with comparing video game framerates with life-action frame rates. Video games don't usually incorporate motion blur in a 60fps environment. It messes with persistence of vision in a weird way... #ratchetclank
@Scaramanga: There's motion blur in film, so that 24 fps actually goes quite a bit further. Video games, without the use of shaders anyway, can't achieve that. There's no "in between" frames to smooth out the motion. #ratchetclank
@Scaramanga: Subconscious has precious little to do with it. When you shoot in film or in video, each frame (or half frame) has an exposure time, so there is motion blur. In video games a frame is instantaneous, so to cheat the human brain better, we need more frames per seconds or artificial motion blur. The thing is it currently takes less processing power to calculate twice the frames than to compute decent motion blur.
On top of that, the frame rate is also the pulse of the game, so the higher the pulse, the faster the reactions of the game to the player's input, which is key to the cognitive experience. Something movies obviously don't have to care about. Remember the Quake players boasting their 200 fps even when their monitor was not able to display a third of them? Reaction time.
@RicoTheSaboteur: Not only that, but with anything that's filmed, each frame is 100% equidistant from each other. With games, that are pushing to maintain 30FPS but fail, when frame distances are off, you can see some stuttering that makes it look really bad. And that's why 60FPS is strived by so many. You have a lot of leeway in terms of FPS dropping before you can ever notice it. #ratchetclank
@RicoTheSaboteur: Crysis had some of the best motion blur in the biz. It was one of the few first person shooters I didn't mind playing at 20 fps, because it still looked amazing and smooth #ratchetclank
dagamer34 promoted this comment
Edited by ithyphallus, bonks morrigan at 10/30/09 1:37 AM
ithyphallus, bonks morrigan was starred
ithyphallus, bonks morrigan was unstarred
@ithyphallus, lazy beareaucrat: If you 1/2 the frame rate, you can improve the graphics substantially. And that's where the "review scores" thing comes into play. #ratchetclank
So true, Tekken 6 is the most fluid fighting game ever (rock solid 60fps + cinematic motion blur) and nobody seems to care about that, only about the graphics in still shots (which are average at best unfortunately).
The game is still amazing in motion.
@DragonSix: did you see the pathetic kotaku review which pointed out that the animations weren't fluid.... if anything tekken6 has achieved something no other game has yet done and thats more fluid movement than 60hz (though the use of real speed calculated motion blur at 60fps)
A huge technical feat but it gets scored 8 in graphics because reviewers are too ignorant to appreciate something. Gaming journalists should really have to be required to take some technical classes on game development. Other jounalistic professions require it so why are VG not held to similar standards especially considering that its way more technical than most fields. #ratchetclank
@flanker22: Just because the engine is good, the frame rate is rock solid, and there's cool special effects doesn't mean the graphics are good. That's like judging the sound of an album completely on what density of vinyl it was printed on. #ratchetclank
Human eye accepts 12 fps as motion. Human eye cannot recognise frames after 25 fps, so everything after that is gut feeling about 'smoothness' of the movement etc. Good decision Insomniac! #ratchetclank
@elmorepow: I don't know, bad decision I say. It's easy to see how smooth the gameplay looks in Ratchet & Clank, and I think that was one of the charms of the series.
I personally hope this does not become the norm, and we keep striving for 60+ fps. Especially with 120hz TV's becoming more common.
"120fps??? That's totally unnecessary!"
Nope. Ever actually looked at your TV when you use an analog stick in an FPS and scroll your view across your surroundings? Notice how incredibly blurry it gets? That's not motion blur. That's not style. That's your TV not refreshing fast enough to keep the image clear. Even if we can't perceive that many frames, it doesn't matter in situations like that. What if you're scrolling your viewpoint and want to focus on something as it moves past you? That's perfectly possible in real life, but not in video games.
Keep it 60 Insomniac :( And go 120 in the next generation.
10/30/09
10/30/09
So really, like protector one said, if they can keep it above 30 and keep it locked down above 30 than I really don't care at all what my FPS is. #ratchetclank
10/30/09
10/31/09
So as I do see your point, I can tell you that its not so much a distinction between frames as it is a smoother game. #ratchetclank
10/30/09
A) 30 fps or higher;
B) LOCKED DOWN.
10/30/09
Im looking at you Mass Effect. #ratchetclank
10/30/09
Just because reviewers don't see it doesn't mean gamers don't see it. Maybe sales aren't driven because you've made the same damn game for seven years and people are finally getting bored of the formula. They said themselves that players weren't enjoying Resistance 2, maybe it's about time Insomniac realizes they can't do sequels right anymore.
