Insomniac says no to 60 frames per second

[trinibwoy]

This move by Insomniac to me, looks like a hurt gesture that Ratchet & Clan underwhelmes visually....

That's funny cause it's the first thing that jumped into my head after reading the article and playing the demo I don't blame them one bit to be honest, if a game doesn't require 60 fps then you're burning processing power for no benefit to the developer or to the player.

 

[Billy Idol]

This move by Insomniac to me, looks like a hurt gesture that Ratchet & Clan underwhelmes visually and all the rave on Naughty Dog's Uncharted 2. Looking back at our R&C thread, it does seem there are an awful lot of posters that are unappreciative of what they are doing.

Exactly. And now consider people who don't even know the implication of 60 fps gameplay...they (especially) only judge the bling of the visuals and Insomniac underlined this with their blog post and their survey.
At the end of the day, Insomniac wants people to buy their games and they just realised that graphics is a strong purchase driver and 60 fps (or/and 1080p) is not.

 

[Dr. Nick]

Yep I agree.
When you first introduce a game to the public do you do so by releasing a demo that they can play for themselves? No, you release screenshots of your game to the public and if they don't like what they see the chances of them becoming interested in your title later are greatly reduced even after a demo is released. A pub can try creating bull shots but the most you can get away with is upping the resolution and AA, adding anything thing that won't be working in the final product would cause a backlash. Graphics are an important marketing tool whether people like it or not. I think this gen has shown just how much you can get out of 30fps over picking 60fps.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Looking back at our R&C thread, it does seem there are an awful lot of posters that are unappreciative of what they are doing.

The latest criticisms were levied at the Clank demo, which shouldn't be construed as a general dislaike of RnC on the whole. I for one didn't enjoy the demo, noticed the framerate stutters at times, and yet applaud 60fps. In RnC's case I think, if they can't hit 60fps always, I'd perhaps prefer 30 fps rock-solid.

 

[sebbbi]

They are 100% right that 60 fps does not increase marketing value:
- 30 fps looks better in screenshots, because you have twice the processor time to render each frame. And screenshots from 10 fps game would look even better
- 30 fps looks better in internet videos and TV commercials. Most video sites scale all 60 fps videos down to 30 fps, and almost nobody downloads high quality video files anymore (streaming 24/30 fps video is the most popular format right now).

Basically nobody sees the 60 fps until they start playing the game. And at that point the game has already been sold. Sad but true.

A good example: We tried to get 60 fps videos of Trials HD around the net. But the support for 60 fps videos is almost non-existent in all the popular video downloading sites. And even our Xbox dashboard video trailer was automatically compressed down to 30 fps to reduce it's bandwidth . But we have incredibly high demo -> full version conversion ratio. When people see the game at it's full 60 fps glory, they will very likely buy the full version. Half million unit sales for a XBLA game is pretty good sign of support towards 60 fps gaming

 

[Phil]

The latest criticisms were levied at the Clank demo, which shouldn't be construed as a general dislaike of RnC on the whole. I for one didn't enjoy the demo, noticed the framerate stutters at times, and yet applaud 60fps. In RnC's case I think, if they can't hit 60fps always, I'd perhaps prefer 30 fps rock-solid.

And what about those games that can't hit 30fps? Downgrade them to rock solid 15fps?

I think before they start downgrading framerate, they should perhaps limit the complexity or where ever they're hitting bottlenecks to sustain 60 fps most of the time. I didn't mean to come across as too critical of the other topic btw, but it annoys me somewhat that my initial fear at the beginning of this generation is turning into reality:

Most games are 30 fps (and because they target it, a lot don't even hit a rock-solid framerate!) already and there is less and less incentive go for 60 fps. Why should they when all the 30 fps games are getting the majority of credits for amazing visuals and no one cares for the lesser looking 60 fps games?

At this rate, there soon won't be any 60 fps games out anymore, not in any genre.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

And what about those games that can't hit 30fps? Downgrade them to rock solid 15fps?

