[obonicus]

Mod : Some posts merged here from Ratchet and Clank thread.

I'm not sure if this is the right place for this (it addresses future R&C games) but Mike Acton put up a very interesting blog post on framerate. It'll probably upset people here, but hopefully we're not going to freak out about it like I've seen elsewhere. It's nothing we haven't heard, though.

http://www.insomniacgames.com/blogca..._acton/1503082

Don't want to quote anything since the choicest bits are also really inflammatory and may cause people to not even read the post.

[Rangers]

And I totally agree

http://www.insomniacgames.com/blogca..._acton/1503082

However, during development, there are hard choices to be made between higher quality graphics and framerate. And we want to make the right choices that reflect our commitment to providing you with the best looking games out there. To that end, our community team did some research into the question of framerate. The results perhaps confirmed what I’ve known for a long time, but found it difficult to accept without evidence. They found that:

•
A higher framerate does not significantly affect sales of a game.
•
A higher framerate does not significantly affect the reviews of a game.

And in particular they found that there was a clear correlation between graphics scores in reviews (where they are provided) and the final scores. And they found no such correlation between framerate and the graphics scores nor the final scores. As an interesting side-note, our team also found no direct correlation between gameplay scores and final scores, however it does appear that gameplay scores are also influenced by graphics scores. i.e. Better looking games appear to be more “fun” to reviewers, in general.

What does all of this mean, really?

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.

[2real4tv]

I think some games need 60fps. In a game like RNC I think a solid 30(no dips no tearing) is good enough.

[corduroygt]

It completely depends on the genre to me. In general, the faster the motion, the higher the required sampling rate (framerate) to more accurately capture it. Games where you control a guy at walking/running speed doesn't require 60fps at all, while this changes for vehicles that can travel fast. NFS shift sucks compared to forza and gt5p because of the framerate and fast speeds the cars attain. Similarly, hawx would suck if it was at 30fps, not that it's that great to begin with.
Also people swear on 60 fps on street fighter style games, but since I don't play those I won't comment on it.

[Dr. Nick]

Outside of Fighters, Action games in the vein of DMC, and Racing games 60fps isn't a big deal. A framerate that remains at least a constant 29fps is a big deal.

[2real4tv]

Originally Posted by 2real4tv

I think some games need 60fps. In a game like RNC I think a solid 30(no dips no tearing) is good enough.

I take it back I think it looks good as is...they should keep the 60fps.

[vazel]

Originally Posted by corduroygt

Games where you control a guy at walking/running speed doesn't require 60fps at all,

If those games have a controllable camera with the right stick then yes it does. 60fps benefits in almost all situations, even when not moving a lot it just feels smoother and controls better.

while this changes for vehicles that can travel fast.

Yea, the chuggy framerate in Afrika makes me queasy when driving around.

But if even at a forum like B3D I'm reading responses like in this thread then I guess it's time to give up on 60fps. I'll always have my PC but PS3 exclusives don't get ported.

[-tkf-]

Is it true to say that so far they havent really given up on "quality" but resolution to get to their goal of 60?

[tuna]

The best selling HD game is COD 4 (I belive). The framerate is mostly 60. Insomniac should take notice.

[Iron Tiger]

Originally Posted by tuna

The best selling HD game is COD 4 (I belive). The framerate is mostly 60. Insomniac should take notice.

After playing stuff like Killzone 2 and Halo 3, my friends all feel there's a certain something about CoD that makes it look better. They don't know what it is, but I know it's the 60fps.

I think Resistance would be fine at 30fps (it didn't bother me at all in the first), but R&C needs to be 60fps. Games with broad vistas, swiftly moving characters and objects, and fast camera motion will look stuttery unless some decent motion blur is applied. BTW, Uncharted 2's motion blur is the best I've ever seen in a game, because it's the least noticeable.

[liolio]

Originally Posted by corduroygt

It completely depends on the genre to me. In general, the faster the motion, the higher the required sampling rate (framerate) to more accurately capture it. Games where you control a guy at walking/running speed doesn't require 60fps at all, while this changes for vehicles that can travel fast. NFS shift sucks compared to forza and gt5p because of the framerate and fast speeds the cars attain. Similarly, hawx would suck if it was at 30fps, not that it's that great to begin with.
Also people swear on 60 fps on street fighter style games, but since I don't play those I won't comment on it.

I'm not sold on this at all, I would like to blind test (if possible) ForzaIII @30fps and @60fps per second and weight the perceived smoothness against extra eyes candies. If the renderer runs @30fps it doesn't prevent the physic engine to run way faster (360 updates per second).
All this "30fps is not enough talk" needs some serious blind testing imho.

[mmendez]

Originally Posted by tuna

The best selling HD game is COD 4 (I belive). The framerate is mostly 60. Insomniac should take notice.

And COD4 had to go sub-HD (640p IIRC) on consoles to achieve that. The textures and IQ in general are not stellar either. KZ2 is a 30Hz game and looks fantastic. The pacing is different, yes, but it doesn't feel any less intense than COD.

[Billy Idol]

interesting read.
I (maybe get banned for this ) fully agree with the blog post: framerate doesn't affect me, I am not sensitive to framerate and I don't mind 30 fps at all.
I really like the extra bling going the 30fps route, compared to a super smooth okaish looking ~60 fps game.
Up to now, only one game I have played worried me due to framerate (I am looking at you Mass_Effect.ppt) and I could nonetheless enjoy this game!
What affects me more is (framerate) stuttering due to in-between level loading (now, I am looking at you KZ2 and GeOW2), which was kind of annoying, but in the end did not hinder me to enjoy the games.

