Karooo Posted October 30, 2009 Report Share Posted October 30, 2009 Recently we've been asking ourselves some hard questions: •What is it that we want to focus on? •What's most important to us? •What do we want to make? And the answer is simple: We want to give you guys, our fans and players, the best looking games you can buy on a console. You may have already seen Ratchet and Clank Future: A Crack in Time (available in US stores now!) I'm really proud of what our art and production teams accomplished in this game. It's a great looking game, a ton of fun to play and is 60fps. And it's that last point that I want to talk about today. One of the long-standing sacred cows here at Insomniac is framerate. We've long viewed a solid framerate as both a sign of a quality product and professionalism as developers. It's always been point of pride in our work and considered an extremely serious part of our development process. 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. After reviewing our internal research, I decided to take this question to the public. I wanted to see what the players themselves thought of this question. Here are the results of that poll: The first thing I noted in reviewing these results was that 16% of the respondents said they wouldn't buy a non 60fps game. Now, considering the top selling games and the market research, I take that to mean one of two things: •People are big fat liars. Sales numbers clearly contradict this pattern. Or, •The group responding to this poll in the first place was a self-selected group of people with an interest in framerate in the first place. Which may also explain why that last group is represented by such a small response rate in the poll results. Based on the research, the informal polling and various conversations with fans and other game buyers, I've come to the following conclusions: •Framerate is important, but not critically so. When there is a clear choice between framerate and improved graphics, graphics should win. The correlation with review scores is clear. •There is virtually no advantage in sales or reviews of a 60 fps game versus a 30 fps game. •Only a minority of players notice framerate as a significant issue of any kind. •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. 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. Mike. Source ________________________ Fck you Edge and Eurogamer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtheK Posted October 30, 2009 Report Share Posted October 30, 2009 @ insomniac...nice way to extend consoles life Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dullu Posted October 30, 2009 Report Share Posted October 30, 2009 So we have this gen's hardware's first problem: balancing a high framerate with great graphics! I also noticed something a few days back: COD4 (when i played it on PC) looked as gritty (not that its not) as KZ2....and the only difference that came through to the casual eye was the framerate!!! It sure is important.....but as they said....they have just proved their incapability to be a factor on the customer side Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnackChap Posted October 30, 2009 Report Share Posted October 30, 2009 f**k this sh*t!!! 60fps is & always will be important. i hope platform makers make it mandatory for all games to have 60fps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john117 Posted October 30, 2009 Report Share Posted October 30, 2009 Adding to what dullu said... well run fraps while you watching a movie on your pc .. it shows frame rate of 24 fps (as all movies are typically encoded at 24fps or 23.97 to be exact for PAL and 25 for ntsc). Infact you can not notice the difference between a 60 fps and 30 fps game just by looking at it , difference comes in response lag, and thats the only advantage of having 60fps where your key press gets registered in 1/60 th of a second instead of 1/30th.So yeah i would like to have better graphics instead of 60fps if i have to choose either of the two.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
achilles Posted October 30, 2009 Report Share Posted October 30, 2009 well.. that sounded kinda.. like an excuse. what i take from this : 1. sales of rnc have been pretty dissapointing. 2. we did not make a better looking game cz we wanted 60 fps. 3. so u (the consumers) really found the graphics bad eh..?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
achilles Posted October 30, 2009 Report Share Posted October 30, 2009 f**k this sh*t!!! 60fps is & always will be important. i hope platform makers make it mandatory for all games to have 60fps. dunno.. im pretty framerate oblivious. cant notice slowdowns that much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
babj1 Posted October 30, 2009 Report Share Posted October 30, 2009 i believe framerate is being very technical....for me as long as the graphics are crisp framerate wont matter much... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dullu Posted October 30, 2009 Report Share Posted October 30, 2009 dunno.. im pretty framerate oblivious. cant notice slowdowns that much. It's less about the slowdowns/lockdowns.....Its more about the fact how much better a good game with nice graphics look when the framerate is cranked up! If framerate was not important, we could very well be playing kz2 on a M$ presentation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Solitaire Posted October 30, 2009 Report Share Posted October 30, 2009 What I don't understand is that the human eye shouldn't be able to tell any difference beyond 30fps.... Then why is it that you all want 60fps steady?? As long as it doesn't lag isn't 30fps fine?? Considering that better graphics + 30 fps is the thing they're pitting against 60fps Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buzz Posted October 30, 2009 Report Share Posted October 30, 2009 Guys UC2 was 30 fps too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snake Posted October 30, 2009 Report Share Posted October 30, 2009 Dont care abt 60 fps,keep it at locked at 30...as long as it doesnt stutter to death,its fine by me!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karooo Posted October 30, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 30, 2009 I want dynamic weather in GT5, f**k 60fps Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Solitaire Posted October 30, 2009 Report Share Posted October 30, 2009 Guys UC2 was 30 fps too. Dont care abt 60 fps,keep it at locked at 30...as long as it doesnt stutter to death,its fine by me!! I want dynamic weather in GT5, f**k 60fps Finally some voices of reason Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strategy Posted October 30, 2009 Report Share Posted October 30, 2009 I want dynamic weather in GT5, f**k 60fps a stable framerate is required in a game like GT5 it greatly improves the gameplay. at 200 mhp even a single drop in frame rate( ...yeah 28-27....) might ruin the experience(.... not the race.....jut it wont be very smooth) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ΨΨ babloos ΨΨ Posted October 30, 2009 Report Share Posted October 30, 2009 framerate does matter,can make excuse for games like uc2 though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deepankar Singh Posted November 3, 2009 Report Share Posted November 3, 2009 Higher the frame rate , smoother the video... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.