• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

60fps New Gen Gaming

VNZ said:
I deliberately excluded Ratched & Clank: ToD from the list, the framedrops are just too frequent. And from what I've heard, QfB is even worse?

Also made some other edits (I haven't played Ace Combat 6, for example, I have to admit that I assumed it to be 60 since RR6 and RR7 are).
Ratchet and Clank is a near perfect 60 fps. I have no idea what you're talking about. I think you'd be hard pressed to find any reference to excessive framedrops anywhere in any coverage; the game was running above 30 FPS in preview builds shown to 1up in March.

edit: Forza 2 was 100% 60 FPS. If you really are not good at this little FPS game, just leave it to the pros (dark10x). There's so much misinformation in here and there's only like 30 posts.
 
60 fps just looks so damn nice. I wish more devs would try extra hard to achieve it.

And Quest for Booty seems to be 60 in the outdoor areas and drops when you get in the caves (probably all the lighting.)
 
Seiken said:
Hm... can someone confirm?
Check it again. Forza 2 is definitely running 60. There's something funky with the reflections that's not running at quite the same speed, but the game itself is a solid 60.
 
No_Style said:
Forza 2 is definitely 60 FPS.
Yup, I guess you're right. It's just that games shouldn't be 60fps + motion blur, it looks bad.
 
This is really the core of gaming to me, the sense of total rush I feel when playing a shoot'em up or a racing game, being totally immersed by the on-screen action. It's like my cognitive system is free to be immersed when the visuals are updated so fast that it no longer can interpret what it sees as mere still images

The imersion 60fps brings has to be backed up with quality textures, anti-aliasing methods and other graphical technicalities or it's pointless imo. You could run any Wii game at 120fps and I wouldn't be immersed as say a CoD4. I do appreciate a good framerate though, which is why I'm slowly getting pushed towards PC gaming.
 
Andrex said:
That's what I thought too.

PS360 = Next Gen

Wii = New Gen

*facepalm*

All of this stupid terminology is annoying.

The Xbox 360 is the next generation of the Microsoft system brand/hardware. The Playstation 3 is the next generation of the Sony system brand/hardware. The Wii is the next generation of the Nintendo system brand/hardware.

The reason the Wii is excluded is because it doesn't have to output HD, which seems to be more difficult to get 60fps in.
 
Is Warhawk at 60? I know its online, which sometimes (rarely) lags it up, but if I'm playing on a good connection or offline that game is as smooth as butter.

And MGS4 is 60 too right? I don't remember any framerate drops, even in the crazy PMC battles.
 
It's funny how this thread shows up just when I was having this thought about Crysis...

When I turn on shaders to medium (motion blur), it gets to 30fps.
When I turn on shaders to low (no motion blur),i t gets to 60fps.

So it's a really hard decision for me. I fucking love well balanced motion blur + 30fps.
Blu_LED said:
Is Warhawk at 60? I know its online, which sometimes (rarely) lags it up, but if I'm playing on a good connection or offline that game is as smooth as butter.

And MGS4 is 60 too right? I don't remember any framerate drops, even in the crazy PMC battles.
Warhawk AND MGS4 are 30 fps. Warhawk's locked while MGS4 can go to 60 fps from time to time (turn on thermal googles and watch the difference).
 
Blu_LED said:
Is Warhawk at 60? I know its online, which sometimes (rarely) lags it up, but if I'm playing on a good connection or offline that game is as smooth as butter.

And MGS4 is 60 too right? I don't remember any framerate drops, even in the crazy PMC battles.

MGS4 is definitely not 60 FPS 100% of the time. There are rare instances where it can reach 60 FPS, though.
 
JodyAnthony said:
i will forever be the weirdo that prefers 30fps
I will always be the weirdo who prefered SotC running at 20 fps. It made it feel more cinematic. I wouldn't like a 60fps SotC more.
 
Whoever lists Ninja Gaiden 2 as 60fps is out of his mind. The game hardly ever maintains 60fps and at a certain little staircase manages to dip so low that even Neo would say "That's slow".

