PS4 NewsRatchet & Clank on PS4 Runs At A Solid 30fps, Analysis Reveals - PS4 News

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

Ratchet & Clank on PS4 Runs At A Solid 30fps, Analysis Reveals

Ratchet and Clank for PS4 releases today (it's already out here in our country), and early reviews shows that the game is getting great scores. Its current metacritic score is 4.5 out of 5. IGN gave the game a score of 9, while GameSpot gave it an 8 (great).  

Last year, Insommiac confirmed that they're targetting a 30fps for Ratchet and Clank PS4. Well, it seems that the game runs a solid 30fps. As showcased by Digital Foundry in one its latest videos, Ratchet & Clank has a 30fps rock solid frame rate, which only has a few hiccups getting the frames per second count as down as 28 fps. You could view the performance analysis in the video below.

 

Digital Foundry also said about how this Ratchet & Clank runs at 30fps, while previous titles ran at 60fps:

What I found is that it will take a bit of time to get used to; the controls aren’t quite as responsive as they were before. But after about an hour or so I kind of got used to it and got back into the swing of things.


Well, it doesn't matter to me if a game is running 30fps or 60fps. As long as the game doesn't have lots of bugs or glitches, then the game is good enough for me. Based on the reviews of the game that I've seen so far, the game is looking to be pretty good and I've become more excited on the game. Only a few more hours to go before my shift ends, then I'll be going straight to our game store to buy the game.  Can't wait! 

 

 

Related Game(s): Ratchet and Clank PS4

4/11/2016 10:50:39 PM Drew Constantino

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




New Comment System


Legacy Comment System (20 posts)


HANZ64
Monday, April 11, 2016 @ 11:52:30 PM
Reply

60FPS would have been better. But then again they wanted to up the quality in trade for a smooth experience.

I would want both... And this is exactly why I'm liking the PC platform more and more over consoles. On the PC at least I'll have the option to cap at 30fps/60fps and mess around with the graphics quality myself. (obviously I'll just max everything out ;)

Now if only this was available on PC...

Good thing I still have a PS4 lol.

(P.S. how would the PS4K run this game?)

Agree with this comment 0 up, 3 down Disagree with this comment

TheHighlander
Tuesday, April 12, 2016 @ 12:36:32 AM

You're assuming that PS4K will make existing units look obsolete, a move that essentially hurts Sony, imho. I still think that games will not offer significantly different performance on PS4K, otherwise you split the userbase and tick off the early adopters, the very people you want buying your stuff in future.

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

Killa Tequilla
Tuesday, April 12, 2016 @ 12:48:41 AM

I don't know why you keep saying such absurd claims. If anything it will help Sony in ways we don't understand. Do you really think a company will release a product with the intentions to fail or not make profit? I don't think so. Sony has data we don't. Remember, us on these forums are the minority. We don't dictate how Sony's business works.

Anyway, those are just rumors AFAIK. Maybe there isn't even a PS4K. Quite frankly, if there is, I am more likely to buy it in the future since I have become a PC gamer myself. It's really hard to go back to playing with lowered graphics and specially low frame rate. So a PS4k can mitigate those effects. Also, I'm was early adopter and I was never planning on ever purchasing a second Ps4. However, if PS4k is real, then I am more likely to purchase one. For the exclusive games. This also extends for their future consoles.

HANZ64, on Ps4k it'll probably run 30fps but with little to no dips in frame rate.

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

Hexen
Tuesday, April 12, 2016 @ 3:54:48 AM

I tried to get into PC games but I wasn't feeling, steam was worthless in my case.If they ever make it so that you pay a little extra for the games but they send you physical (original) case with original disc and maybe an instruction manual then I will give it another try.My rig is running wii and gamecube games at max settings so at least is doing something.

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

TheHighlander
Tuesday, April 12, 2016 @ 12:46:11 AM
Reply

30 fps is fine. Human reaction times are at best 0.2 seconds, at 30 fps each frame lasts 33ms, or 0.033 seconds. Visually 60fps will look smoother - on a screen without good motion processing. But on any decent TV, the difference isn't really huge.

