Insomniac says no to 60 frames per second

[Kittonwy]

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.

Personally I think Ratchet looks pretty good but it can use HDR and reflective water, I don't think it has gotten away with not having better lighting and shadowing, because they implemented self-shadowing for all the characters in A Crack in Time, something that was completely missing in Q4B and only present when Ratchet is near a fire-pit in TOD, they knew their games were missing features.

Camera-turning is perfectly fine in Uncharted 2 even during MP matches, the framerate is a rock-solid 30fps, basically Naughty Dog improved the graphics from Uncharted 1, added features like a more elegant implementation of DOF, SSAO and made the framerate better and got rid of all the tearing that people complained about.

I'm not arguing against Ratchet being 30fps instead of 60fps, what I AM arguing against is this whole debate of 60fps vs. having graphical features Insomniac games have been missing, when the same graphical features are missing in Insomniac games running at 30fps, it's a total bait-and-switch, as they're likely going to give the Ratchet IP a rest anyway and their Resistance games have always been 30fps, AND missing features like HDR and having limited self-shadowing and tons of baked shadows and missing shadows in the most obvious places, and water doesn't reflect properly, so implementing these features in their future games doesn't really come at the expense of 60fps.

 

[Kittonwy]

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.

Don't mind me I'm just being militant.

I don't have a "crusade" against Insomniac, I just want them to update their engine and take their time with their games, both in terms of gameplay and graphics. RFOM was a great game in terms of gameplay, but it was a very early PS3 game and was missing features which was understandable, but they have basically addressed self-shadowing only for the characters.

It's not like ND started making Uncharted AFTER the PS3 was released, their last game on the PS2 was Jak X combat racing which came out around the same time as Ratchet Deadlocked, they helped develop the Edge tools for the rest of SCEA. Santa Monica has always been late on the hardware, they're reaping the benefits of all the groundwork laid before them and working with way more mature tools than ND and Insomniac, so I'm not among those who think Santa Monica is actually this monster team in terms of graphics, Team Ueda had done more with playable scale with SOTC than God of War 2 ever did with its Colossus of Rhodes whose scale was nothing but a series of QTEs.

For the record I like Ratchet ACIT, I have a copy and it's a lot of fun, I think it looks pretty good but obviously not the best-looking game on the system. Resistance 3 will likely be 30fps but the franchise has never been 60fps, I just hope they would take their time with it to make sure the graphics and gameplay are absolutely top-notch, they need to stop rushing a game out every single year.

 

[grandmaster]

- 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

I'm not sure I buy that argument bearing in mind that 80-90% of press screenshots are "faked" bullshots any way. I might be wrong but I recall thatt even the Ratchet and Clank shots were full-on 720p, whereas the game isn't...

I think the decision makes sense for R&C... they aimed for 60, failed to convincingly achieve it and had to go sub-HD in the process. A locked 30fps makes sense.

In terms of this 30 vs 60 debate, whenever I do cross-platform comparisons and play the PC version at 60, the higher frame rate just feels so, so much better. It feels like the way the game was meant to be played. There's an inherent slugginesness in visual look and controller feedback on console and I for one would like to see it gone.

What 60fps does for the gameplay experience is difficult to articulate, but it is fundamentally valuable. I'm sure that IW would say that a CoD game running at 30 isn't a CoD game.

 

[obonicus]

What 60fps does for the gameplay experience is difficult to articulate, but it is fundamentally valuable. I'm sure that IW would say that a CoD game running at 30 isn't a CoD game.

I'm sure they would. What else would they say, considering the sacrifices they made to keep their FPS up?

 

[davygee]

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.

Totally on the ball and correct in my reckoning. I think it's becoming more and more apparent that Insomniac need to dedicate more time to each game they develop, yes they are a big company and maybe need the income from regular annual games to keep them ticking over, but it has now apparent that they have been spending more time coming up with bigger and better ideas (see R2 with it's large online element, coop etc) but don't have the time to polish it to the max.

I was seriously disappointed with R2 compared to R1 and sales of all three games since the bundled to the max R1 have been poor-ish to say the least.

I love what Insomniac are doing, but seriously feel that they need a new IP to kickstart themselves all over again and couldn't believe that they were making Crack in Time seeing as they have effectively made 3 R&C games in 3 years.

