Kotaku 
Enter your username and password.
Denver, 5:09 PM
Mon Nov 30
39 posts in the last 24 hours
Tip us:
Editor-In-Chief:
Brian Crecente
| AIM | Twitter
Deputy Editor:
Stephen Totilo
| AIM | Twitter
Senior Editor:
Michael McWhertor
| AIM | Twitter
Senior Contributing Editor, Japan:
Brian Ashcraft
| AIM | Twitter
Contributing Editor, East Coast:
Michael Fahey
| AIM | Twitter
Contributing Editor, Oceania:
Luke Plunkett
| AIM | Twitter
Contributing Editor, Weekends:
Owen Good
| AIM | Twitter
Correspondent, San Francisco:
AJ Glasser
| AIM | Twitter
Columnist:
Leigh Alexander
Columnist:
Tim Rogers
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
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