Resistance 2 at 720p, 30fps

via Eurogamer


Insomniac Games' President and CEO Ted Price has said that Resistance 2 is targeting "720p, 30fps" as its resolution and frame-rate.

Price was answering a question from Eurogamer reader ps3owner in our live interview earlier, but he was unable to help senso-ji with his query about whether R2 would need a mandatory install.

"Too early to answer that one," he said. "We're still finishing up the content for the game. That's a question we'll be able to answer as we get closer to launch."

polymorph then followed up by asking for Price's views on installs. "Installs in some form or another are pretty standard for PS3 games these days," he said.

"And I think for consumers it's a good thing because it generally decreases load times. Or at least it should. Personally, I'd rather have a several-minute install the first time I play a game and then enjoy the benefits of faster loads every time I play the game after that."

Can the PS3 handle 60fps?

Being such a big PS3 exclusive, they should aim for 1080p 60fps.

Considering the power it packs, I will think it safe to say yes it can do 60fps. However, is there any major difference visibly to the average gamer between 30fps and 60fps?

make it 60fps you F****** retards!!!!

you wonder why people bad moth the ps3 when every game is bloody 30fps, all first person shooters should have 60fps.

case closed

well 720p isn't a big deal since most ps3 games are 720p but 30fps?

I completely agree with lmtlmt because it is retarded when the ps3 is capable of 60.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElRazur

Considering the power it packs, I will think it safe to say yes it can do 60fps. However, is there any major difference visibly to the average gamer between 30fps and 60fps?

---

No, there isn't a major difference, visually.

However, 60 FPS has a much larger buffer zone between good frame rate and laggy frame rate. Essentially a game running at 60 FPS is optimized enough to handle just about everything the game developers intended.

Games running at 30 FPS really aren't and scenes containing the "near limit" of objects rendered could slow down to the "Lag" zone (which is 24 and under FPS).

Supposedly the human eye's minimum visual processing is the equivalent of 24 FPS; anything below this appears slow.

Hence why 60 FPS is a better choice, although for consoles 30 is just fine, so long as the developers bide their resources well; on a PC this is another matter since hardware configurations aren't the same, even completely different, thus something optimal on one video card, CPU and Ram setup may not be on another.

My main concern with 30 FPS is that in instances when things are happening outside the developer's control (multiplayer for instance) 30 FPS could indeed become an issue.

Personally, I hate the installs. The only reason is because they take up something between 2-6gb per install. after about 5 or 6 games, I'll have to start deleting stuff off my hard drive. That to me sounds like a pretty crappy trade off. Why the hell do 360's not need installs. While with Ps3's it's becoming quite common. If any more games will have this cruddy trade off, I will start running out of hard drive space, and I will simply stop buying games that require installs.

It would be much easier if the installs were optional to save some time on load screens, but if you had a smaller hard drive you could have the option of not installing, giving you slightly slower load times, but saving valuable memory.

Yeah, it would be a kick in the balls for the old 20gb owners.

i think they should make it 60fps

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Triv1um

Yeah, it would be a kick in the balls for the old 20gb owners.

---

I have a 20gig version and I have less than 500mb of disk space left. Thanks to install. Lol. I am looking to replace it soon with a 120gig or more.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gene

Personally, I hate the installs. The only reason is because they take up something between 2-6gb per install. after about 5 or 6 games, I'll have to start deleting stuff off my hard drive. That to me sounds like a pretty crappy trade off. Why the hell do 360's not need installs. While with Ps3's it's becoming quite common. If any more games will have this cruddy trade off, I will start running out of hard drive space, and I will simply stop buying games that require installs.

It would be much easier if the installs were optional to save some time on load screens, but if you had a smaller hard drive you could have the option of not installing, giving you slightly slower load times, but saving valuable memory.

---

Installs are a catch all for the PS3 because each PS3 made has one. Lowest Common Denominator doesn't just apply to mathematics, it also applies to consoles and PC games (to an extent). Developers have to consider the lowest common denominator which for the 360 is a console without an HDD, so installs cannot be mandatory.

Sadly for the PS3, this means that developers can use mandatory installs...

