Was the original only 30fps then? I guess that worked out all right. You don't really need 60 outside of shooters and racing games I s'pose.

Am I the only one who doesnt like this whole mutant turn?

I've been kind of looking forward to this game since I'm not a huge console guy (my current 360 library consists of 5 sports titles, Fallout 3 (which I bought when my computer crapped out)and 2 Rock Band games) but I liked the look of Crackdown 1. However, now I'm sort of concerned that A) I won't understand shit if I don't play the first one, and B) 30 FPS is kind of low. My computer isn't the best but it runs everything around 20-30 - unless this is going to STAY at 30, I dunno if I'll buy it. I don't need to end up with a game that runs at 20 FPS and I can't alter it in any way.

@arsenic13

"Am I the only one who doesnt like this whole mutant turn?"

There were mutants in the first game.

The original was 30fps, and as smooth as a hot knife through spreadable butter, even during some of the most strenuous parts of the game.

As long as they don't manage to fuck it up. Balancing it for multiplayer and putting an emphasis on multiplayer is not a good idea. Also plot does not matter. Crackdown was about ruining people's shit.

I'm not going to bust out links to sources or anything, so believe this if you want to or not, but framerates have been shown to affect eye strain and even headaches, even if you think you don't see much difference in, say, 30 or 60 frames a minute.
Especially people with HDTV's, 60 is much better not just for appearance sake. But it's also not easy to do, so developers don't bother to put in the effort if they think it won't take away from profits.
Still, it's a level of quality that can be achieved with any game and simply isn't being bothered with because it's easier not to. First Insomniac says they won't bother because reviewers don't praise them for it so they figure why bother, now this...

They lower the bar with simply attempting to reach 30...and everyone doesn't mind.
So sure, give us less for the same price. Why don't you go easy on the texturing and maybe leave a couple more AI brainless while you're at it.
Hey, the detail in some of those buildings seems a little overboard, no one sees that stuff, just tone it down, go order a pizza or something instead of all this work.
Don't excert yourself, developers. No one cares. We're all drones here to pump out money to you no matter what you happen to grace us with bothering to put in.

I dont mind games running at 30fps as long as its stable and doesnt have have any framerate drops whatsoever (even during big action sequences). If there is anything in games that kills immersion for me then it's definitely framerate drops and texture/object pop-ins.

That being said, if a game manages to run at 60fps, it makes a MASSIVE difference for me! It may come at a cost of visual details, but the framerate itself will make the game look more amazing and realistic. And it will also be more pleasing to the eye! It also makes the controls feel much smoother! Its sad that the R&C developers decided to drop 60fps, as it was one of the reasons why I liked those games so much. If Infinity Ward where to downgrade the framerate to 30fps in their next Call of Duty game, then I would probably drop that franchise forever.

I think it is awful that gamers and game journalists dont do a better job at encouraging a smooth framerate in games. It shows a terrible attitude in the gaming community. 60fps should be a standard to aspire to!

PS: DVD's may run at 24-30fps but, you wont notice it because of the motion blur.

If there's any poetic justice in this world (it is vitally important that all justice be poetic) Ruffian will be complaining in 12 months time that Crackdown 3 has been given to another studio which is comprised of at least half of Ruffian's current developers.