potatohead
Member
Game feels perfectly responsive to me too, not sure where any gameplay complaints about that would be coming from, I'm not feeling it at all at least.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
DF: Ratchet and Clank PS4 Gameplay Frame-Rate Test
- Thread starter Loudninja
- Start date
SerTapTap
Member
It plays perfectly fine. I had to stop playing Sonic Generations last night and figure out what was going on because it was dropping to, according to my FPS tool, 55 FPS. Framerate's a lot more than just absolute numbers. Consistency is at least half the equation all on it's own.
WoolyNinja
Member
Game performs great! I haven't noticed any slowdown while playing. Nice job Insomniac
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Same. Sometimes people are just full of it. It really is that simple.
GhostOfSparta305
Banned
Nah, I think most folks who play video games like gameplay. The ones you're talking about should probably stick to movies. Good thing Ratchet has one now.
mikefrails
Banned
Screw this new world we live in where frame rate dictates quality. You too, DF.
What did DF do wrong? They're reporting technical information on video games and people can put whatever priority they want on that data.
Framerate does dictate how smooth a game looks and how responsive it feels, which is very important for some.
Sorry you can't handle the inarguable fact that having a faster framerate makes for a better gameplay experience.
mikefrails
Banned
Hatty
Member
For what purpose? Does it really bother you that much that people value gameplay over graphics?
mikefrails
Banned
Seems like they value a number of frames over gameplay.
GhostOfSparta305
Banned
Seems like you don't understand that the two are connected.
Low framerates can harm the gameplay, especially if they effect the controls. I don't have a problem with 30 FPS as long as it stays at 30. This game doesn't stay at 30, and all the graphical effects give me headaches at times, especially the blur filter.
Cost doesn't determine graphical quality. The PS2 R&C games were $40 and they looked great and ran at (mostly) 60 fps. Even the PS3 ones looked great at 60 fps.
D
Deleted member 325805
Unconfirmed Member
Frame rate directly affects gameplay though, you can't compare the fluidity and responsiveness of 60fps and 30fps, the difference is night and day. If all you've ever known is 30fps with dips of course you're going to think that's "fine", and I assume the devs figured the majority of their target demo fit into this category hence the decision to sacrifice gameplay for visuals. I don't agree with it but it was probably smart considering most people seem oblivious to any and all performance issues.
It'll be interesting to see how people adjust going from the 60fps Nathan Drake Collection and 60fps Uncharted 4 MP to the 30fps SP next month. I know for me it's going to be jarring as hell, no matter how gorgeous it looks (and it really does).
Hard to explain but it feels better to me, and looks a bit more natural I guess is the word.
I'm on my second playthrough, in challenge mode, and I haven't picked up a single framerate dip while playing. Of course, they happened, but they're so rare and so minor (1 or 2 frames for what? A second?) that I never noticed any. Which is unlike most games I've played that have framerate dips. Like The Witcher 3, for example, in which the dips would last for an extended period of time during battles, in locations with heavy environmental effects like fog and rain at the same time...
As far as I'm concerned, the frame rate in Ratchet and Clank is rock solid.
And the game has been pure gold so far.
Now... Back the the game. To go get that darn hoverboard trophy on Rilgar...
As far as I'm concerned, the frame rate in Ratchet and Clank is rock solid.
And the game has been pure gold so far.
Now... Back the the game. To go get that darn hoverboard trophy on Rilgar...
Psyrgery ES
Member
This game looks soooo good.
killatopak
Member
so good.
lots of people are too salty. Are you even gonna buy the game?
lots of people are too salty. Are you even gonna buy the game?
Demanufacture
Banned
I finished this game yesterday. It seems like the earlier sections of the game have more framerate issues then the later sections.
The other day I played Destiny right after playing this and there's definitely a difference. The game does jump between 29-30 fps, while Destiny stays at 30 the entire time. Insomniac's engine does a nice job of making this microstutter not happen very often, though.
The other day I played Destiny right after playing this and there's definitely a difference. The game does jump between 29-30 fps, while Destiny stays at 30 the entire time. Insomniac's engine does a nice job of making this microstutter not happen very often, though.
killatopak
Member
how can you even feel a 1fps difference?