[Shifty Geezer]

Boooo!

Originally Posted by corduroygt

Games where you control a guy at walking/running speed doesn't require 60fps at all...

I disagree. A fast car in a straightish line is easier to watch at 30fps then an FPS where the player is turning. In quitre a few games I find myself wanting a better framerate to avoid the jitter. eg. Fat Princess last night. Sadly I think I'm in the minority and most people don't perceive the benefit.

[Silent_Buddha]

Well, the main consumer target for R&C is going to be less impressed by 60 FPS than they would by better graphics.

On the other hand. The main target of something like Forza, GT5, COD, will be far more impressed with 60 FPS (I'm not one of them, I'm fine with 30 myself) than better graphics at 30 fps.

Regards,
SB

[obonicus]

Originally Posted by tuna

The best selling HD game is COD 4 (I belive). The framerate is mostly 60. Insomniac should take notice.

They did. They seem to believe it's an outlier.

[Shifty Geezer]

Billy Idol - Banned
Obonicus - Banned
Mike Acton - He's banned. Twice!

Anyone else wanna champion sub-smooth framerates?!





What they should really do is a public study into framerates by getting people to view 30fps and 60fps side by side. I imagine the findings are most people can't perceive the difference.

[obonicus]

My time owning a voodoo 3 and playing Deus Ex has made me unable to notice anything about framerates above 20.

[Billy Idol]

Originally Posted by Shifty Geezer

What they should really do is a public study into framerates by getting people to view 30fps and 60fps side by side. I imagine the findings are most people can't perceive the difference.

what do you mean exactly with side by side:
Same graphics, but one with 30Hz and one with 60Hz?
Or 30Hz+extra bling compared to the 60Hz version without the bling?

[Shifty Geezer]

Originally Posted by Billy Idol

what do you mean exactly with side by side:
Same graphics, but one with 30Hz and one with 60Hz?
Or 30Hz+extra bling compared to the 60Hz version without the bling?

I'd just test 30 versus 60 identical, just to see if people can recognise it. When playing Booty on PS3, if you switch down to 720p, you get a huge increase in framerate. To me this is a significant advantage, but my friends had real trouble spotting it and didn't care. I'd like to know if the general populace can actually even perceive the difference, at least notably. To me, 60fps adds a sense of class or quality, and an easiness in viewing the game. I think most people don't notice any benefit though, which makes it wasted effort to pursue.

You could then also do a test case with 30 fps enhanced visuals and 60fps simpler visuals, and get people to vote on their preference, but I think that's already answered with Insomniac's investigations and what we expect. Slower eyecandy appeals.

And to be thorough, a proper test should look into framerate fluctuations, tear and minimum framerates. If, God forbid, the general populace would really prefer even more eyecandy at 15fps, the developer wanting to make a lot of money should pursue that, and I should go do something else besides play games! It certainly warrants a proper investigation though, instead of all these developers guessing what the user requirements are. There are some faults with Insomniacs investigation, as they aren't comparing gameplay/overall scores with sales. One assumes there aren't many games with good graphics that are poor games and sell well; good graphics tends to mean a minimum level of game quality overall. They also need to investigate overall scores and sales, as some games have deliberately simple graphics but sell relatively well, especially downloads. Thus the industry as a whole should actually get some metrics on users, to help design games and future hardware.

[Cornsnake]

I'm ok with 30fps, but not with this.

Framerate should be as consistent as possible and should never interfere with the game. However, 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. As in, “Damn! Did you see that? That was crazy!”

A solid framerate is still a sign of professional, well-made product. When there is a trade-off for framerate, it needs to be clearly worth it. i.e. It must introduce clear improvements on what the player sees, and never used as an excuse to not optimize the game or art.

IMO the framerate should be rock solid throughout.

[obonicus]

I don't know. I think he's right. I've seen that sort of thought in tons of sandbox games. I've seen people do crazy stuff in Crackdown just to see how much they could make the otherwise solid engine chug.

[homerdog]

Originally Posted by Shifty Geezer

What they should really do is a public study into framerates by getting people to view 30fps and 60fps side by side. I imagine the findings are most people can't perceive the difference.

I did a blind test with some of my friends, showing them HL2 on my PC with no AA and then with 16xQCSAA (yes my friends are pretty good sports ). They all chose the one with AA as better looking but couldn't tell me why. I suspect you'd see similar results with framerate as the variable. Hmm there's a command to cap FPS at 30 in Source...

Truth be told, I've played many hours of Halo and 30Hz never bothered me. Then I went on a TF2 bender on my PC for a couple months, came back to Halo and was like "wtf is wrong with my TV". After a few minutes I adjusted and it didn't bother me, but the initial 60 -> 30FPS switch was jarring.

[ultragpu]

30fps rock steady with better visual is the way to go for me, definitely a much better viewing impact than a 60fps with lower details. In Insomniac's case I just wish they really implement the much needed HDR and a better texture streaming engine for their next game. SSAO helps alot these days too. I'm just happy now that they have a clear direction in the priority and hopefully they will ascend to the top tier in graphics.

[Prophecy2k]

In terms of processing resources (assuming a single developement platform) how much processing resources would a drop from 60fps to 30fps free up?

Rachet & Clank games look amazing enough to me that I thought they were indeed 30fps games. If they can free up significant resource for adding lots more visual "pop" then why not?