PS3 News: No 60FPS For Far Cry 2; There's Just "So Much Going On" - PS3 News

Members Login: Register | Why sign up? | Forgot Password?

No 60FPS For Far Cry 2; There's Just "So Much Going On"

As you all know, this month is massive, and one of the driving reasons behind that massiveness is Ubisoft's Far Cry 2. It's the long-anticipated sequel to one of the best shooters of the last generation, but while we do expect great things, the news isn't 100% positive.

According to the Videogamign247 blog, producer Richard Gaetan has confirmed that not only can the game only manage 720p resolution, but it also won't be able to hit 60 frames per second. The latter is a goal many FPS developers try to hit, but Gaetan simply says there's far too much going on to make this possible. Here's what he had to say on the subject-

"We wish it would be 60 frames a second, but no. With the world so big even in multiplayer the biggest maps are pretty huge the dynamic grass that can catch on fire, the trees that can be destroyed, the vehicles in there as well, there's so much going on that no, we're not at 60 frames per second."

Well, we can live with that. Besides, most everyone who has seen early footage of Far Cry 2 in action has been more than satisfied with the impressive visuals. Sometimes, people get a little too caught up in the technical side of things, so let's not shoot down this potentially fantastic FPS just 'cuz it doesn't run at 60fps. Hell, lots of great action games in the past - in this generation, even - didn't run at that speed.

Related Game(s): Far Cry 2

10/6/2008 Ben Dutka

Put this on your webpage or blog:
Email this to a friend
Follow PSX Extreme on Twitter

Share on Twitter Share on Facebook Share on Google Share on MySpace Share on Delicious Share on Digg Share on Google Buzz Share via E-Mail Share via Tumblr Share via Posterous

Comments (21 posts)

orangpelupa
Monday, October 06, 2008 @ 11:37:20 AM
Reply

btw,
theres a action shooter game that run in 1440x900 60fps. its CoD4.

but thats CoD4 running on PC >_<
i dont know the ps3 version run in what res and what fps.

i hope what Richard Gaetan says is about FarCry2 for console.

many will be dissapointed if the Resolution and FPS is capped at 1280x720 30fps. When their rig should be able to run it in 1440x900 60fps or higher.

Last edited by orangpelupa on 10/6/2008 11:37:42 AM

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Qubex
Tuesday, October 07, 2008 @ 12:09:55 AM

Well, this has always been my point from the start... how is "next gen" defined, and is the PS3 a truly "next gen" machine or a prequal to what the next PS will be able to do.

I have always said I think we have been given a taste of "next gen" in this generation, but true next gen will be 1080p as standard at 60 FPS, then we have the promise fulfilled!

Q!

" aLL RoAds LeAd ToO hOMe"

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Tim Speed24
Monday, October 06, 2008 @ 11:40:00 AM
Reply

Doesn't matter to me. I've seen the video footage of the game in action and it looks great. Can't wait to play this one.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Skatejimmy5
Monday, October 06, 2008 @ 11:52:54 AM
Reply

It doesn't really matter to me. I already got this game on pre-order, and nothing can make me regret it.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

AntDC
Monday, October 06, 2008 @ 12:28:55 PM
Reply

The map editor looks stunning in this game. It's a shame this isn't split screen multiplayer though.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

dillonthebunny
Monday, October 06, 2008 @ 1:19:53 PM
Reply

what FPS on the PS3 runs at 60fps anyway?

I would say Unreal Does, but i honestly couldnt say for sure.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Aftab
Monday, October 06, 2008 @ 3:10:14 PM
Reply

Nope. Not Unreal (only 30 fps). But COD4 does. Actually very few games at all, on either system, 360 or ps3, run at 60fps. WipeOut HD was the first one to do so, at 1080p, on the home consoles. Some say Ninja Gaiden Sigma was the first, but it didn't quite do 1080p.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

vasups3fan
Monday, October 06, 2008 @ 3:39:57 PM
Reply

ya...killzone 2 is 120fps???am i right???

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Qubex
Tuesday, October 07, 2008 @ 3:59:29 AM

Nope, that is far out man!

Q!