Scale back the game to fit a rock-solid 30fps. There is such a thing as too much eye-candy. We really need reviews to start penalising/rewarding framerates. Our new framerate analysis features (grandmaster, PS360) show how rubbish framerates are this gen. But then I don't know what they were like before that. What I do know is on 2D titles, 16 bit and earlier, games were much better balanced for good framerates, and often hit 60 fps. I guess marketting has crippled all-round quality.

 

[aselto]

Our new framerate analysis features (grandmaster, PS360) show how rubbish framerates are this gen. But then I don't know what they were like before that.

They weren't any better (not to mention interlacing...).

I think Mike Acton and the Insomniac crew are fundamentally wrong. I'm not a 60 fps whore and if they want to do 30fps with prettier graphics then be it, but I don't think it's impossible to sell 60fps or that graphics are the sales defining feature anyway. FM3 is doing fantastically well at the moment even though it doesn't have the same graphical fidelity as NfS Shift or Dirt 2, Call of Duty games etc. etc.

I actually think they have a hard time selling Ratchet & Clank is because it's R&C - a series with pretty much yearly releases since 2002, so people either got burned out by now or never liked it to begin with.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

They weren't any better (not to mention interlacing...).

I recall generally stable 30fps on the titles I played, but that wasn't measured with anything more accurate than my eyesight!

 

[Acert93]

A good example: We tried to get 60 fps videos of Trials HD around the net. But the support for 60 fps videos is almost non-existent in all the popular video downloading sites. And even our Xbox dashboard video trailer was automatically compressed down to 30 fps to reduce it's bandwidth . But we have incredibly high demo -> full version conversion ratio. When people see the game at it's full 60 fps glory, they will very likely buy the full version. Half million unit sales for a XBLA game is pretty good sign of support towards 60 fps gaming

The good news is that Gamersyde.com, as one of the original HD gaming media websites (and free!), does frequently post HD 60Hz videos of games that are actually 60fps :smile: Just give your video to BlimBlim and he will be happy to share your media.

Just an FYI ... not to mention I want to see some Trials HD2

 

[vazel]

They weren't any better (not to mention interlacing...).

I remember a lot of 60fps titles on the ps2, gcn, and dreamcast. Dreamcast supported 480p on nearly all their titles and the GCN had 480p on all the 1st party titles I've played. As bad as framerates are these days the N64 still holds the title for most awful framerate console.

 

[sebbbi]

The good news is that Gamersyde.com, as one of the original HD gaming media websites (and free!), does frequently post HD 60Hz videos of games that are actually 60fps :smile: Just give your video to BlimBlim and he will be happy to share your media.

Just an FYI ... not to mention I want to see some Trials HD2

Yes, there are some choices, but sadly all the biggest ones with huge majority of the viewers are 30 fps.

 

[phat]

I've heard this explanation before, but it's just not true. You see this in low dynamic range indoor scenes as well. Not only do avid videographers love 24p and 30p over 60i/p, but home theatre buffs also find the motion interpolation of 120Hz sets to be distracting when watching film.

Dynamic range is important in indoor scenes as well. A good cinematographer will set the exposure to normalize the dynamic range of the scene to the dynamic range of the camera, whether it be film or video. The higher dynamic range of film allows you to see deeper into shadows as well as bright regions.

People fixate on the 60fps because it's the most obvious difference between film and video, but it's not the most important thing. As an experiment, find some footage that looks obviously video and some footage that looks obviously film, and pause both. Do they suddenly look equally filmic or video, with framerate taken out of the equation? No. There are many artifacts in video that give it away, from low resolution to ringing edges to poor dynamic range, but these are harder to explain. (Thankfully, video has improved tremendously in recent years.)

Film too, has its trademark artifacts, most prominent of which is graininess, but also includes subtle differences in colour temperature and gamut. Post-processing of video can add these artifacts, and maybe even get rid of ringing edges, but there's not much that can be done about a lack of dynamic range. Which is why the big budget Mel Gibson film Apocalypto, one of the first shot in 24fps HD video, when the technology was new and had poorer dynamic range than today's video cameras, screams video in many of its scenes.

