Topic: How much does framerate matter?

[W7RE]

http://www.insomniacgames.com/blogcast/blog/mike_acton/1503082

•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.

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!”

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.

This whole thing kinda bugged me, but I've got to say it's the fault of gamers and game reviewers, not necessarily Insomniac. They're a business, and they're here to make money. Pretty graphics sell more games than 60 fps does.

[Ghandi]

That guy is an idiot.

"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. "

What the fuck is this guy talking about?

[Quemaqua]

I can see that.  I've literally heard people go "Dude, check it out, the system is crawling" when causing mass mayhem in a GTA or some such.  That doesn't strike me as an idiotic comment at all.

Weird thing to ponder, but I think it makes sense from a purely analytical point of view.

[Ghandi]

Not really, because people don't focus on the framerate unless it's an issue. Once it starts to crawl, people wonder why the hell the game is lagging so badly. Obviously graphics take priority - the framerate doesn't matter as long as it remains steady.

[Quemaqua]

You use the term "people" too loosely.  Remember that a large portion of those who buy video games these days barely qualify for that category.

*Shrug*  I guess your experiences are different from mine, either way.  What he said makes sense from a lot of what I've seen recently.

[W7RE]

I don't think the guy is an idiot, I think the vast majority of gamers these days are. Most of the stuff he's saying about framerate isn't his opinion, but what they've researched and found to be the common opinion among gamers and reviewers. The whole idea of making a public statement of no longer making 60fps games still bugs me though. It's a business decision though, and thanks to joe retard who wants pretty graphics above all else, we lose our slick 60fps games. That's not to say I don't love me some pretty pixels, but not at the cost of everything else.

I think really it matters most in faster paced games. Have you ever run Quake (any of the uake games) in multiplayer on an old computer that got a bad framerate? It's shit, and tweaking it to look ugly but run better makes for a much better gaming experience.

For Ratchet and Clank games I can see a (solid) 30fps working fine. I've never played Resistance 1 or 2, so I can't comment on their framerates and if they really need 60 (I'm hearing that they were 30 anyway, so I dont even know.) Solid is the important part there, and this guy says framerate is still important to them, they're just not gonna push for 60 anymore.



EDIT: Like Ghandi said, I don't think many people focus on framerate at all unless it slows down and becomes a problem. But when you pop in a console game and it's running at 60, you may not think "framerate", but it feels smoother and plays better for it (depending on game type I guess). When I hear that a game runs at 60fps, I automatically think "these guys care more about gameplay than graphics", and I respect them more for it.

[Ghandi]

All I'm saying is, correlating framerates to review scores is retarded. No one gives a shit about the framrate as long as it's stable and playable. Obviously there is a correlation between graphics and scores - people want pretty games.

[Xessive]

I thought reviews were written on the basis that the framerate was optimal, reviewers would mark down a game if it hiccups a lot, or at least make a note of performance issues.

[W7RE]

All I'm saying is, correlating framerates to review scores is retarded. No one gives a shit about the framrate as long as it's stable and playable. Obviously there is a correlation between graphics and scores - people want pretty games.

I don't think he's trying to say that low framerates = good reviews, but that running at 60fps doesn't make a game review better. It might get a mention, but it's not gonna really effect the score, and it's not gonna sell more copies of the game. So really he's saying the same thing as you, that no one gives a shit about framerate as long as it's stable and playable, and the people who wants and love 60fps are few and far between.

[Quemaqua]

Exactly.  People care about low framerates, but they don't care when something is running at 60fps.  And since better graphics are always more important than framerate, it makes sense to make your game have more graphical bells and whistles and not bother trying to get it to hold at 60fps.

[Ghandi]

Well we are all basically saying the same thing. I'm pretty sure that we are all in agreement. As long as the framerate isn't noticeable (i.e. maxing it out doesn't matter - stability does) everyone is happy.

The difference now is that systems are getting so powerful and games aren't utilizing the hardware enough. Framerates aren't as big of an issue because the systems can handle most of the games.

[MysterD]

I tend to be VERY happy if a game looks good and stays above 30 frames per second no matter what happens on screen - especially if there's a lot happening on-screen. Make it look great - even better!

Yeah, 30-60 frames per sec is fine for me. Once it drops in the low 20's or lower, expect my complaint department to roll in.

[Cobra951]

I'm hardline about this.  There is only one correct framerate, and that is the refresh rate of the hardware (synched to that refresh, of course).  Anything else is a vastly inferior compromise, which should only ever be due to insufficient graphics-pushing power.  That bullshit research is one of the worst things I've ever seen in the videogame world, and it pains me to no end to see it's being used to justify cheapening future games by Insomniac, a company that until today I admired.  Fuck them, and the dragon they rode in on.

[gpw11]

Personally, I don't think I really notice frame rate that much in most games unless it drops below 30.  Or I do and I just constantly ignore it.  Occasionally I will notice it, but I think it might be more of a bad animation thing.  Majora's Mask moves funny to me, and I think it's because it might be locked below 30 at full speed.

But yeah, I'd probably rather have better lighting and cooler shit going on than an extra 30 fps in many games.  Not necessarily FPS games or shooters, but platformers, rpgs, and things like that, sure. That's just me though....and like I said; I have trouble telling the difference.

[W7RE]

I agree that a stable framerate is the most important thing, but if ever given the choice I'd take 60fps over 30fps, even if the 30fps is extremely stable.

I run WoW with a lot of effects turned down a lot, just to make sure I'm at at least 60fps. The only things I keep turned up are things that help me see enemy players and their spell effects, so I know what's going on and how to react to it.

[MysterD]

I agree that a stable framerate is the most important thing, but if ever given the choice I'd take 60fps over 30fps, even if the 30fps is extremely stable.

Yeah, I'll take 60 FPS over 30 FPS any day, as well.
Who wouldn't though?

[W7RE]

Yeah, I'll take 60 FPS over 30 FPS any day, as well.
Who wouldn't though?

Maybe I should rephrase that:

If ever given the choice I'd take 60fps over 30fps, even if the 30fps is extremely stable and looks better.

[idolminds]

I'd take 30 in that case, as long as it was a smooth 30 with no dips.

[MysterD]

Since most of this thread talks about R&C...
Insomniac Games might be going multi-platform, planning to also develop for the X360.

[Pugnate]

D...

[MysterD]

D...

Pug...

[Ghandi]

Since most of this thread talks about R&C...
Insomniac Games might be going multi-platform, planning to also develop for the X360.

Quite relevant. Also:

[Cobra951]

I'm still waiting for the monitor to pelt with eggs, D.

[MysterD]

I'm still waiting for the monitor to pelt with eggs, D.

I said, "Throw eggs at YOUR monitor."
(which would be your very own monitor).

I did NOT say, "Throw eggs at MY monitor."
(which would be MyD's monitor)

No egg-tossing at MyD's monitor, dammit.

[Cobra951]

[Xessive]

Hahaha classic I miss the old toons.