By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
noname2200 on 31 October 2009
Edit Thread
c0rd said:
noname2200 said:
Darc Requiem said:
Sounds like a cop out on Insomniac's part. Cutting the framerate from 60fp to 30fps is an easy way to increase graphical fidelity.

Can you really call it a cop out if they openly acknowledge that that's what they're doing? One of the reasons I respect this post is that they say, quite honestly, that they're willing to sacrifice framerate to make things look better, and that they're doing this because their polling data says that more people prefer prettier graphics than rock solid performance. They didn't hem and haw, or try to justify it for any other reason.

Not sure if you read my earlier post, but I don't think that poll is useful for telling us anything, much less people preferring graphics to performance. If I set up a poll asking "How much does graphics matter to you in games?" and the choices looked like this:

"Killzone/Uncharted 2 graphics or no buy!"
"Resistance 2 was cool."
"As long as it looks good."
"Graphics don't really matter to me."

I imagine not too many people would select the first (and those people would be liars, or graphic whores!). Then I'd conclude framerate is more important, even though it had nothing to do with the poll!

Now, I just noticed he did respond to someone that pointed out the same thing, and he said, "That poll was extremely informal and didn't play a significant part in the decision process." However, it still shows me they're willing to manipulate data in order to prove their point. I don't like it.

As for the review score data, I'm not convinced. They say they found no correlation between framerate and graphics scores, which gives them a reason to drop framerate. However, I'm wondering how they managed to figure this out. Don't most games more or less play at the same framerate? Besides, they also found no correlation between gameplay and final scores. It means I could make the point they made about framerate:
"Framerate Gameplay is important, but not critically so. When there is a clear choice between framerate better gameplay and improved graphics, graphics should win. The correlation with review scores is clear." 

Lastly, we don't know what examples they used. It could've been cherry picked. Why not just ask the reviewers themselves, if they care so much about review scores?


I may sound too critical on them, especially when I don't even care what decision they make (not an Insomniac fan). I'm just speaking up because their data just doesn't look right for justifying what they're doing. Hell, on one of their points they make, they say players feel rewarded (as in, it's a good thing) when they cause the game's framerate to drop. That's a little crazy.

You're correct on all counts there. I'd add that the poll was as unscientific as can possibly be. And I hadn't seen the response that you mentioned. That last part in particular does weaken my statement a bit (I'm referring to the "didn't play a significant part" portion). Overall though, I'm still okay with what they're doing; in the end they're openly admitting that "we don't think performance matters as much to the bottom line as graphics, so we're going with graphics."

I have to imagine that they honestly believe this, or they wouldn't be going this route. Even if they cooked the numbers in favor of their decision (and you've done a good job of showing that they may have), I feel that they're doing this to make the transition more palatable for the minority of people who read their blog: in the end they're doing this to go after more sales, and I respect them for saying that.