"aLL RoAds LeAd ToO HomE"

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Bugzbunny109
Monday, October 06, 2008 @ 4:16:25 PM
Reply

I thought that ps3 could process alot of information at once, so this "to much stuff going on" bothers me.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Qubex
Tuesday, October 07, 2008 @ 4:03:31 AM

Number of factors - actual memory bandwidth and how much can be physically stored. The CELL is an extremely fast chip, the problem is the processor sits and waits for memory. Memory is and will most probably always be the culprit when it comes to getting stuff to the processor fast enough... the other issue is the actual amount of memory...

The Cell could quite honestly be used for the next 10 years without an issue, the issue is memory for textures. If we could replace polygon count with 1080p hires textures across the board - then you could simply have ONE MEGA textures that is used across most of the world environment, and can be touched up and painted on digitally as if it were one big tile. Again, the problem is to store it, especially for the size of a Far Cry world, or Fall Out, these huge maps take up too much memory which we don't have. If the PS3 had to gigs of memory the 360 would look sad... the image quality would look insane and the CELL would be happy for 10 years... BUT WE DON'T!

Q!

"aLL RoAds LeAd ToO HomE"

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

WorldEndsWithMe
Monday, October 06, 2008 @ 4:22:31 PM
Reply

Not my thing, but Ben has a solid point here, people really get bogged down with technical specs these days, often not even giving a game a second look if it doesn't boast something nearly impossible. Maybe I'm getting out of touch or something but I honestly can't even see the difference in a good game running at 30fps versus one at 60. From the sound of it, this game will please the fans nonetheless.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

JPBooch
Monday, October 06, 2008 @ 4:44:27 PM
Reply

Thats because the human eye processes images at 30 fps. Therefore when you look at an image that is 30 fps compared to 60 it doesn't make a bit of difference.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

WorldEndsWithMe
Monday, October 06, 2008 @ 5:36:26 PM

I don't know the specs of the human eye but I agree with you here, there is a limit to what we can process and even after 1080p is replaced by something better I'm doubting we will be able to see much of a difference. That's why I don't buy the graphical comparisons people make betwixt PS3 and 360, when its the same game and not a port they look the same to me. I think most of this stuff is all in people's heads.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

xnonsuchx
Monday, October 06, 2008 @ 6:00:23 PM

Actually, you can notice a difference. Depending on lighting and other aspects, 50-60 fps can look a lot more fluid than 24-30fps. One way to test for yourself is if you have a computer game that allows you to adjust the fps (well, MAX fps)...I can personally attest to being able to tell the difference between even 45fps and 60fps.

Regardless of all the tech info, I still feel that 30fps is decent enough for games and would hardly complain about a game on that basis if it were excellent otherwise (and never dropped UNDER 30fps).

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

mk ultra
Tuesday, October 07, 2008 @ 2:00:07 PM

actually the human eye can see up to 120 fps

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Alienange
Monday, October 06, 2008 @ 7:21:37 PM
Reply

Classic example of a game limited by it's not being exclusive to PS3. 720p ? Not 60fps ? Too much going on ? The PS3 could handle all that and more but they won't do it because that's as far as the 360 goes.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

orangpelupa
Monday, October 06, 2008 @ 9:16:17 PM
Reply

@xnon
yeah 30fps is the minimal for decent fps.

i just hope its 30fps stable.

@alien
both PS3 and X360 doesnt have enough power to run it in 60fps.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

bamf
Tuesday, October 07, 2008 @ 12:11:26 AM

I'm sure with a helping hand from the cell the PS3 could do 60fps? When the devs assign one spe to do A.I. another spe to do particles and so forth I'm sure its powerful enough to handle everything thats going on if the devs were to work at it.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Qubex
Tuesday, October 07, 2008 @ 9:02:06 AM

bamf, that was the ultimate goal, but it may have fallen short once all the hype settled... I wait for PS4... I think that is the promised hardware Sony was really talking about...

Q!

"aLL RoAds LeAd Too HoMe"

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Alienange
Tuesday, October 07, 2008 @ 1:23:28 PM

@orangpelupa - So WipeoutHD running at 1080p with 60fps is a fluke? I've seen the videos of FC2 game play, there's not THAT much more going on. I guess we'll see when it's released.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Leave a Comment

Please login or register to leave a comment.

Our Poll

Will Advanced Warfare rejuvenate Call of Duty?
Yes, this is just want CoD needed.
I hope so; it looks promising.
I doubt it, but I'm not sure...
No chance; CoD is going down.

Previous Poll Results