ItsTheNew
I believe any game made before 1997 is "essentially cave man art."
How does someone notice a hair in their food? Ya just do.
SapientWolf
Trucker Sexologist
The refresh rate is fixed at 60 so you get even more judder at 29fps than 30.
Most people are not going to care. But you noted that anyways. I still can't tell the difference until I read it. I may just not be noticing it, but a steady framerate of 30-60 just plays well enough for me to not pick up on it.
I think the majority of people will choose great graphics and 30fps over good graphics and 60.
Really poor article from Digital Foundry on this one. They spent a lot of time being somewhat critical of the drop to 30 frames per sec rather than focus on the details of the technical improvements.
Also in their youtube video they sounded somewhat more disappointed for the drop to 30 rather than the visual upgrade we got.
I can see the appeal of 60 frames per sec, but the way this game looks, is worth the trade off imo.
Also in their youtube video they sounded somewhat more disappointed for the drop to 30 rather than the visual upgrade we got.
I can see the appeal of 60 frames per sec, but the way this game looks, is worth the trade off imo.
Frame times are off if your game drops frames which can definitely be felt.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4HH1I2rUJmQ
Wow I didn't remember the PS3 games being so bland and pretty ugly looking, and also feeling so empty.
I know it's 60 vs 30 but the visual gap and all the shit that goes on the screen by comparison is huge!
Wow I didn't remember the PS3 games being so bland and pretty ugly looking, and also feeling so empty.
I know it's 60 vs 30 but the visual gap and all the shit that goes on the screen by comparison is huge!
Blueboys1306
Banned
I just can't wait to play it to be honest! We get it in Australia officially tomorrow so my day of work hopefully flies by. Love The R&C games. This looks to be the best of the lot.
xenorevlis
Member
That's because you're looking at the original Ratchet and Clank from PS2 remastered for PS3.
This is a Ratchet and Clank made for PS3: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=trDZcBShFl0
On the contrary, the PS2 and PS3 versions still look great to me, while the PS4 version is difficult for me to even look at. The low framerate and motion blur makes the PS4 version literally look disgusting to me, especially when paired with the smooth, crisp PS3 version. I actually became nauseous whenever that video showed the PS4 version.
DannyDanger
Member
...cmon
boredandlazy
Member
So a variable framerate between 45-60fps is smooth and crisp compared to an almost perfectly consistent 30?
thelastword
Banned
I really think these games should be judged based on what they're targeting and if the framerate cut or uplift justifies the sacrifices either way. In the case of R&C, I could understand how 60fps would have been preferred, I can agree for that genre in particular. However, the visuals here are no slouch, just have some distaste for Insomniac because they refuse to proper anti-alias such a beautiful game with rich assets, high quality effects, lighting, details, physics and animations and yet have the gall to declare they're going for a CGI look. Reducing the shimmer on this game would make it top 3 of the best looking games out now imo.
In any case, they targeted 30fps and it's not their first ratchet at that framerate, so there's no point with this technical analysis beating them for not going 60fps. Deal with the metrics of the game and how good they are delivering on their target, that's all.
As DF mentioned in the Gears MP faceoff, Halo 5 is a solid 60fps, but the sacrifices to resolution, assets, effects, textures and animations were immense, yet it still drops frames, 2-3fps now and then. This game however is 1080p, with a load of effects onscreen, better lighting than any prior ratchet, high resolution effects and it pretty much stays at a locked 30fps, minus some rare 29fps dips suddenly kicking up to 31fps..... suggests some slight hdd caching issues or an issue which can be optimized further via a patch.
My only issue with choosing a target framerate is whether you're butchering resolution and assets too much at 60fps or whether your assets and detail are not quality enough at 30fps like Witcher 3. I think Ratchet hits it's asset quality pretty high, coupled with some great animations and physics, I think they also nailed their framerate too with high quality assets unlike Witcher 3. The only area I felt they needed to do a little better was AA quality.
In any case, they targeted 30fps and it's not their first ratchet at that framerate, so there's no point with this technical analysis beating them for not going 60fps. Deal with the metrics of the game and how good they are delivering on their target, that's all.
