Exactly - movies don't run at 60 FPS because they don't need to, not because it makes them more 'cinematic'. Dark days for the playability are coming I tell ya…
You all know who's fault this is. Ready at Dawn. I don't like to point at devs and accuse them of any wrongdoings, but they're feeding us absolute garbage!
I'm not entirely against the locking of framerate to something slightly lower than its max, to help make the game move along a bit more consistently. But if a game is running at 60 and occasionally drops to 30, what could we gain from keeping it at 30? That's like it dropping 100% of the time. Maybe it really is a problem fr some people, but it isn't for me.
The more critical problem, is that people actually thing that the goal is 24fps. Game =/= Movie. The Order is not going to be as nice to play at 24fps as if it were 30 or more. And the letterboxing is only good so they can stick it out for a lower resolution, and not get in too much trouble for it. What that game is doing is worse than all the other games that can't release 60/1080, because these guys are acting like it's some kind of goal!?
You all know who's fault this is. Ready at Dawn. I don't like to point at devs and accuse them of any wrongdoings, but they're feeding us absolute garbage!
I'm not entirely against the locking of framerate to something slightly lower than its max, to help make the game move along a bit more consistently. But if a game is running at 60 and occasionally drops to 30, what could we gain from keeping it at 30? That's like it dropping 100% of the time. Maybe it really is a problem fr some people, but it isn't for me.
The more critical problem, is that people actually thing that the goal is 24fps. Game =/= Movie. The Order is not going to be as nice to play at 24fps as if it were 30 or more. And the letterboxing is only good so they can stick it out for a lower resolution, and not get in too much trouble for it. What that game is doing is worse than all the other games that can't release 60/1080, because these guys are acting like it's some kind of goal!?
Hey there, Ratchetruler!
I… I don't honestly care. Say I want a game that can run anything from 24 FPS up. However, I also don't want the FPS to drop below 24.
As for the resolution, sometimes it actually works pretty good when the game is not too realistic (but not TLF level, mind), then the resolution can be low.
Hey there, Ratchetruler!
I… I don't honestly care. Say I want a game that can run anything from 24 FPS up. However, I also don't want the FPS to drop below 24.
As for the resolution, sometimes it actually works pretty good when the game is not too realistic (but not TLF level, mind), then the resolution can be low.
I don't mind the resolution, but in my opinion framerate should never drop below 30 FPS - I'd rather play a smooth game with a bit worse graphics, than look at those incredible visuals from wich I'll get disturbed anyway (by terrible framerate of course).
Console developers just don't care about framerate anywhere near as much as they should. They always put resolution first. It's probably easier to make a game with higher resolution and lower framerate too.
But I think it may be a big conscious marketing decision too. I mean YouTube and screenshots are the primary internet marketing tactics, and in both you can show how much better it is to have a higher resolution. But you can't really show everyone the amazing framerate without making them download a large file. All they can really showcase on the internet is 0fps (screenshots) or 30fps (YouTube)
You know guys, I'll leave if you keep posting my thoughts before I have a chance to do so…
You will be missed.
I know you're lying.
Let me contribue to this conversation with a few R&C screenshots:
30FPS game:
http://images.pushsquare.com/screenshots/52037/large.jpg
60FPS game:
http://old.gamegrin.com/files/images/games/r/Ratchet_and_Clank/Ratchet_and_Clank_Future_A_Crack_in_Time/standard_Ratchet_and_Clank__A_Crack_in_Time-PlayStation_3Screenshots16664Ratchet_and_CrankF2_03.jpg
I think the answer of which looks better is quite obvious…
This is kinda off topic, but yeah, new Ratchet games looks worse, and run worse than the previous ones 
I actually think that ITN's level design looks better in that screenshot than a crack in time…
I'd blame budget and time cuts.
Imagine they had to create ITN in very little time. If they worked on level design the same fraction of time ACiT's levels were made, they'd end up with ridiculously short(-er) levels. So instead they put more time into level designing and less time into other stuff. Thus lower framerate and resolution.
Anyway, that's just a theory.
A development theory.
They announced that after ACiT they would no longer have the games running at 60FPS.
They didn't run out of time or anything, 30FPS was their goal.
It's not like all later Insomniac Games are handicapt because they're 30fps. They still run smoothly.
It's not like all later Insomniac Games are handicapt because they're 30fps. They still run smoothly.
*cough* A4O framedrops *cough* FFA framedrops *cough* ItN framedrops *cough*
It wouldn't have been that bad if it was STABLE 30 FPS. Any drop below the level of 30 FPS is noticable and these games had pretty much of these drops…
That's why I used italic on 'all'.
Nexus wasn't that bad. I haven't experencied any framedrops that ruined it for me.