Ratchet is damn smooth, the framerate may dip a bit during heavy action but it never becomes really noticeable.
 
yoopoo said:
You should saperate the hd games from sub-hd games, ie; NG2 and COD4.
As I said in the OP, there's already enough discussion on resolution, et cetera. This is about the pure framerate rush!

Y2Kev said:
Ratchet and Clank is a near perfect 60 fps. I have no idea what you're talking about. I think you'd be hard pressed to find any reference to excessive framedrops anywhere in any coverage; the game was running above 30 FPS in preview builds shown to 1up in March.

edit: Forza 2 was 100% 60 FPS. If you really are not good at this little FPS game, just leave it to the pros (dark10x). There's so much misinformation in here and there's only like 30 posts.
Again, the list in the OP was preliminary, and admittedly I haven't played or seen every relevant game this gen. AC6 was mistakenly included (I haven't seen it live yet, and now I won't buy it, thanks for the advice!), and Forza 2 I haven't seen. Doing corrections as I go along here...

At 1080p Ratchet & Clank is absolutely riddled with tearing and slow-down. And "coverage" isn't much worth when talking framerate, there's hardly anyone in the media with an eye for this (since I left, at least).
 
Seiken said:
I will always be the weirdo who prefered SotC running at 20 fps. It made it feel more cinematic. I wouldn't like a 60fps SotC more.

You heard it here first, folks. 20 fps = cinematic.
 
VNS, should we start mentioning PSN/XBLA games?
Jtyettis said:
Beaten for the sixth time, friend.
Truant said:
You heard it here first, folks. 20 fps = cinematic.
SotC-exclusive, foo'
 
Seiken said:
I will always be the weirdo who prefered SotC running at 20 fps. It made it feel more cinematic. I wouldn't like a 60fps SotC more.

23.97 / 30 fps plus motion blur is visual heaven. 60 fps, sure its great to have things look so fluid ... but it doesn't look as natural.
 
Seiken said:
I will always be the weirdo who prefered SotC running at 20 fps. It made it feel more cinematic. I wouldn't like a 60fps SotC more.


a solid 30fps would be ideal. 4 frame tumbling animations suck. There are moments when SOTC's animation drops to game-and-watch levels.



another for the list-- flOw. Definitely 60fps and beautiful. Not sure if it counts under the OP's strict guidelines.
 
Mamesj said:
another for the list-- flOw. Definitely 60fps and beautiful. Not sure if it counts under the OP's strict guidelines.
Shit drops A TON in the later parts.
 
Danielsan said:
I actually agree. The framerate in SotC never ever hurt the game. Despite it being low it still felt right.
I think its like that for any game, as long as your lock it at a framerate. If I'm jumping all over the place its not going to feel right. But if I'm stuck at 20 FPS, the entire time I am playing the game, that fine. How would you notice?
 
Orellio said:
It's pretty damn easy actually.
Well yeah, but what do you have to compare it to? If I'm playing a game at 60, and then I get to a huge battle and it goes to 20, you have something to compare it to, so you notice. If its running at 20 the whole time, I think that perfectly okay.
 
I think there was another previous thread with the same topic. And in the Beyond 3d forums I remember they exactly measured the real resolution and FPS of all PS360 games, and they putted in a list somewhere in their forums.
 
Okay since we're not getting any confirmation about if we can mention PSN/XBLA-games...

The most note worthy game is Bionic Commando Rearmed. Sooo good looking.
 
you people, ratchet is 60, and you can tell easily. resistance is 30, but that ugly ass game shouldve been 60 with the way it looked.
 
GarthVaderUK said:
Was the 360 version of Call of Duty 2 60fps? What about Call of Duty 3?

Also, I remember reading a story about a few American football games being 60fps on 360 last year. No idea which ones.


both of them were 60. with drops, but 60 nonetheless.
 
Truant said:
You heard it here first, folks. 20 fps = cinematic.

