Support NeoGAF

[sentry65]

I'm a professional rendering artist in the industry and here's a couple of my thoughts:

The general public, even most hardcore PC gamers don't really know what they're talking about because they're basing their opinion on current game renderings, current AA tech, current realtime shaders, and current effects. 720p PS3 games look more realistic than the PS2 HD 1080p remastered games and can do things the PS2 games can't in terms of enemies on screen etc.

What ultimately is going to happen is it's going to depend on the game, the director, and the artists - just like it always has. You'll get games like Shadow of the Colossus that opt for a new level of realism and accurate physics at the expense of resolution and framerate. And You'll get games like God of War with higher frame rates and resolution, but simpler rendering.

 

[ScOULaris]

I'm a professional rendering artist in the industry and here's a couple of my thoughts:

The general public, even most hardcore PC gamers don't really know what they're talking about because they're basing their opinion on current game renderings, current AA tech, current realtime shaders, and current effects. 720p PS3 games look more realistic than the PS2 HD 1080p remastered games.

What ultimately is going to happen is it's going to depend on the game, the director, and the artists - just like it always has. You'll get games like Shadow of the Colossus that opt for a new level of realism and accurate physics at the expense of resolution and framerate. And You'll get games like God of War with higher frame rates and resolution, but simpler rendering.

So what you're saying is: 1080p/60fps is objectively/subjectively superior?

 

[Monty Mole]

The problem with 60fps console gaming at the moment is that unless you have a plasma or a CRT, you get serious motion blur. Most people have probably got used to it, but having had a plasma for a while recently and going to a brand new Samsung LED, the difference is massive. Especially on games like Rage, Forza, Daytona, Joe Danger etc. The plasma made 60fps games feel so much more "alive" and clear. 2D 60fps games like Rayman and Sonic CD also have a lot of motion blur on an LCD/LED. The only way to avoid it is to put motion processing on which adds 100ms+ of lag and basically renders the game unplayable. On the flip-side, 30fps games do look a lot nicer on my Samsung compared to the GT30 plasma so it's swings and roundabouts.

Hopefully with emerging display technologies like OLED etc, we can put 60fps gaming back on the map. I feel like HD took us a step backwards in display technologies and also in videogame framerates!

 

[RoboPlato]

The problem with 60fps console gaming at the moment is that unless you have a plasma or a CRT, you get serious motion blur. Most people have probably got used to it, but having had a plasma for a while recently and going to a brand new Samsung LED, the difference is massive. Especially on games like Rage, Forza, Daytona, Joe Danger etc. The plasma made 60fps games feel so much more "alive" and clear. 2D 60fps games like Rayman and Sonic CD also have a lot of motion blur on an LCD/LED. The only way to avoid it is to put motion processing on which adds 100ms+ of lag and basically renders the game unplayable. On the flip-side, 30fps games do look a lot nicer on my Samsung compared to the GT30 plasma so it's swings and roundabouts.

Hopefully with emerging display technologies like OLED etc, we can put 60fps gaming back on the map. I feel like HD took us a step backwards in display technologies and also in videogame framerates!

LCD motion blurring is significantly more apparent in 30fps games than in 60fps games. As someone who is super sensitive to motion resolution this is a huge issue to me. It's why I'm most likely getting a plasma this year. Going from Rage and Peace Walker HD to Mass Effect 2 on a 60Hz LCD has been super jarring.

 

[Monty Mole]

LCD motion blurring is significantly more apparent in 30fps games than in 60fps games. As someone who is super sensitive to motion resolution this is a huge issue to me. It's why I'm most likely getting a plasma this year. Going from Rage and Peace Walker HD to Mass Effect 2 has been super jarring.

Believe me, when you try Rage on a plasma after an LCD, you'll literally be blown away by the motion clarity on pans. And even more so by something like Daytona, it feels like a completely different game.

 

[RoboPlato]

Believe me, when you try Rage on a plasma after an LCD, you'll literally be blown away by the motion clarity on pans. And even more so by something like Daytona, it feels like a completely different game.

Oh, I'm sure I will. Like I said, I'm super sensitive to the shifts in motion. That's actually why I'm a huge fan of properly applied motion blur in games. It really adds to the fluidity of the motion for me and adds to the dynamic force of certain animation. It also doesn't hurt IQ at all when done right. I'm really looking forward to a getting set than can properly handle motion. Panasonic's 2012 models are supposed to have improved the subfields for enhanced motion resolution so I can't wait to see those.