Also, human vision is analogue, the brain doesn't experience each frame separately, it builds a picture conntinuously based on the optical feed from the eye. Perception is part actual observation, and part expectation. Expectations can alter perceptions, for better or worse.

I also doubt the ability of the digital foundary reviewers to detect any meaningful lack of response in controls. At 30fps, the game has time to handle everything and maintain extremely low lag between control input and action, the games has 0.033 seconds to handle it, rather than the 0.01667 seconds it would have at 60fps. It's more likely to be at least partly the psycho-somatic reaction from knowing the game doesn't hit 60fps. I'll have to research it, but I'd love to see double blind tests aimed at seeing whether people are able (objectively) to sense any lack of response with a game at 30fps.

Last edited by TheHighlander on 4/12/2016 12:48:40 AM

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

Killa Tequilla
Tuesday, April 12, 2016 @ 12:53:18 AM

Are you really trying to say that 30fps is fine and something about the eyes that can't see past it?

I mean, it's fine if you believe that but it stops being fine if you're spreading misinformation. I'm sitting here with my dual monitor setup. I have an ultra wide monitor capable of up to 75hz. Anyway, that's not the point. The point it that you can clearly and absolutely tell the difference between 30fps, 60fps, and 120/144fps. Next to my 75hz monitor is a 144hz monitor with 1ms input lag. The lowest it goes. You can see your framerate. There is a huge difference between 30 and 60 or 144.


Edit; I might have misread your post a little but 30fps isn't "fine". 60fps is a much better experience. If anyone has a more recent TV, then they can turn off their extra processes such as motionflow to reduce the response time of the tv. This helps in games and reduces motion blur.

Last edited by Killa Tequilla on 4/12/2016 12:58:38 AM

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

Killa Tequilla
Tuesday, April 12, 2016 @ 1:08:00 AM

"Visually 60fps will look smoother - on a screen without good motion processing. But on any decent TV, the difference isn't really huge."


Yes, it will look smoother. But for the second part I think your talking about something else. Motion processing reduces response time, not refresh rate. And how can the difference not be huge? You're seeing twice as many frames a single second. That's a huge difference. That is a 100% increase in frames.

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

Jawknee
Tuesday, April 12, 2016 @ 2:41:40 AM

Yea in my experience this just isn't the case. I've been playing SFV and Metal Gear Solid V for months, both of which run at a solid 60fps and when I go back to 30fps games it's immediately noticeable. And that's with the motion plus dectivated on my TV. It's a top of the line tv too. 60fps it's by far a better experience. Playing the Last of Us in 60fps vs 30 made a world of difference in not only how smooth the game looked but how it played.

Last edited by Jawknee on 4/12/2016 2:47:13 AM

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

TheHighlander
Tuesday, April 12, 2016 @ 2:52:42 AM

Jawknee, turn on the motion plus on your TV for games running at 30fps, and you'll notice how they suddenly look similar to the 60fps native games. Most of the difference you notice is literally in your head.

I'm not sure how you can bear to watch regular TV or movies since they typically run at 24 frames per second.

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

Jawknee
Tuesday, April 12, 2016 @ 3:02:57 AM

Thats because I watch movies with the motion plus turned on. Also I usually do play games with the plus on too just to get that extra boost in smoothness but it does not compare to a game with a native 60fps. In fact the only time I turn it off is when I play SFV because game mode is better for input lag. By default motion plus is turned off when in game mode. It's not in my head. I've played both versions of MGSV on my tv. The PS4 version is objectively smoother and it's noticeable, big time.

Last edited by Jawknee on 4/12/2016 3:09:12 AM

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

Killa Tequilla
Tuesday, April 12, 2016 @ 3:16:51 AM

I want to make a correction, above I said motionflow (or motion plus, different companies different names) reduces input lag. That's wrong, what I meant to say is it increases input lag.

It doesn't matter much outside of competitive play. But like jawknee says, turn it off if you are entering an online match in a fighting game.