Well movies are done at 24fps, hence his comment on why it felt cinematic. There are plenty of people out there who feel that 24fps has a very specific feel to it, that they associate with movies.
 
rod said:
both of them were 60. with drops, but 60 nonetheless.
And CoD3 was 30. Any confirmation about CoD5? 60 or 30?
 
Seiken said:
Okay since we're not getting any confirmation about if we can mention PSN/XBLA-games...

The most note worthy game is Bionic Commando Rearmed. Sooo good looking.
I just updated the OP with:
After some discussion I've chosen to include downloadable games with "full-grown graphics", ie. a fuzzy line is drawn somewhere below jawdropping stuff like Geometry Wars:RE and Super Stardust HD.
 
VNZ said:
At 1080p Ratchet & Clank is absolutely riddled with tearing and slow-down. And "coverage" isn't much worth when talking framerate, there's hardly anyone in the media with an eye for this (since I left, at least).

um, ratchet doesnt render natively at 1080p ever. heck, i dont think the ps3 will even scale that game to 1080p. and if you magically are scaling it, it still would run IDENTICALLY to the way it does when its rendered natively at 720p. scaling doesnt (99% of the time) impact performance.
 
Seiken said:
And CoD3 was 30. Any confirmation about CoD5? 60 or 30?

sorry, no. cod3 is 60. only played it recently after my cod4 playthrough. its 60. slows down a bit more often than cod2 did, but cod3 is 60.
 
Blu_LED said:
Well yeah, but what do you have to compare it to? If I'm playing a game at 60, and then I get to a huge battle and it goes to 20, you have something to compare it to, so you notice. If its running at 20 the whole time, I think that perfectly okay.

It's okay, yes. I will always prefer a locked frame rate, no matter how low it is.

But 20fps (even locked) is absolutely noticeable when playing a game.
 
rod said:
um, ratchet doesnt render natively at 1080p ever. heck, i dont think the ps3 will even scale that game to 1080p. and if you magically are scaling it, it still would run IDENTICALLY to the way it does when its rendered natively at 720p. scaling doesnt (99% of the time) impact performance.
Indeed you're right. For a moment there I thought that the PS3 output setting could've had some effect on the issue, admittedly the quickly growing thread (with its numerous growing complaints) made me reckless.. :)
 
ratchet is a bit unstable in the fps department...

Anyways, this thread gets love. Galaxy and Metroid for the new gen conquest of 60fps. Mario is still the best looking game this gen for me...so clean, crisp, smooth, vibrant. I could just sex this game again right now...
 
Y2Kev said:
Ratchet and Clank is a near perfect 60 fps. I have no idea what you're talking about. I think you'd be hard pressed to find any reference to excessive framedrops anywhere in any coverage; the game was running above 30 FPS in preview builds shown to 1up in March.
Ratchet's framerate was pretty unstable in places.

Blu_LED said:
What was Uncharted? I'm guessing 30, but they sure as hell locked that baby down.
http://sr-388.net/videos/minor-tearing.MP4

Seiken said:
Yup, I guess you're right. It's just that games shouldn't be 60fps + motion blur, it looks bad.
Forza 2 was 60fps with no motion blur, 30fps with motion blur in the replays iirc.

I'm not sure why you would like 30fps + motion bur but not 60fps + motion blur though.

Blu_LED said:
And MGS4 is 60 too right? I don't remember any framerate drops, even in the crazy PMC battles.
:lol MGS4 struggles to hold a constant 30fps, let alone 60. It constantly jumps between 20–60fps, more often than not being below 30.

JodyAnthony said:
i will forever be the weirdo that prefers 30fps
You like double-images when things move on-screen?

phez said:
23.97 / 30 fps plus motion blur is visual heaven. 60 fps, sure its great to have things look so fluid ... but it doesn't look as natural.
23.976 (23.98 if you're rounding) may be what film is shot at, but it is not in any way suitable for interactive entertainment. With the way that many films are shot these days, it would not surprise me if we start seeing higher framerates with film in the next few years.

It used to be that directors would take care on the speed of pans etc. but these days most don't seem to care, and the action moves faster than the framerate can handle.
 
Top Bottom