Just keep making great games like A Crack in Time and I'll be happy to fork over my wallet.

60fps is so much nicer than 30, but a poor game at 60fps is just a smooth, poor game. A good game at 30? A slightly less smooth but certainly playable, good game.

I find 10 FPS bareable so I guess I'm not one to be asked.

The Human eye generally can't really detect a difference after 25-30fps anyways so as long as the quality of game is good then I'm completely fine with this.

60 FPS does make a difference. When you're playing Forza or Modern Warfare, the smooth frame rate really stands out and makes the whole experience better.

That said, I can live with 30 FPS as long as it's rock solid. When a game has an inconsistent frame rate, that's when it really starts to hurt the actual gameplay.

Gah....It's rather pathetic that the 360 and PS3 are so horribly underpowered when it comes to RAM, otherwise this would never even be an issue.

@Mark Oleski: That is actually a common misconception. The human eye can see and recognize the difference in speeds of over 70 FPS.

@squirrelyg:
@Mark Oleski:
That's a very common misconception. Read this to learn more: http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frames_can_humans_see.htm

@Mark Oleski

Anybody can tell the difference between 30FPS and 60FPS. I don't know where you got that idea.

30 FPS is more then playable, But I do prefer to play games at 60 FPS.

Found this online
http://www.gametrailers.com/user-movie/60-fps-vs-24-fps-a-comparison/85283

60 fps vs 24 fps

@monte: That doesn't look right, probably because of video compression..

Count me in as one of the 16% that prefers (something closer to) 60 fps. For me it makes a HUGE difference. I realize most people will stutter through 15 fps without blinking. However, if I had to choose between a silky framerate and a good game, I'll pick "good game", of course. But it's a shame I should have to...

Apparently it's too difficult (or too expensive, or too time-consuming) to program a smooth frame rate into this "brave next generation" of video games. And most people don't care. Lame.

I love a game that runs 60fps... but it's not a necessity. Being a PC gamer, I've always just expected console games to run at 30fps and PC games to run at 60 (unless my computer is gimped).

I think sales have more to do with the content and mass appeal of the game than the number of frames you see per second, but I dunno... that might just be my common sense speaking.

I, for one, would ask other developers to please stop devoting so much budget to graphics. It is and will continue to cause the profitability of most hardcore games to crater. We've already seen game lengths decrease because of it.

@silvain
What are you talking about? Games are 1000% longer than they used to be.

ACIT is actually a short game. The put so much on the disc that they have to cut somewhere. My guess is freeing up the frame rate will allow them to put more game on the disc. Yes ACIT is buttery smooth, but the levels don't feel as complete and Tools of Destruction. The weapons pretty much suck compared to ToD as well.
ACIT felt small when I played it and ToD felt much bigger.
Frame rates don't matter as long as they don't interfere with the game.

I'm not quite in the 16 percent. Games with lower frame rates tend to bug the fuck out of me, but I don't know that I wouldn't buy a game because of it.

As long as they don't lower the rest of their standards, then it's all good.

Good, make them run at 120 FPS.

Speaking of nit-pick: Brad, you couldn't care less. If you could care less, then by all means, why arn't you doing so?

I know it's a business and this is but one very small part of the overall structure in gamemaking, but I still like to live in my fantasy that it wasn't all about workmanlike assembly lines to getting paid in the game industry, but there was still art and a pride in the quality of what was being made not just for the bottom line, but for the artist simply wanting to create the best they could even if only for themselves.

Told you, it's my fantasy world.

But they basically said they're going to do less because it doesn't equal more money. Yeah, that's just great.
Again, it's not about the frames per second themselves, it's the whole overlying attitude of doing something purely for the money. That's fine if you work on Wall Street. But I think of games, well done ones, as art.

What I'd really like to know is who died over at Insomniac? Because they're getting all emotional and pouty like they're going through grief. First with how sad they are about people who didn't love Resistance 2, now they want to cut things they feel people don't openly pat them on the back about.
It's like they're bi-polar. One game sounds like they took a little too personal, the next like it's an assembly line.

Insomniac needs a nap.

^ugh. ignorance like that is the reason why insomniac is making the change.

I don't know? Did they actually ask people that KNOW what you're talking about, or just some random mothers standing around GameStop? "R&C:A Crack In Time" had no slow downs at all, I'd hate to see that change because they didn't ask people who knows what 60FPS means. And yes, the weapons in this new game are shit. What were they thinking?