Highlander come to my house, I will show you all the frames :)

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

Bio
Tuesday, April 12, 2016 @ 9:01:52 AM

It's weird to see all the mental gymnastics console-only players go through to defend 30fps when it's objectively inferior to 60fps.

The idea that "human vision is analog and builds a continuous picture" is meaningless. Jsut bceasue you can raed tihs setnece deosnt mean taht tihs is the bset way to wirte.

Your brain can take that jumbled mess I just wrote and translate it perfectly, with little effort, because our brains are cool shit. That doesn't mean anyone wants to read a novel written that way, because after awhile your brain will say "F this" and you'll go do something less ridiculous.

If you have someone play a shooter at 60fps and then have them play the same shooter at 30fps, without telling them when you switched it, they'll notice a difference. Frame rate matters, whether current consoles can handle them or not. The fact is, we could (and should) get every game running at 60fps, but publishers can't market games based on frame rate. They can market games based on pretty graphics, so every time consoles get a generational power increase, they go as HAM as they can on the pretty pictures and then hope the frame rate holds up.

I actually applaud 343 for using dynamic resolution and other tricks to keep Halo 5 at 60fps, sacrificing visuals to do it. The game, overall, is better for it. Unfortunately, it's a mega rehash on a flop console that I have no interest in buying, but I wish more developers went that route.

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

HANZ64
Tuesday, April 12, 2016 @ 9:06:55 AM

I have to disagree with you Highlander. Unless you prefer a movie style presentation, gaming at 30fps may be 'fine', but 60 fps is usually always better.

And I'm talking about native 60fps, not motion plus bluff.

And just like Killa Tequilla said, there is a world of a difference between 30fps, 60fps or 120fps and beyond (though I think beyond 120 is where you can argue it doesn't make much of a difference).

You say that most of the difference we notice is in our heads. Well obviously! What experience is there that isn't in our 'heads'? However, that doesn't somehow mean that there isn't an objective + noticeable difference between 30/60/120 fps.

You say expectations can alter perceptions. And I say so can complacency. If you are happy with 30fps that is fine. But that doesn't mean that there aren't others would prefer a higher frame rate, nor does it mean that it doesn't make enough of a difference for other people.

Not everyone's perceptions are the same, and I believe some have greater sensitivity/discernment than others when it comes to 'noticing' certain things (whether it be fps or whatever else).

Also, just to throw it out there, if you are someone who needs eyeglasses, you are in less of a position to judge this kind of thing.

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

TheHighlander
Tuesday, April 12, 2016 @ 12:32:04 PM

(too long; didn't read version)
30fps is preferable if it allows better motion blur and other effects to be implemented. 60 frames per second is better if there is little to no motion blur. Controller lag is a problem with Motion flow screen technology. Controller lag doesn't exist in games running natively at 30fps vs 60fps. Motion blur, frame rate and image persistence all matter.

Killa Tequilla, I know that turning on motion flow/motionj processing on an HD TV can introduce screen lag, it takes a couple of frames at least for most of those systems to process and present the image. I would never suggest otherwise. I'd suggest though that gamers with 120Hx and 240Hx screens which enable motion flow type processing by default should at least set the degree of processing to it's lowest setting, or disable it. The picture won't be that much smoother for you either way, but if you reduce the amount of processing to turn it off you reduce/eliminate screen lag.

As for games at 30fps being inferior, and so forth. It's interesting to me that cinematic presentations are still 24 frames per second, not 60, 120 or 240. The Hobbit was shot at 48 frames per second, but when audiences saw it, they were less impressed because they felt ot looked too clean, and too much like a video presentation.

This is apparently because the motion blur on the lower frame rates of film actual play into something our eyes do all the time, motion blur. When you focus on something the actual area of focus is comparatively small, everything else is slightly blurred. Eyes are analogue devices so when things are in motion, they perceive the scene with motion blur, not individual distinct images. If you've ever been in a darkened room with a strobe light flashing, you will understand what I mean.

