Insomniac dev: new Ratchet & Clank 'probably our last 60fps game'

In a recent blog post on Insomniac's web site, developer Mike Acton detailed the many reasons why Ratchet & Clank Future: A Crack in Time will "probably" be the company's last game to play at 60 frames per second.

Ratchet & Clank, shown at 1 frame per forever

Ratchet & Clank, shown at 1 frame per forever

With their work on two of Sony's most prized franchises--Ratchet & Clank and Resistance--Insomniac has made a name for developing well-received, good-looking games. The company has reached that end in two very different ways, creating bright environments with cartoony characters moving at 60 frames per second (fps) for the former and more action-filled scenes at 30 frames per second in more subdued environments for the latter.

It seems as though the company's future might lay in creating games with lower framerates, as a blog post from Mike Acton, the Engine Director at Insomniac, hosted on the developer's official website (discovered on NeoGAF), discussed how hitting the high-water mark of animation has had little to no effect on a game's reception from reviewers or customers.

In terms of reviews, Action references a survey taken by Insomniac shows that while a direct correlation exists between graphics scores and overall scores, that higher framerates do not lead to higher graphics or overall scores. It seems as though the only media cited in this example were those that include separate scores for various categories, which would disqualify many outlets like GamePro, 1UP, GameSpot, and Games Radar. We've sent a question to Mike regarding that topic.

Moving onto the thoughts of the general public, a poll revealed that over 60% of the gamers did not care about framerate as long as the gameplay wasn't affected, and only 16% would refuse to purchase a game that had a framerate lower than 60fps. Acton argued that the nature of the poll probably inflated the latter choice, since gamers who care more about the topic are more likely to contribute their opinion.

Acton concludes with a few statements on the topic of framerate. Noting that reception is rarely based on peak framerates, but more dependent on framerate consistency, Acton states that the importance of high framerates has lessened as of late and closes his post with the (literally) bold statement:

Ratchet and Clank Future: A Crack in Time will probably be Insomniac?s last 60fps game.

Do you agree with Acton? Are high framerates a priority to you, or are you willing to play a more stable game with a lower fps count?

Comments [16]

post a comment

Mr_Burninator_x

Unless you can see a difference, framerate matters nothing to me. I don't even see how 16% of people chose that when I don't even know what the framerate is on most of my games.

GeForceX

That's ok cause I have a 120hz HDTV with auto motion plus so all my games run @ 120 ha no matter what.

EJStrat

i see a difference in framerates. i agree that framerate consistancy is more important than a high framerate, but i wouldnt reduce the quality of my work because it doesn't affect critical reception. i think gamers everywhere can feel the extra love developers put into something that they are passionate about.

SonySam

So they want to punish the fans that can tell the difference because they haven't been receiving all 9's and 10's? To lower their standard now would be cutting their own throats.
It seems like their ego's are a bit bruised that's all. I can't see them doing that one bit. If the formula works, let it be.

htown4life

they mad Resistance looks no better than Gears & not sellin well LMFAO
oh well I'm still waitin on GOW collection for PS3

xfaln2piecesx

Honestly i think really think it depends on the game and type of game, for example, if anyone has played the original dreamcast version of sonic adventure, and then played the game cube port, you can see a big different, the game with better graphics on the gamecube version looks better, but plays crappier, it was built to run in 30fps, game looks ugly at 60 fps, another example is resident evil 5 for windows that recently was released, i was able to run the game at 60 fps and higher, it looked good i admit, but it moved too smooth and fast, i changed it to run at 30 fps and the game looked better and had more of a movie like quality of it, so really it just depends on the game and of the game, ratchet and clank series so far seems to fit that 60 fps in my opinion.

HitmanAgent47

Good, instead of good framerates and bright low textured cartoony graphics, they should put that towards more realistic graphics for a change. I am not only talking about ratchet and clank games.

pain_gate

Getting a game to run at 60 is tough. It becomes a rule set early on in development and you start to see the effect of it on a daily basis when you have to cut out shadows...shader instructions... and enemies on screen just to get it to stay at a solid 60. So ultimately i think the overall production value of the game can suffer. If you can do it and your tech supports it, than more power to you. Games like COD 4 modern warfare look stunning running at 60 but after that first 15 min of play you don't notice that stuff or more like you shouldn't notice that stuff because the gameplay should have grabbed the player by then ;)

I think this is a great decision by Insomniac heading into the last laps of the ps3 life cycle. Most games are locked at 30 as they now with "Resistance". They will see how much more they can push on all their products, when that is the baseline.

shortANDcurlies

xfaln2piecesx wrote:

Honestly i think really think it depends on the game and type of game, for example, if anyone has played the original dreamcast version of sonic adventure, and then played the game cube port, you can see a big different, the game with better graphics on the gamecube version looks better, but plays crappier, it was built to run in 30fps, game looks ugly at 60 fps, another example is resident evil 5 for windows that recently was released, i was able to run the game at 60 fps and higher, it looked good i admit, but it moved too smooth and fast, i changed it to run at 30 fps and the game looked better and had more of a movie like quality of it, so really it just depends on the game and of the game, ratchet and clank series so far seems to fit that 60 fps in my opinion.

I chalk that one up to a crappy porting process rather than framerate issues. This is a dumb subject that should have never leaked out. Now "stats" fanboys are going to be trashing them for good measure up until their next game comes out and that's a shame. These are the same guys that think you can see the difference of a 1080p picture on a HDTV smaller than 30".... I trick my friend all the time with that one and he can never tell what's what if you don't tell him.
They should have kept a lid on it until the next game comes out and they HAD to addess it, now it's a bigger issue than it ever had to be.

Post a Comment