If Insomniac switched to 30FPS why does it look worse?
I remember insomniac saying they were gonna start making all future games in 30fps in order to make better looking games. This game clearly dips under 30fps at some points and yet this looks worse than the future trilogy. What is with all those jaggies? Some of the animations are better, that's about it. Really disappointed that R&C are going downhill but is still made by the same developers.
I came to this board specifically to complain about the exact same thing. The frame rate is ugly, and yet everything looks more washed out and jaggy. It actually looks worse than either of the two major ps3 games, at half the frame rate.
I started it in 3d and figured the frame rate must be because of the 3d... so I restarted in 2d and got my heart broken :-( R&C is just ugly in 30fps.
It's hard to blame Insomniac for the drop to 30fps as they're just doing what their market research told them to - although I personally think 60fps should be the standard for console, I'll take frame rate over detail any day of the week. I'd expect a damn major upgrade in visuals for the severe frame rate drop, however, and I can't believe it actually went in the other direction. I'm sure there's some super-cell-dynamic-buffer-triple-texel-syncopation, or some such thing no actual player would ever notice but looks good on paper. But we do notice silky smooth 60fps. Somebody should tell their research department about Call of Duty.
Oh well. At least Ratchet still runs at a buttery 60 on PS Allstars! And looks damned fine doin' it. I'll go play that.
Running at 60 FPS should be the biggest priority for any game action game really.
Magnificent Seven had the greatest soundtrack ever. FACT.
I get the sense that Insomniac doesn't have the same budget devoted to the R&C series as they once did.
This game is pretty much a cash grab. Which means spending less money on production.
In theory, you definitely can get better graphics if you are willing to cut down to 30 FPS instead of 60. But that doesn't matter if they didn't put much time into the graphics.
The game feels sluggish. I guess that frame rate difference is that big of a deal here.
My signature is better than yours.
I played a bit more and noticed that some of the monsters definitely have a bit more detail close up. Not nearly enough to justify how ugly it is, though. I'm not sure on this, but the draw distance may be higher? That _is_ one of the bigger system hogs, on any system, in the graphics department. I'll have to pop in a copy of CIT later and compare (ground mission, of course :-p) If that's what's forcing them to compromise so much quality and performance, it was a huge mistake imho. I'd gladly take half the draw distance for a less washed out and/or smoother running R&C.
the frame rate and the visuals in the demo looked disgustingly horrid. the 3d sucks too.
I found out this game had co-op, then I played the demo.
Came on here to see if anyone else thought that it looked terrible. Like I was looking at some PS2 game or something.
I remember the launch Ratchet Game looking pretty awesome, almost like CG. And it had moments of 60FPS too!!!!!!!!!!
Man... i used to love Ratchet and Clank. I don't know whats wrong with Insomniac but their games have not been any good lately. Maybe they are stretching themselves too thin? Maybe next gen they will refocus on making great games instead of feeling the need to crank them out so fast.