If our eyes worked with a specific framerate, we could synchronize the strobe and it would like like a naturally lit scene, but we can't and we perceive the flicker. The reason is that each strobe flash gives a single image that is static, and we see the judder of the strobe because our eyes are constantly perceiving the visual information. Without the constant light, our visual system is unable to knit together everything into a single flowing vision, and instead we see the strobe and the flicker and things move in staccato fashion like a badly animated movie.

So, our eyes work best when the images we look at are persistent. Modern screens have a refresh rate that in essence strobes the picture 60, 120 or 240 times a second. The higher the refresh rate the less able our vision is to detect it, because it's perceiving many more frames, and is able to knit them together. On older CRT screens, the persistence of the image from one frame to the next meant that pictures looked good at lower frame rates because our brain wasn't being tripped by a flicker. Funnily enough if you take video of a CRT screen in action you'll see a flicker because the frame rates are too close to each other and your video can record partial refreshes of the screen that the brain doesn't perceive, even at comparatively low refresh rates like 24-30 Hz.

If a video game properly uses motion blur 30 frames per second will look damn good. the combination of motion blur and image persistence allows our brain to see the image the way it sees things normally. If a game uses no motion blur, or very little motion blur effect, than it requires a higher frame rate to achieve a similar level of visual fidelity for our vision. the higher frame rate combined with less motion blur creates a persistent image with just enough blur to convince the brain that this is a scene of flowing motion.

Of course this all breaks down when you start analyzing frame by frame because objectively more frames are better. However, the reason more frames are better is because it gives the brain more information to use. With no motion blur, a higher frame rate is needed so that the brain can construct the full motion image without perceiving motion judder.

The best example of this I can think of was when formula One racing first went from older analog cameras to digital ones. They were very sharp individual frames with no motion blue due to the digital cameras, but when viewed on TVs, especially LCD/LED screens, the lack of motion blur was very jarring, to say the least, and many wanted them to return to the old cameras. But technology improved, and the newer digital cameras capture motion blur on each frame. When viewed on TVs, this newer video looks much better to the viewer even through the frame rate is identical to the prior generation of digital camera - because of the motion blur.

The point being that framerate is not the be all & end all of video presentation. If presenting something at 30fps allows you to implement better shading, lighting, shadows and motion blur than you would be able to handle at higher frame rates, then 30fps *is* preferable to 60.

You won't experience any controller lag playing a game at 30frames per second anyway, the ideal that you can is purely psycho-somatic.

But, yes, many video games benefit from 60 frames per second because they do not do a good job of creating realistic motion blur, and the higher framerate is required on modern screens to create a persistent image that our brain can knit together (including motion blur).

Lastly, Killa Tequilla, If you're looking at individual frames of a game, you're missing the motion... 30fps vs 60fps is something that depends on a bunch of factors starting with the screen refresh rate, the persistence of the image on the screen, the motion blur in the image, the resolution, the brightness of the screen, your own vision, etc... Analyzing this frame by frame you will always think a higher frame rate is superior, regardless o actuality because frame by frame, more frames will always look better.

In effect, higher frame rates compensate for the lack of motion blur allowing the brain to perceive the image as motion without any juddering.

Hanz64, yes, I agree that beyond 120Hz is extremely questionable benefit because we stop perceiving individual frames before you even hit 120Hz. However motion blurring is the key. the reason 1080p24 looks right for movies is motion blur. The reason that 48p didn't work for the Hobbit was a comparative lack of motion blur combined withe the higher framerate created an image that was too clean and looked unreal because it lacked the motion blue we see in daily life. If you ramp up an image to 120Hz and each image is individually very crisp, you may see the scene better than you would see the same scene at 48 frames per second because at the higher frame rate, the image is effectively persistent like reality and the eye perceives motion blur based on the actual motion of objects in the scene - it's fast enough refresh to fool the eye. At 60fps, its pretty good, but not quite good enough, and we see things as being a bit too crisp. though many prefer that crisp presentation because they feel that in a game it is more realistic. At 30fps a crisp picture with no motion blur would judder visibly, frame rates below 30 would just get worse and worse.