Giving up on 60 fps is the saddest thing a game company can do and seeing this news just means I'm more likely not to buy their future releases. Then again, I never bought a Ratchet and Clank game yet, so that won't be so hard to do. #ratchetclank
10/30/09
10/30/09
Essentially they are saying that optimizing a game's framerate to be high is no longer a priority. This can easily give way to saying things like high resolution, fast UI, quick loading, and small save files are also lower priority and don't need to be optimized.
Eventually you end up with a company that produces "high end" content at the cost of "shit end" performance, which reviewers and gamers seem to lap-up nowadays so long as it has some fancy lighting, good voice acting, and a great marketing team. #ratchetclank
10/30/09
Yes I'v been in plenty of beta tests to know...ok thats actually completely irrelevant here (in struggling to find any connection, low frame rates in a beta mean FA once the game is playable in the released state).
And your making the assumption that one of the most respected developers (for reference, see many, many publications) is suddenly going to start allowing sup-par res/ui/loading times/saves(random...) into their games.
Its a simple fact that the video game business is based on money (the business part), in any business, it makes simple financial sense to cut the area that provides minimal return. The games = art argument is the obvious reply ("money should play no part, give me the best experience regardless of expense" etc etc), but I'd rather Insomniac "push the envelope" in other areas in awesome games (at 30 fps) than start making mediocre ones (at 60). #ratchetclank
10/30/09
10/30/09
10/30/09
10/30/09
10/30/09
I think another reason this upsets me is that so mabny devs plough all their effort and resources into visuals now that we lose out on game performance so much and i don't want to see that happening any more than it is now.
10/30/09
10/30/09
10/30/09
10/30/09
And to be honest, most people wouldn't be able to tell at a lower FPS, but drops in framerate become much more visible (30-20 looks horrible compared to 60-50). #ratchetclank
10/30/09
10/30/09
10/30/09
Movies are still 24 frames/s, its a frame rate that originates from film-projectors, however even modern films are shot at 24 frames/s because the audience perceives it to look 'filmic'.
Contrarily, 30 frames/s is common in video due to NTSC (25 frames/s for PAL), and many videographers consider the look to "videoy".
Think the look of "made-for-TV" movies versus movies shot on film. Virtually all blockbuster films are shot at 24p, even though they could easily increase the fps with modern digital projection. Even high-action/high-motion films like Transformers 2. Why is that?
some discussions:
[digitalproducer.digitalmedianet.com]
[www.camcorderinfo.com]
I'm not suggesting games should be made for 24p, but we should think about the ingrained perception of how we actively see games at different frame rates (or even inconsistent frame rates).
60 frames/s and even 120 frames/s does look smoother and more 'realistic' to the human eye then lower fps motion. The reason is the phenomenon of the persistence of vision.
[en.wikipedia.org]
However, the real issue is how do we perceive and react to different fps. For movies, 24p is frequently preferable to 30p because we are conditioned to subconciously appreciate that nuance in the movie we watch. For videogames this is obviously further extrapolated because fps has a very strong performance implication.
10/30/09
10/30/09
10/30/09
10/30/09
On top of that, the frame rate is also the pulse of the game, so the higher the pulse, the faster the reactions of the game to the player's input, which is key to the cognitive experience. Something movies obviously don't have to care about. Remember the Quake players boasting their 200 fps even when their monitor was not able to display a third of them? Reaction time.
10/30/09
10/30/09
10/30/09
so... this is straight faced to the fans: we care more about sales and reviewers than you
this is such a burn especially after just playing the halloween stuff on team fortress 2
on top of playing borderlands nonstop at the highest settings on the PC at a constant 40-60 fps, which makes the console versions feel "slow".
10/30/09
10/30/09
The game is still amazing in motion.
10/30/09
A huge technical feat but it gets scored 8 in graphics because reviewers are too ignorant to appreciate something. Gaming journalists should really have to be required to take some technical classes on game development. Other jounalistic professions require it so why are VG not held to similar standards especially considering that its way more technical than most fields. #ratchetclank
10/30/09
10/30/09
10/30/09
I personally hope this does not become the norm, and we keep striving for 60+ fps. Especially with 120hz TV's becoming more common.
"120fps??? That's totally unnecessary!"
Nope. Ever actually looked at your TV when you use an analog stick in an FPS and scroll your view across your surroundings? Notice how incredibly blurry it gets? That's not motion blur. That's not style. That's your TV not refreshing fast enough to keep the image clear. Even if we can't perceive that many frames, it doesn't matter in situations like that. What if you're scrolling your viewpoint and want to focus on something as it moves past you? That's perfectly possible in real life, but not in video games.
Keep it 60 Insomniac :( And go 120 in the next generation.
10/30/09
10/30/09
10/29/09