Frame rate preference

[MarkRyan]

Consitency is wayyyyyyyyy more important than a high frame rate. Because when a game that's made to run 60 dips to 30 it looks a million times worse than a game that's running at 30 consistently. Plenty of good looking games have done 30 and looked perfectly fine. I'm pretty sure Konami's gorgeous PS2 games are running at 30, and I don't think anyone would argue that they're not the best looking games on PlayStation2.

But as mentioned before, everying probably should be running at 60 consistently now. PSone games like Dead or Alive, F-Zero X, and fu**in' Battle Arena Toshinden 3 ran at 60 consistently. Yeah, aren't rendering much, but moving to new games with lower frame rates is sort of sad. Once we hit the next generation there'll be no excuse.

[Mzo]

Consitency is wayyyyyyyyy more important than a high frame rate.

And on this, we can completely agree.

And F-Zero X is an N64 game... I guess you just meant last gen titles.

[Tain]

I think that most developers should shoot for 60 and all, but only if it's going to stay consistent. I don't mind dips too much in games where it really doesn't matter, though.

I'm pretty sure Konami's gorgeous PS2 games are running at 30, and I don't think anyone would argue that they're not the best looking games on PlayStation2.

I'm positive that MGS2 and ZoE run at 60.

[MarkRyan]

And F-Zero X is an N64 game... I guess you just meant last gen titles.

Word, I went back and added F-Zero X without reading that I said "PSone games." D'oh.

And I'd be surprised if ZoE2 and MGS2 were running at 60. They're incredibly smooth and consistent, but I never read anywhere that they were running at 60...and almost always, editors will say something about a 60 FPS framerate. Still, you may be right and I just owned myself

But I stick by the "consistency over speed" motto. And of course, consistency AND speed is always the best.

[jiji]

And I'd be surprised if ZoE2 and MGS2 were running at 60. They're incredibly smooth and consistent, but I never read anywhere that they were running at 60...and almost always, editors will say something about a 60 FPS framerate. Still, you may be right and I just owned myself

MGS2 runs at 60fps. I'm not sure about ZOE2, though...it's been too long since I played the demo.

Personally, I'd gladly sacrifice visual detail for 60fps in any game with any amount of action. Part of the reason 3D console games haven't seemed as responsive to me as 2D games is the generally lower framerate used by most games these days. On a more practical level, lower framerates are manageable as long as the pace of the game isn't too fast for the framerate (see: One).

While we're on the subject, is PS2 Shinobi 60fps? I've yet to play it.

[DHG Otaku]

This shouldn't even be an issue. Virtua Fighter 2 and Daytona were running at a solid 60fps 10 years ago. It's time for consoles to catch up.

seriously!! wtf! Developers need to stop being so Fn lazy! And yes, PS2 Shinobi is indeed a glorious 60fps...which I'll take over 30fps ANY time.

[Captain Canuck]

Consitency is wayyyyyyyyy more important than a high frame rate. Because when a game that's made to run 60 dips to 30 it looks a million times worse than a game that's running at 30 consistently. Plenty of good looking games have done 30 and looked perfectly fine. I'm pretty sure Konami's gorgeous PS2 games are running at 30, and I don't think anyone would argue that they're not the best looking games on PlayStation2.

But as mentioned before, everying probably should be running at 60 consistently now. PSone games like Dead or Alive, F-Zero X, and fu**in' Battle Arena Toshinden 3 ran at 60 consistently. Yeah, aren't rendering much, but moving to new games with lower frame rates is sort of sad. Once we hit the next generation there'll be no excuse.

I'm pretty sure ZOE 2 and MGS2 run at 60fps but I wouldn't call them the best looking games on the PS2. Next gen will have 30fps games for sure. As long as there is a choice for developers, there will always be trade offs.

keep in mind that a game like GTA 3 would probably have to look like VF1 or VR racing to run at a consistant 60 fps. So if the developes go for a living world next gen, most of them will probably run at 30 fps just to handle everything without look ugly as hell.

[DHG Otaku]

No way dude! GTA is nearly 30fps on the Xbox with improved graphics making it anything but ugly. The next gen systems should be able to do GTA3/Vice at 60fps with like, NO pop up or fade in. A next gen GTA at 30fps should still be able to run some pretty amazing visuals.

[Captain Canuck]

No way dude! GTA is nearly 30fps on the Xbox with improved graphics making it anything but ugly. The next gen systems should be able to do GTA3/Vice at 60fps with like, NO pop up or fade in. A next gen GTA at 30fps should still be able to run some pretty amazing visuals.

That's the thing though, they aren't gonna stop at GTA with 60fps. Once they jack up the detail and make the world bigger like a next gen system should do, ti's not gonna run at a constant 60fps. I didn't say it wasn't gonna look good. I just said that if GTA 3 on the PS2 was gonna be at a constant 60fps it would look uglier than it already is for sure. DMA decided to pass on the 60fps in favour of other things. I wouldn't be surprised it they did the same next gen.

[FuryFox]

It was 220 fps and it's part of the test for Air Force pilots.

Oh yeah, that's right. Proves the point even moreso.

Nope, I believe the PGR2 team stated it would've been 60 fps if they'd been allowed a couple more months (it was rushed out the door for Christmas by Microsoft).

Maybe. Developers say a lot of things. As it is now, I've seen the game dip a few times, but usually only when all 8 cars are wrecking and piling up and swapping in damage models, which I can't really fault since situations like that are hardly common. PGR2 would really be something at 60fps though.

Random: My brother and I were playing Rainbow 6 on Xbox Live, and then afterward we played some 4player Halo, and damn, but did Halo suddenly feel smooth. R6 can bite me.