 

[vazel]

If you want to see that film and video look different regardless of framerate look at Public Enemies. Oh Michael Mann what have you done... At least we'll always have Heat.

 

[Kittonwy]

This news trully saddens me, as I've seen Insomniac as one of the last to devote themselves to 60 fps or in that sense "gameplay over graphics". To see them go the other way is very disappointing.

I'm quite at loss for words at the stupid poll that was used to form some argument. A poll without a context isn't worth much and this poll certainly didn't have one, besides framerate. Surely, it depends on the type of game if a 60 fps framerate is beneficial or not. In any game where you have a freely movable camera (technically, any shooter, 3rd person game or platformer), you can appreciate the higher framerate.

In some games, the line is more blurred as the pace is limited by the movement of the player or the speed at which the camera can be rotated. To imagine a game like Ratchet & Clank reduced to 30 fps is just awful.

Sadly, with all the credit Naughty Dog are receiving on their 30 fps games, it was just a matter of time. The market is turning increasingly shallow with everything directed at visuals and screenshots. Can't really blame them. If you want to survice in todays market, you better have something that looks good.

I really hope console makers enforce a 60 fps rule next generation, limiting the playing field to all. If everyone sticks to the same framerate, there should be no reason to go "lower for better". That framerate however should be 60 and not 30.


This move by Insomniac to me, looks like a hurt gesture that Ratchet & Clan underwhelmes visually and all the rave on Naughty Dog's Uncharted 2. Looking back at our R&C thread, it does seem there are an awful lot of posters that are unappreciative of what they are doing. Sadly, I bet, an awful lot of that criticism comes from people that have absolutely no incentive to play the game, regardless the framerate or how the game looks. I just can't believe the market is becoming THIS shallow.

Uncharted 2 does a rock-solid 30fps with no tearing, and with all the bells and whistles, AND amazing gameplay.

The problem with Insomniac is all their games lacked HDR lighting and had very inconsistent shadowing (baked shadows right in the middle of the level where the player can walk through and notice), which kills the immersion especially in outdoor scenes (in Resistance 2 in SF the sun actually looked DULL, with boxes stuck in the middle of the level with no shadowing at all), regardless of whether their games are running at 30 or 60fps. Resistance 2 ran at 30fps and it didn't have all the bells and whistles, it didn't even have reflective water either, something even ICO on the PS2 had. I think instead of trying to blame it on framerate they should just take their time on all aspects of their games, their tech needed an overhaul, they needed to prototype new gameplay ideas and play-test the hell out of them, and have tech art paying attention to every single little detail, you can't do any of that when you're pumping a game out every single year. With the whole 30 vs 60fps debate, it's like some people end up having to defend less than stellar graphics in favor of 60fps.

 

[Billy Idol]

The problem with Insomniac is all their games lacked HDR lighting and had very inconsistent shadowing (baked shadows right in the middle of the level where the player can walk through and notice), which kills the immersion especially in outdoor scenes (in Resistance 2 in SF the sun actually looked DULL, with boxes stuck in the middle of the level with no shadowing at all), regardless of whether their games are running at 30 or 60fps. Resistance 2 ran at 30fps and it didn't have all the bells and whistles, it didn't even have reflective water either, something even ICO on the PS2 had. I think instead of trying to blame it on framerate they should just take their time on all aspects of their games, their tech needed an overhaul, they needed to prototype new gameplay ideas and play-test the hell out of them, and have tech art paying attention to every single little detail, you can't do any of that when you're pumping a game out every single year. With the whole 30 vs 60fps debate, it's like some people end up having to defend less than stellar graphics in favor of 60fps.