 

[Baller. PhD]

I sit 6 feet away from a 32" 720p TV so this all sounds good to me. Console gaming is meant for the couch.

 

[disap.ed]

The cockpit is real, just so you know.

Doesn't change the fact that it would be doable ingame. And it looks CGish and so do even the characters in this shot (I don't know if they are real or not in this case). I haven't even seen Avatar yet so I'm not even in the position to judge it, I'm only judging this shot (as I wrote already in motion it can be a totally different story)

 

[Reallink]

I'm a professional rendering artist in the industry and here's a couple of my thoughts:

The general public, even most hardcore PC gamers don't really know what they're talking about because they're basing their opinion on current game renderings, current AA tech, current realtime shaders, and current effects. 720p PS3 games look more realistic than the PS2 HD 1080p remastered games and can do things the PS2 games can't in terms of enemies on screen etc.

What ultimately is going to happen is it's going to depend on the game, the director, and the artists - just like it always has. You'll get games like Shadow of the Colossus that opt for a new level of realism and accurate physics at the expense of resolution and framerate. And You'll get games like God of War with higher frame rates and resolution, but simpler rendering.

So someone just "doesn't know what they're talking about" if they were to say they preferred the "older techniques" at 1080p (like ICO or shit running on Dolphin) than the ridiculously blurry, effect laden shit like Alan Wake or Resistance 3.

 

[MrPliskin]

Calm down, people. The games that are typically 60fps will still be 60fps.

That said, I think there is more to gain by targeting "cinema" feel than there is targeting "real life". 720p/30fps is fine if the post processing can keep up with everything else.

Frankly, I think advancements in lighting are more important than resolution or frame rate (60fps, that is).

So someone just "doesn't know what they're talking about" if they were to say they preferred the "older techniques" at 1080p (like ICO or shit running on Dolphin) than the ridiculously blurry, effect laden shit like Alan Wake or Resistance 3.

No, they'd just have really, really poor taste.

Spoiler

Obviously sarcasm. But seriously, those games aren't ugly, and if you can't value the trade off between the two then you don't, in fact, know what you're talking about

 

[Stallion Free]

Calm down, people. The games that are typically 60fps will still be 60fps.

All of FPS games would be better at 60 fps.

 

[MrPliskin]

All of FPS games would be better at 60 fps.

Competitively? Sure. It doesn't add enough to be mandatory outside of that though. CoD is ugly as fuck and the environments are desolate and boring. I'd gladly take a hit in frame rate to put some LIFE into the game.

 

[SapientWolf]

Competitively? Sure. It doesn't add enough to be mandatory outside of that though. CoD is ugly as fuck and the environments are desolate and boring. I'd gladly take a hit in frame rate to put some LIFE into the game.

I don't feel like I'm "in" an FPS when the framerate is bad. It's the opposite of the complaint that people have when movies are 60fps. It just doesn't feel like a movie. 30fps just doesn't feel like an FPS to me. It breaks immersion.

 

[Stallion Free]

Competitively? Sure. It doesn't add enough to be mandatory outside of that though. CoD is ugly as fuck and the environments are desolate and boring. I'd gladly take a hit in frame rate to put some LIFE into the game.

But next gen should give devs enough power to do 60 fps and not look like COD. Resistance 3 would look amazing locked at 60 and 1080p.

 

[vocab]

No one should ever listen to some guy at dice about visuals. We will all be photophobic's wearing sunglasses to play games.

Competitively? Sure. It doesn't add enough to be mandatory outside of that though. CoD is ugly as fuck and the environments are desolate and boring. I'd gladly take a hit in frame rate to put some LIFE into the game.

Ya, but Cod at 30fps will play like total garbage.

 

[dark10x]

Competitively? Sure. It doesn't add enough to be mandatory outside of that though. CoD is ugly as fuck and the environments are desolate and boring. I'd gladly take a hit in frame rate to put some LIFE into the game.

Have you experienced a beautiful FPS at 60 fps then? Crysis 2 at a perfect 60 fps was one of the most incredible looking games of 2011. Absolutely amazing to behold.

No one should ever listen to some guy at dice about visuals.

I'm going to have to disagree with you there.

 

[Stallion Free]

No one should ever listen to some guy at dice about visuals.