So, 30fps can look better than 60fps if motion blur and other effects are turned up to 11. 60fps can look better if motion blur and other effects are not there, or are not done well, because the higher frame rate compensates for the lack of motion blur.

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

Bio
Tuesday, April 12, 2016 @ 3:30:26 PM

Film is shot at 24 frames per second not because it's some sweet spot for human vision, but because every foot of shot film is a ton of money, and 24fps is the bare minimum standard established by Hollywood years ago. People complained about The Hobbit being 48fps simply because they weren't used to it. That will change, as Luddites don't rule the world. The more 48fps film we see, the quicker people will come to prefer it, eventually forcing studios and theaters to replace their older systems.

It has absolutely nothing to do with fewer frames per second being better under any circumstances, and all the tech talk about motion blur and other features is just as applicable at 60 as it is at 30. It doesn't make 30 look or play better than 60.

There is a reason PC players aren't editing their .inis to lock down 30fps in their games. It's not because they can't, it's because why on earth would they? The only people making this argument are console fans trying to justify poor performance.

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

Killa Tequilla
Tuesday, April 12, 2016 @ 3:33:47 PM

-"As for games at 30fps being inferior, and so forth. It's interesting to me that cinematic presentations are still 24 frames per second, not 60, 120 or 240. The Hobbit was shot at 48 frames per second, but when audiences saw it, they were less impressed because they felt ot looked too clean, and too much like a video presentation."

I can't say anything about movies since I think movies and games are different. I'm pretty sure that if you research you'll come to find out why 24fps is the default option. I've done light research on this before and I remember that some directors actually want to shoot at higher frames. Also, it is easier to edit footage if it is shot at 24fps due to less frames per second. Regarding why people think The Hobbit looked weird, It's probably because they aren't used to the higher frames since 99.9% of movies are shot at 24fps.

-"The point being that framerate is not the be all & end all of video presentation. If presenting something at 30fps allows you to implement better shading, lighting, shadows and motion blur than you would be able to handle at higher frame rates, then 30fps *is* preferable to 60."

I'm pretty sure that everything you said above this post is technically correct. But it has nothing to do with video games. 30 FPS is preferable if you can implement better shading, lighting, and shadow, yes. But the point is that if you're a PC gamer, and you have the hardware, you don't have to sacrifice anything for a higher frame rate. This is where I think you're missing the point. Higher frame rate is much better all around, easier on the eyes and dare I say, perhaps better than higher resolution or polygon count, etc.

You're throwing all this knowledge at me trying to make a point why 24/30 fps is better for movies. This doesn't apply to games imo, just go to a PC and see for yourself. Watch a direct feed, not something on YouTube.

Last edited by Killa Tequilla on 4/12/2016 3:36:16 PM

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

Jawknee
Tuesday, April 12, 2016 @ 2:36:16 AM
Reply

I was hoping this would run at 60 but after playing the demo today at Best Buy the game is so gorgeous I don't care. It looks and plays fantastic. I hope his is successful so they will remake the other PS2 Games I missed.

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

Breadlover
Tuesday, April 12, 2016 @ 8:54:26 AM
Reply

I haven't seen much of the videos of actual gameplay, but if that smooth 30 fps helps give R&C a cinematic feel to it, then I love it already!

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

shaytoon
Tuesday, April 12, 2016 @ 11:10:33 AM
Reply

its times like these when i shake my fist at gamefly. 9 out of 10 times i get new games on day one (two technically for delivery but as long as they send it is all that matters)

today is not one of those 9 times. unfortunately this game ended up not becoming day one for me so now its a waiting game.

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

shaytoon
Tuesday, April 12, 2016 @ 5:46:51 PM

yay! the game shipped. ill be playing it this weekend after all.

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

How often do you visit the site?
Once a day
Several times a day
Every few days
Once a week
This is my first visit
I've never been here, even now I am not here

Previous Poll Results