Maybe you are right (although you express your opinion rather harsh and it seems that you fight a personal crusade against Insomniac). We should also take into account that Insomniac developed the engine before the debut of the PS3 ... if you remember R:FOM was a launch title. So maybe they had to play a little bit more save with their engine compared to for instance ND, who released UC1 after PS3 was quite established. Or look at Sony SM, they didn't even release one game, but the demo shows that they neither hit consistently 60 fps nor did their engine (up to the date of the demo) feature consistent lightning/shadows.

 

[Phil]

The problem with Insomniac is all their games lacked HDR lighting and had very inconsistent shadowing (baked shadows right in the middle of the level where the player can walk through and notice), which kills the immersion especially in outdoor scenes (in Resistance 2 in SF the sun actually looked DULL, with boxes stuck in the middle of the level with no shadowing at all), regardless of whether their games are running at 30 or 60fps.

I really am at loss for words. I never played a R&C game and wondered about HDR or lack there of. It's a great game, a great platformer and by all standards looks great, with HDR or not. It's also a cartoony platformer so it gets away with lots of effects it may be missing. Having HDR certainly wouldn't make it more immersive in my eyes. I also doubt it would get more sales because of it.

I really don't get this talk about graphics. Uncharted 2 looks great. KillZone 2 looks great. After spending hundreds of hour wih the latter, I don't care much for them anymore. I don't sit back and marvel at the graphics anymore. I play it because it offers great gameplay (note: nothing to do with the graphics) and is fun. I also go back to CoD5 quite a bit, because it offers a very smooth gameplay, eventhough it doesn't quite match other games in the graphics department. So what? Graphics are great at the beginning, but it won't get you to keep playing a game if the gameplay doesn't match up.

Uncharted 2 (or any 30 fps) is already a pain to use the camera, especially if you rotate it quick. It works, because of its linear gamepaly and because you don't rototate the camera that often (in some platforming segments to get a better look, but not under stress and during battle, although you won't be turning your camera by 360°). In R&C, you do this even more because you will often find yourself battling aganist many enemies all around you. Quick framerate and excellent response time is an excellent and important feature.

 

[assen]

After spending hundreds of hour wih the latter, I don't care much for them anymore. I don't sit back and marvel at the graphics anymore. ... Graphics are great at the beginning, but it won't get you to keep playing a game if the gameplay doesn't match up.

So instead of screenshots the developers should send to the press a small note saying:

Please spend hundreds hours with this game to find out how great it is!

 

[obonicus]

So instead of screenshots the developers should send to the press a small note saying:

Just add a plane ticket to Venice with the note.

 

[catisfit]

And what about those games that can't hit 30fps? Downgrade them to rock solid 15fps?

Scale back the game to fit a rock-solid 30fps.

If only. Too many developers have prioritised graphics over framerate to ridiculous levels this generation. Of the games I've spent a decent amount of time with, GTA4 and Fuel both drop to unplayable levels (by which I mean, driving at speed becomes a matter of more luck than judgement). This is in the course of regular play, not at particular chokepoints with a huge amount going on.

You might say both are open world games as a mitigating factor but I don't care, having to restart a race or get in a new car because you wrecked yours through no fault of your own is unacceptable, regardless of the construction of the world. Burnout Paradise didn't suffer from this problem, for example. I yearn for a dynamic framebuffer in these games to maintain playability.

I agree with the findings in the OP as it applies to developers in Insomniac's position. If you've suffered the pain of shooting for 60fps, then I expect 30fps will be treated as a hard limit, and the only genres I believe require 60fps are racing simulators and beat 'em ups, although I personally have no interest in the latter.

While the purist in me would like to see every game with a 60fps hard limit, the realist in me accepts that graphical fidelity are a huge driver in getting gamers/press interested in your game, and so 30fps is the more pragmatic choice. But at no point should 30fps be traded for a further increase in graphical fidelity.

We really need reviews to start penalising/rewarding framerates.

I'd like platform holders to test framerates and refuse substandard games to be released, as it would refocus developers on a minimum standard framerate. But that won't happen, again it's a clash of ideology vs pragmatism.