Playing BF3 I couldn't help but wonder if they fired all of the amazing artists they conjured up for Mirror's Edge. ME was kinda mind blowing because Dice's games had always kinda been hideous on an artistic level.

 

[MrPliskin]

I don't feel like I'm "in" an FPS when the framerate is bad. It's the opposite of the complaint that people have when movies are 60fps. It just doesn't feel like a movie. 30fps just doesn't feel like an FPS to me. It breaks immersion.

Well, I've never felt like I'm "in" a game, period. If I did, I think I'd feel more immersed in a game if it had dust, bugs, nice lighting, good texture work, and other ambient effects...as opposed to a good frame rate, crappy alpha textures for dust, no bugs / wild life, crappy lighting shadows, etc.

But, that's just me I'll trade the 60fps uncanny valley for a more believable world any day

But next gen should give devs enough power to do 60 fps and not look like COD. Resistance 3 would look amazing locked at 60 and 1080p.

Next generation, people would say Resistance 3 looks like shit, despite being 60fps, just like they say about CoD now

 

[Stallion Free]

60 fps = uncanny valley now?

 

[dark10x]

Playing BF3 I couldn't help but wonder if they fired all of the amazing artists they conjured up for Mirror's Edge. ME was kinda mind blowing because Dice's games had always kinda been hideous on an artistic level.

While not as striking as ME, I really think BF3 had some pretty decent "realistic" art direction going on. The campaign had some beautiful moments. Certainly more visually interesting than anything Call of Duty.

 

[sentry65]

So what you're saying is: 1080p/60fps is objectively/subjectively superior?

It's going to be the call of the director depending on the game.

Everyone is always entitled to their preference, but game developers tend to favor artistic freedom over checkboxes. They think it's a better trade off. Ultimately infinite resolution and infinite fps with infinite quality is preferable if no compromises ever needed to be made.

So someone just "doesn't know what they're talking about" if they were to say they preferred the "older techniques" at 1080p (like ICO or shit running on Dolphin) than the ridiculously blurry, effect laden shit like Alan Wake or Resistance 3.

you can prefer whatever you want, but you have never played games with the graphics features developers are talking about right now.

Artists have been rendering these features in offline renders for 5-6 years now and there's a greater sense of realism with higher sampling, more accurate effects, etc at lower resolutions than higher resolutions without them.

So unless you're working in the industry and have worked professionally with offline renderers....then no, you don't know what you're talking about until games start using these features.

 

[jim-jam bongs]

What I find really hilarious about this thread is that nobody said that it wouldn't be better to be able to deliver the same "film aesthetics" at 1080p, they just know that the consoles won't be powerful enough to do it.

Of course 720p with good IQ is better than 720p with jaggies you could cut yourself on, but if you asked these guys whether 1080p with good IQ is better than both... do you think they would say "no"?

 

[Stallion Free]

While not as striking as ME, I really think BF3 had some pretty decent "realistic" art direction going on. The campaign had some beautiful moments. Certainly more visually interesting than anything Call of Duty.

I'm pretty sure they had an ape playing with the color-grading/shit on screen controls.

 

[MrPliskin]

60 fps = uncanny valley now?

I should have been more clear, but I'm talking specifically about environments (if you couldn't extract that from the rest of my post speaking specifically about environments...)

Generally games that run at 60fps on consoles are barren and lifeless.

Considering this thread is speaking about the next generation of consoles, I would have thought these posts would be easier to follow. I didn't know the PC master race people would be in here...

 

[jim-jam bongs]

PC gamers also play console games, and are affected by decisions made regarding console games since most games are multiplatform. Also, don't say "master race". It makes you look like a child, and I don't think the mods like it much here any more.

 

[dark10x]

I'm pretty sure they had an ape playing with the color-grading/shit on screen controls.

Which areas did you feel looked awful? It was definitely overdone, but I thought it looked pretty good most of the time.

 

[MrPliskin]

PC gamers also play console games, and are affected by decisions made regarding console games since most games are multiplatform. Also, don't say "master race". It makes you look like a child, and I don't think the mods like it much here any more.

Sorry, it's just rather bothersome to try to have a discussion in a thread where discussion is mostly about console development, only to read impressions from PC games and why 60fps is so important. The ambitions of developers to further present higher visual fidelity in titles will always far exceed the desire to achieve higher frame rates and resolution (the majority of the time).