If the rumours are correct and R3 is in production, I sincerely hope that they delay it until mid 2011 at least and give it the development time it deserves.

They are a very talented group, and maybe with the recent press surrounding the dislike of R2 and now the 30 v 60 debate, they are cottoning on.

60fps would be great in all games, but seeing as the visuals are taking a serious hit based on framerate I hope they stick to a solid 30fps with no tearing and develop their engine based on this.....but at the end of the day, they really need to polish their games up to the point of no return. R2 seriously suffered and I don't want this to be repeated.

 

[assen]

In terms of this 30 vs 60 debate, whenever I do cross-platform comparisons and play the PC version at 60, the higher frame rate just feels so, so much better. It feels like the way the game was meant to be played.

Again, nobody argues that 60 fps is a bad thing by itself.

The question is, given some time and budgetary constraints, should we aim for 30 or 60 fps in order for the game to sell better?

In an industry with highly screenshot-driven marketing (also: see what sebbbi says about video hosting sites converting to 30 fps), the answer to me is clear.

If Infinity Ward couldn't market their next game as "Call of Duty" or even "by the makers of Call of Duty", would they still choose to target 60 fps?

 

[Dr. Nick]

I'm not sure I buy that argument bearing in mind that 80-90% of press screenshots are "faked" bullshots any way. I might be wrong but I recall thatt even the Ratchet and Clank shots were full-on 720p, whereas the game isn't...

Like I said the only "bullshots" you can really get away with is upping the resolution and adding more AA. Take SO4 for instance, tri-Ace had "bullshots" all of the battle screenshots and while there was some backlash it certainly didn't end up holding the game back...the story and presentation did. If they added a bunch of extra effects that weren't going to be seen in game there would have certainly been a problem and this website probably would have been the one to tear the game a part because of it. It would be a situation closer to where the term actually comes from, the CG next gen madden teaser versus the actual games that have been released since then.

So if Ratchet can't run with a higher polycount, more detailed textures and texture effects,SSAO, SSGI or whatever extra effects they want to use at 60fps but can get it working at 30fps then 30fps might yield better looking screenshoots. You decide instead of SSAO you want SSDO well if you can't get SSDO working at 30fps but can get it working at 10fps then 10fps might yield better screenshots.

One last thing, have you seen some of the Bayonetta Screenshots? If I was in charge of marketing I would have created bullshots for that game...or better bullshots.

 

[Crossbar]

Here you can find more about Insomniacs thoughts about game development.

http://www.edge-online.com/features/interview-insomniac-games

Rather interesting about their target audience and their position among Sony first party devs.

 

[Phil]

I think the problem isn't graphics - it's more to do with that platforming perhaps is a dying genre (except maybe on handhelds or wii). Regardless how impressive R&C looks, I don't see them gaining any sales because of it. It's still Ratchet&Clank and some will buy it simply for what it is, and some won't because of it.

Resistance in a more difficult aspect as it's competing in the highly competitive market. I grudge them for going 30 fps there as well, but given how competitive the market is, they probably didn't have much choice. On the other hand though, I think Insomniac should concentrate on what they do best and not trying to copy the competition. They should do their own thing. R2 ended up being more like CoD and failed on various accounts. The only thing it had going for it were larger scale battles (compared to RFOM) and the continuation of the story. I think they'd have been more successfull if they had stayed on the RFOM track, more weapons (with R&C influence) and being innovative on the gameplay front.

And Ratchet should stay Ratchet. 60 fps, big exploration, great humour, lots of weapons and great gameplay.

 

[Billy Idol]

Question to the 60Hz preachers and to all hon. Doktors in Framerateology:

Why (exactly) 60 fps?
I mean, from where do you get this number? Is it a law of nature that exactly 60fps is the right thing? Is 60 a natural constant for gaming in the universe (if so, I have something new to teach my reluctant students in lecture ) .
I mean, why not a constant 45 or 55 or 59 fps framerate, or 65 fps framerate, or (lets go crazy) constant 59,192927 fps as the optimal framerate for gameplay?
If someone could enlighten me on this subject, I would be very pleased (seriously!!)
From now on (until clarification+proof ) I demand that gameplay is optimal if and only if framerate = ln(2) * e * pi * 10 (aka ' Billy's Theorem')

peace...

