Resistance 2 at 720p, 30fps

**Shrygue** · June 4th, 2008, 20:25

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."

**Triv1um** · June 4th, 2008, 22:38

Can the PS3 handle 60fps?

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

**ElRazur** · June 4th, 2008, 23:31

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?

**lmtlmt** · June 4th, 2008, 23:48

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

**pibs** · June 5th, 2008, 02:37

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.

**F9zDark** · June 5th, 2008, 02:38

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.

**Gene** · June 5th, 2008, 19:46

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.