It is unrealistic to expect 60fps to ever be a standard, further more it is rather absurd to write off the trade offs made (on console games) to creating worlds with more detail as opposed to sacrificing that for frame rate, etc.

Edit: Also, while the article references high end PC's, I felt discussion here had moved more toward consoles, the least common denominator. Especially since console development accounts for the majority of all major video game development on the market.

 

[Zeppelin]

No one should ever listen to some guy at dice about visuals. We will all be photophobic's wearing sunglasses to play games.

This guy is their "render architect". I suggest you get a clue of what that means.

 

[jim-jam bongs]

Sorry, it's just rather bothersome to try to have a discussion in a thread where discussion is mostly about console development, only to read impressions from PC games and why 60fps is so important. The ambitions of developers to further present higher visual fidelity in titles will always far exceed the desire to achieve higher frame rates and resolution (the majority of the time).

It is unrealistic to expect 60fps to ever be a standard, further more it is rather absurd to write off the trade offs made (on console games) to creating worlds with more detail as opposed to sacrificing that for frame rate, etc.

Edit: Also, while the article references high end PC's, I felt discussion here had moved more toward consoles, the least common denominator.

Obviously I understand what you mean, but I think this idea that we have PC and console and never the twain shall meet is a bit outdated in this day and age. The vast majority of money in the industry is swimming around in third-party development, so as far as games are concerned they're mostly the same products we're all playing. There was a time when you had a lot of exclusive content on one or the other (PC probably had more at first but the industry shifted) but in this day and age exclusives are far less important. Rather than being a thing which sells a system, they're a value-add on top of the price of your new Call of Duty machine.

In this climate I think it's very valid to start questioning our old assumptions about what is acceptable, on both PC and consoles. For example, it's fair to say that these days PC gamers have a much lower tolerance for terrible ports which require animal sacrifices and voodoo rites to get running, though a decade ago we tolerated them because we had to. On the other side of the fence I think it's fair for people to start demanding that consoles have a higher level of performance, because to all intents and purposes the next consoles are going to be extremely powerful machines, albeit not as powerful as a high-end PC.

 

[Mr. Wonderful]

720p@60fps should be the minimum target. I am sure some talented devs will get that to 1080p+ and 60ps.

Yup. 720p@60 or 1080p@30, both with some amount of AA, should be the standard. Sub-720p should not be allowed period next generation.

 

[MrPliskin]

Obviously I understand what you mean, but I think this idea that we have PC and console and never the twain shall meet is a bit outdated in this day and age. The vast majority of money in the industry is swimming around in third-party development, so as far as games are concerned they're mostly the same products we're all playing. There was a time when you had a lot of exclusive content on one or the other (PC probably had more at first but the industry shifted) but in this day and age exclusives are far less important. Rather than being a thing which sells a system, they're a value-add on top of the price of your new Call of Duty machine.

In this climate I think it's very valid to start questioning our old assumptions about what is acceptable, on both PC and consoles. For example, it's fair to say that these days PC gamers have a much lower tolerance for terrible ports which require animal sacrifices and voodoo rites to get running, though a decade ago we tolerated them because we had to. On the other side of the fence I think it's fair for people to start demanding that consoles have a higher level of performance, because to all intents and purposes the next consoles are going to be extremely powerful machines, albeit not as powerful as a high-end PC.

I like this kind of discussion. More of this on GAF, please.

Awesome points all around.

Yup. 720p@60 or 1080p@30, both with some amount of AA, should be the standard. Sub-720p should not be allowed period next generation.

The only time this is *ever* possible is when there is a limitless supply of computing power. Also, you'll definitely see sub-720p games next generation, because a developers ambition and vision will always exceed a platforms usable resources. There will be something they want to achieve, and a resolution drop is the easiest way to maximize performance.

 

[p3tran]

I've got one thing to say:

if some dum headed "dev" thinks that it will be ok to spend the next 6-7 years at 720/30
then I can guarantee him right now that he wont see even ONE dollar/euro/yen/whatever from me.

 

[Boogdud]

Geez, they just don't get it. 60FPS changes everything.

They get it, they just don't want to work that hard for it.

 

[MrPliskin]

I've got one thing to say:

if some dum headed "dev" thinks that it will be ok to spend the next 6-7 years at 720/30
then I can guarantee him right now that he wont see even ONE dollar/euro/yen/whatever from me.