The first Resistance game could only at best be described as mediocre. Now this next installment of this PS3 exclusive will be running at just 30fps? :rofl:

I remember the good old days when I used to have a PS2 and the excellent (and still great) Timesplitters 2 ran constantly at 60fps and it never dipped below it... so how the fook can the power house that is the PS3 fail to even match up to that? :eek:

I'm even sure the original Timesplitters had a pretty sweet engine capable of spewing out an amazing 60 FPS with the occasional, but forgivable dips, considering its first-generation nature (from way back in 2000)? lol ...but how can the PS3 be regressing in frames per second with new titles now that we've moved on 8 years? lol

Maybe Insomniac Games should purchase the PS2 Timessplitters game engine from Free Radical Design? lol

Sad times.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Baboon

The first Resistance game could only at best be described as mediocre. Now this next installment of this PS3 exclusive will be running at just 30fps? :rofl:

I remember the good old days when I used to have a PS2 and the excellent (and still great) Timesplitters 2 ran constantly at 60fps and it never dipped below it... so how the fook can the power house that is the PS3 fail to even match up to that? :eek:

I'm even sure the original Timesplitters had a pretty sweet engine capable of spewing out an amazing 60 FPS with the occasional, but forgivable dips, considering its first-generation nature (from way back in 2000)? lol ...but how can the PS3 be regressing in frames per second with new titles now that we've moved on 8 years? lol

Maybe Insomniac Games should purchase the PS2 Timessplitters game engine from Free Radical Design? lol

Sad times.

---

The thing that saddens me is that Insomniac games has 2 PS3 games under their belt. You'd think by now they'd know a thing or two about getting games to run at optimal settings without a hitch.

But I digress, 30 FPS is fine so long as the game NEVER (and I do mean NEVER) goes below that.

I'd rather have a game with 30 FPS rate that never dips below than a game with an "average" 60 FPS that goes all over the place.

Since the Cell supposedly can handle graphics calculations on top of having the GPU handle them, I am guessing that developers haven't figured out how to do this, because to be quite honest, if they did, I don't think we'd have any of these "issues".

I think everyone is over-reacting a bit. It hasn't been stated how much hard drive space that the game will use. Furthermore, everyone would give the game a hard time if it was just about the same quality as the first resistance game but the frame count was at 30 frames per second. I think they're targeting at 720p/30fps so that the quality probably wont dip past this in too many occasions and then upscale to a higher level of screen resolution and 45-60fps when the game is ready for the consumer.

Does nobody else remember before the PS3 came out all the hype that it was going to be capable of 120hz output and that super high quality HDTVs would have to catch up to computer monitors in order to get the most out of the thing?

With the 'most powerful' system on the market, developers are still aiming towards what should be their lowest standard of video quality? Oh well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by quzar

Does nobody else remember before the PS3 came out all the hype that it was going to be capable of 120hz output and that super high quality HDTVs would have to catch up to computer monitors in order to get the most out of the thing?

With the 'most powerful' system on the market, developers are still aiming towards what should be their lowest standard of video quality? Oh well.

---

Yeah that does kinda bother me; why support 1080p if very few retail (in store) games support it?

Shit more PSN titles made by small developer teams support 1080p than do games sold in stores for 60 dollars made by multi-million dollar developing companies and published by multi-billion dollar publishers...

Its ridiculous, and until Sony steps in and sets a standard that developers must follow, I don't think it will change for some time.

At least on the plus side, I don't feel so bad about not having an HDTV, since whats the point spending 1500 dollars on a good 1080p TV if very few games (if any) I own will support it?

To be honest, 720p does look really sweet.

In GT5 Prologue, alot of people think it looks alot better in 720p than it does in 1080p for some reason.

720p is a huge step up from normal TV's, but to say the ps3 is capable of outputting 1080p all the games should!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Triv1um

To be honest, 720p does look really sweet.

In GT5 Prologue, alot of people think it looks alot better in 720p than it does in 1080p for some reason.

720p is a huge step up from normal TV's, but to say the ps3 is capable of outputting 1080p all the games should!

---

It's most likely due to the fact that in 1080p mode the framerate or render quality has to be lowered to support the higher framesize.

Quite a number of games can be forced to output 1080p however.[upscaled or otherwise, those old claims of the ps3 being incapable of scaling must be nonsense]
Uncharted, R&C, GTAIV, COD4, will all register as 1080p via TV info if 720p and 1080i are disabled in settings.
I actually prefer them like this, not a large difference, but lines are cleaner for me, especially GTA.

As for Resistance, is it not possible that having 8 player co-op and 60 player online using the same engine as the singleplayer game has some effect on performance.

…still looking for that second HDMI port…

Uncharted cannot be forced 1080p. Ive tired.