As DF mentioned in the Gears MP faceoff, Halo 5 is a solid 60fps, but the sacrifices to resolution, assets, effects, textures and animations were immense, yet it still drops frames, 2-3fps now and then. This game however is 1080p, with a load of effects onscreen, better lighting than any prior ratchet, high resolution effects and it pretty much stays at a locked 30fps, minus some rare 29fps dips suddenly kicking up to 31fps..... suggests some slight hdd caching issues or an issue which can be optimized further via a patch.
My only issue with choosing a target framerate is whether you're butchering resolution and assets too much at 60fps or whether your assets and detail are not quality enough at 30fps like Witcher 3. I think Ratchet hits it's asset quality pretty high, coupled with some great animations and physics, I think they also nailed their framerate too with high quality assets unlike Witcher 3. The only area I felt they needed to do a little better was AA quality.
The PS2 version of R&C1 was a near-flawless 60 fps. Haven't played the HD collection on PS3 but it looked like a flawless 60 fps in the DF video as well. Does inventing framerate issues that didn't actually exist make you feel better about supporting the downgraded PS4 remake?
diffusionx
Gold Member
I thought ACIT was a near-perfect action game, and it felt really smooth to play. But what's done is done. Insomniac obviously wants these games to be a graphical showcase and that's fine. But I also thought ACIT was one of the best looking games on PS3.
This is a bit overdramatic.
This is a bit overdramatic.
Always-honest
Banned
Poor kid.. I hope you get better soon.
Aaaaannnnnnyway, finally my son and i will be playing this tomorrow. Very curious to see how he likes it.
DarkConfidant
Member
I remember when they posted this blog post after doing 60 forever.
I certainly dont mind, and agree with the view that as long as its solid and consistent, that matters way more than how high it can get.
When playing R&C on PS4, my initial impressions were that the framerate seemed both high and really smooth. It made the animations( explosions, and Ratchet flipping around through combat) look great, and really gave the game a look of polish.
Coincidentally, I purchased Dark Souls III the same day, and though Im loving that game, its shaky framerate gives it a very unfinished look, and at times can affect gameplay.
So Im on team good choice Insomniac.
I certainly dont mind, and agree with the view that as long as its solid and consistent, that matters way more than how high it can get.
When playing R&C on PS4, my initial impressions were that the framerate seemed both high and really smooth. It made the animations( explosions, and Ratchet flipping around through combat) look great, and really gave the game a look of polish.
Coincidentally, I purchased Dark Souls III the same day, and though Im loving that game, its shaky framerate gives it a very unfinished look, and at times can affect gameplay.
So Im on team good choice Insomniac.
I finally got around to playing this a few nights ago for maybe 20 mins. I felt the game's post-process anti-aliasing makes it a tad blurry for my taste.
After the initial opening sequence, when I got to first control ratchet, it felt a bit sluggish but though I kind of got accustomed to it.
Seems like nice little game but kind of got bored of it after 20 mins.
After the initial opening sequence, when I got to first control ratchet, it felt a bit sluggish but though I kind of got accustomed to it.
Seems like nice little game but kind of got bored of it after 20 mins.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Damn PS4K effecting PS4 performance.
I will see myself out now.
I will see myself out now.
Shin-Ra
Junior Member
Just started playing and the low sensitivity on the right stick camera control makes the game feel more sluggish than it needs to. A snappier camera would feel better.
Thank the lawd for soft clipping particles!
edit: videos are well encoded and like inFAMOUS, the intro cutscene is pre rendered in-engine quality but artefacting's minimal enough to miss. I think the R&C film cutscenes are 24fps with noticeable judder.
Thank the lawd for soft clipping particles!
The AA doesn't look blurry at all.
edit: videos are well encoded and like inFAMOUS, the intro cutscene is pre rendered in-engine quality but artefacting's minimal enough to miss. I think the R&C film cutscenes are 24fps with noticeable judder.
Lol yea didn't remember correctly, but why giving me an edited trailer with hardly any gameplay (and with a super cinematic angles)? here is R&C on the PS3, still a huge difference:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kzMK9xq2gzc
I feel like this is closer to the PS3 remaster of the PS2 game than to the PS4 version.
This is a joke right?