There are ten million more to replace you.

They get it, they just don't want to work that hard for it.

You don't work hard to hit 60fps, you sacrifice other things 90% of the time. You cut things to improve the performance of your engine. Frame rate and work ethic aren't mutually inclusive.

 

[dark10x]

The only time this is *ever* possible is when there is a limitless supply of computing power. Also, you'll definitely see sub-720p games next generation, because a developers ambition and vision will always exceed a platforms usable resources. There will be something they want to achieve, and a resolution drop is the easiest way to maximize performance.

Of course, one generations practices need not define the next. The approach to performance each generation has been decidedly different. Last time around, most AAA PS2 titles (especially early on) focused on delivering 60 fps alongside impressive visuals. The best looking games all tended to deliver a full 60 fps.

Of course, I suspect next generation will closely follow the current generation. In the past, consoles often employed exotic hardware that demanded an approach very different from that of a PC.

You don't work hard to hit 60fps, you sacrifice other things 90% of the time.

It's not as black and white as you seem to think.

 

[Boogdud]

You don't work hard to hit 60fps, you sacrifice other things 90% of the time. You cut things to improve the performance of your engine. Frame rate and work ethic aren't mutually inclusive.

Since we're in a thread talking about an article where a developer states that the future mission statement is basically "we're going to go for 30fps because it's easier, and it's good enough", I'd have to disagree. Maybe with current technology yes, you're right. But when you start talking about what the future holds and you're already shooting for the status quo to be ~ current technology, you're shooting pretty low. That is lazy.

 

[Stallion Free]

Which areas did you feel looked awful? It was definitely overdone, but I thought it looked pretty good most of the time.

Pretty much all of them. The contrast and HDR are completely overblown to the point where it effects the readability of the environments in multiplayer. That is completely unforgivable.

 

[MrPliskin]

Of course, one generations practices need not define the next. The approach to performance each generation has been decidedly different. Last time around, most AAA PS2 titles (especially early on) focused on delivering 60 fps alongside impressive visuals. The best looking games all tended to deliver a full 60 fps.

Of course, I suspect next generation will closely follow the current generation. In the past, consoles often employed exotic hardware that demanded an approach very different from that of a PC.


It's not as black and white as you seem to think.

I don't agree that most AAA PS2 titles were 60fps. I can name a lot that were 30fps. I think the big difference from that generation tot his one has been rendering technologies and their demands on hardware. The resolution jump is one of the biggest culprits for lower frame rates this generation, which is also why so many studios render sub-HD, but you already know that.

As for it not being black and white, of course it's not, but my statement is very general. Would you disagree that the first things to get cut are resolution, lighting, and AA? Most developers that run games at 60fps are running them sub-hd, and without a lot of the effects we see in games that run at 30fps.

 

[hey_it's_that_dog]

If the game has a clean look on par with film footage, I don't care how they do it. Resolution is just one means to an end, despite the way it's been fetishized by TV manufacturers and PC gamers who need talking points about why their platform is better than consoles.

 

[MrPliskin]

Since we're in a thread talking about an article where a developer states that the future mission statement is basically "we're going to go for 30fps because it's easier, and it's good enough", I'd have to disagree. Maybe with current technology yes, you're right. But when you start talking about what the future holds and you're already shooting for the status quo to be ~ current technology, you're shooting pretty low. That is lazy.

You didn't read any of the article, did you? You just read the title, saw the newest responses to the thread, and jumped in.

Kudos.

 

[p3tran]

There are ten million more to replace you.

well, good for them then

 

[dark10x]

I don't agree that most AAA PS2 titles were 60fps. I can name a lot that were 30fps. I think the big difference from that generation tot his one has been rendering technologies and their demands on hardware. The resolution jump is one of the biggest culprits for lower frame rates this generation, which is also why so many studios render sub-HD, but you already know that.

As for it not being black and white, of course it's not, but my statement is very general. Would you disagree that the first things to get cut are resolution, lighting, and AA? Most developers that run games at 60fps are running them sub-hd, and without a lot of the effects we see in games that run at 30fps.

You don't agree? Don't rewrite history here. The PS2 has the highest percentage of 60 fps 3D games on any console ever made. There were a LOT of AAA games running at 60 fps on the system. Certainly not all, but it was very common.