 

[Dr. Nick]

Question to the 60Hz preachers and to all hon. Doktors in Framerateology:

Why (exactly) 60 fps?
I mean, from where do you get this number? Is it a law of nature that exactly 60fps is the right thing? Is 60 a natural constant for gaming in the universe (if so, I have something new to teach my reluctant students in lecture ) .
I mean, why not a constant 45 or 55 or 59 fps framerate, or 65 fps framerate, or (lets go crazy) constant 59,192927 fps as the optimal framerate for gameplay?
If someone could enlighten me on this subject, I would be very pleased (seriously!!)
From now on (until clarification+proof ) I demand that gameplay is optimal if and only if framerate = ln(2) * e * pi * 10 (aka ' Billy's Theorem')

peace...

It partly has to do with this look at the tv portion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refresh_rate

 

[grandmaster]

Question to the 60Hz preachers and to all hon. Doktors in Framerateology:

Why (exactly) 60 fps?

Because your screen refreshes sixty times per second. If you lock your frame rate at 45fps, some frames will be onscreen longer than others. This introduces judder. It's the same reason why watching a film on an NTSC TV also introduces judder and why 24fps output on Blu-ray players is considered a very useful thing to have.

 

[Phil]

You may also want to look up at how many frames per second the human eye can distinguish. It's certainly a lot more than 30 fps. While it's also higher than 60fps, that seems like a good tradeoff to aim for, since anything above that would be quite difficult to distinguish.

Having a big projector-screen helps. If you have fast moving objects spread across the entire screen at 30 fps, you can tell how jerky the animation is. Or go the movies and watch how jerky the picture is up front, despite motion-blur...

 

[Billy Idol]

hey, thanks for all the answers...it really helped

 

[bluefox]

One problem we've not considered is what tv we game on. You really need a Plasma to appreciate 60fps. LCD's still don't refresh fast enough.

I see hope in future TV tech like OLED. When blurry old LCD is far behind us, the general consumer may demand more 60fps games.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I politely disgree. 60fps looks far better on my LCD than 30fps!

 

[function]

Even on the years old, 16ms response tn flat panel monitor that I now only use as a secondary display, the difference between 30 and 60 fps is abundantly clear.

 

[bluefox]

I politely disgree. 60fps looks far better on my LCD than 30fps!

Maybe they got better since I bought my Toshiba last year. My Pioneer Kuro though really shows the difference between 30/60.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

My Sammy is older than that. I 've heard larger sets have slower responses but don't know how true that is. 60fps is notably smoother on my freind's 40" 1080p native Series 5 Sammy though, so I can't see it being a problem inherent with LCDs.

 

[Kittonwy]

I think the problem isn't graphics - it's more to do with that platforming perhaps is a dying genre (except maybe on handhelds or wii). Regardless how impressive R&C looks, I don't see them gaining any sales because of it. It's still Ratchet&Clank and some will buy it simply for what it is, and some won't because of it.

Resistance in a more difficult aspect as it's competing in the highly competitive market. I grudge them for going 30 fps there as well, but given how competitive the market is, they probably didn't have much choice. On the other hand though, I think Insomniac should concentrate on what they do best and not trying to copy the competition. They should do their own thing. R2 ended up being more like CoD and failed on various accounts. The only thing it had going for it were larger scale battles (compared to RFOM) and the continuation of the story. I think they'd have been more successfull if they had stayed on the RFOM track, more weapons (with R&C influence) and being innovative on the gameplay front.

And Ratchet should stay Ratchet. 60 fps, big exploration, great humour, lots of weapons and great gameplay.

The PS3 core userbase is much older for Ratchet to really be a huge hit.

The problem with R2 is that there is no scale, fighting a boss as tall as a skyscraper is no different from shooting at a distant piece of cardboard, the playable area in SP is not huge at all, they're trying to render a lot of geometry that the player never gets to interact with while the player path is completely narrow and linear, and the interaction with the bosses is so limited that the size really didn't matter. As for MP, you get some big maps but then the player doesn't really traverse all of the area, and they don't have more complexity than most MP maps out there. The problem is the lack interactive playable area and density, and a lot of that has to do with the lack of detail, the lack of advanced lighting and shadowing to really bring the levels to life. Forget 60fps, they need to pull that off at 30fps.