Later in its life 30 fps became much more common as they tried to match the XBOX, but it still delivered a lot of 60. Certainly more than anything today.

MGS2, GT3 and 4, ZOE series, Klonoa 2, Twisted Metal Black, Onimusha, all fighting games, Tony Hawk series (which was AAA back then), Burnout series, SSX3, God of War (with tearing, unfortunately), Jak and Daxter, Sly Cooper, Ratchet and Clank, Devil May Cry series, Ace Combat series, etc. That ignores the fact that loads of other high quality games were also delivering 60 fps.

 

[Boogdud]

You didn't read any of the article, did you? You just read the title, saw the newest responses to the thread, and jumped in.

Kudos.

I feel the shame.

I hope you feel good now.

 

[sixteen-bit]

Have any RPGs on PS3 or 360 done 60fps?

Star Ocean 4 IIRC

 

[dark10x]

Star Ocean 4 IIRC

Only the battles were 60 fps (same deal with the Tales of games).

Last gen, on the other hand, there were loads of 60 fps JRPGs.

 

[sleepykyo]

Well, I've never felt like I'm "in" a game, period. If I did, I think I'd feel more immersed in a game if it had dust, bugs, nice lighting, good texture work, and other ambient effects...as opposed to a good frame rate, crappy alpha textures for dust, no bugs / wild life, crappy lighting shadows, etc.

But, that's just me I'll trade the 60fps uncanny valley for a more believable world any day




Next generation, people would say Resistance 3 looks like shit, despite being 60fps, just like they say about CoD now

Except people might actually be playing Resistance 3, if it didn't run like shit.

 

[vocab]

I'm going to have to disagree with you there.

That's pre BC2 era. you know, when dice was actually good. ME has amazing visual clarity. Something DICE forgot about when making BF3.

 

[MrPliskin]

You don't agree? Don't rewrite history here. The PS2 has the highest percentage of 60 fps 3D games on any console ever made. There were a LOT of AAA games running at 60 fps on the system. Certainly not all, but it was very common.

Later in its life 30 fps became much more common as they tried to match the XBOX, but it still delivered a lot of 60. Certainly more than anything today.

MGS2, GT3 and 4, ZOE series, Klonoa 2, Twisted Metal Black, Onimusha, all fighting games, Tony Hawk series (which was AAA back then), Burnout series, SSX3, God of War (with tearing, unfortunately), Jak and Daxter, Sly Cooper, Ratchet and Clank, Devil May Cry series, Ace Combat series, etc. That ignores the fact that loads of other high quality games were also delivering 60 fps.

To which I guess I could respond with:

MGS3
GTA3, Vice City, SA
Final Fantasy X
Final Fantasy XII
Silent Hill 2,3,4
DQVIII
Ico
SotC
Kingdom Hearts 1,2
Socom (LOL)

I think there's no question that there were a good number of titles last generation that were visually stunning and clearly sacrificed frame rate for increased visual "sheen". I'd also argue that frame rates were higher because the rendering technology wasn't there to achieve certain levels of "realism" so higher frame rates were the go to in order to achieve that realistic feel. There also weren't many demands for lighting, particle effects, etc, so it was much "easier" to achieve higher frame rates then, as engines weren't as complex.

I don't think we're going to magically see a change in developer goals with 60fps being the target. It was necessary during the PS2 era, but with better lighting, textures, models, motion blur, etc, cinematic visuals are the priority, and it will always trump frame rate for 80% of the development studios out there (at least on consoles).

Except people might actually be playing Resistance 3, if it didn't run like shit.

The beta definitely hurt it, but those problems have been ironed out. It's not excusable in any way, and the game shouldn't have released in that state (and the beta shouldn't have begun in that state) but the past is the past. Shit happens, I guess. At least IG acknowledged and fixed those problems. *cough* Bethesda *cough*

 

[Jarmel]

Fuck. I will gladly take 30FPS if we get 1080p standard. The only people who should even want 720p are people too damn poor to afford a decent tv/monitor. Even then 1080p TVs will be cheap as dirt in 5-7 years(I mean they're not that expensive now).

 

[Durante]

Though the 60fps dungeon exploration in Wild Arms 5 was a nice treat. Have any RPGs on PS3 or 360 done 60fps?

Ar Tonelico 3 runs at 60 FPS, 720p with 4xAA.