They felt 60fps is only necessary for games that NEED those extra frames for accuracy. They aren't making FPS games anymore and their games are normally VERY rough on the console they're made for, making 60fps a miracle each and every time they got it. 

I'm gonna go on a tangent for a moment to make that point clear. The original PS3 had emulation for PS2; Ratchet as a series was one of the few games that didn't work on PS3. That's because during the development of UYA and GC they pushed the PS2 past its limits, using workarounds JUST to get the game to run. UYA was reprinted hundreds of times just to get certain segments of code onto the inner rings of the disc to load fast enough. They hacked into the EULA to provide patches to UYA's multiplayer. THAT'S the kind of stuff that they had to do to achieve 60fps. Moreover, CiT was so unfinished because they aimed for 60fps still. Had the dropped earlier, they could've achieved much more in the 9 month development cycle and the game could've felt complete with a good amount of the Insomniac museum cut content appearing in-game. 

TL;DR it's a lot easier for them to go for 30 and focus on making the game look REALLY good. 

No...they aren't particularly fast paced.

What? Platformers are always ALL about the gameplay and everything feels way more responsive at 60fps, and good platformers are usually very fast paced

Even Mario Galaxy on the super outdated Wii was running at 60fps because it was a huge improvement in the gameplay, that was 10 years ago, I would expect platformes today with that standar, in fact, almost every platformer is 60fps this days.

Not a remastered. But a reboot.

Something similar to what Crystal Dynamics did with Tomb Raider.

Lets hope its as successful as TR

R&C isn't a platformer. Like Borderlands isn't a RPG.

It's not a reboot. The current timeline is still intact. It's more like a comic alternate continuity. There's like 50 different Batman timelines but each one can exist simultaneously. A gaming example would be Sonic and Sonic Boom but that's a poor example because Boom was garbage. 

The only reason we're getting this game is really because Ratchet 1 is too different from the rest of the main series games to accurately draw in new fans. If kids could play Ratchet 1 played like the others we would've likely gotten a remaster/port of the HD collection rather and a new game continuing after ItN. We're still probably getting a post-ItN game after this honestly. 

Damn, they couldn't wait till E3? More evidence of how impatient we are.

It is a reboot, like amazing spiderman ( but not as bad )

Don't think there's any need to argue what to call this at the moment, it's looking pretty amazing, that's all that matters for now. :D

The Amazing Spider-Man series has existed for over 50 years. It's existed throughout several different Spider-Men, including: Spectacular, Sensational, Web of, Spider-Man 2099, Ultimate Spider-Man, etc.. There are dozens of Peter Parkers, and another Spider-Man entirely by the name of Miles Morales. The 2012 movie was based off of this series and predates Toby MacGuire Spider-Man and even Toby MacGuire himself. 

And if you're going to CONTINUE to doubt that it's not a reboot, I'll mention again that Insomniac had outright said every time they've been asked since they revealed the game that it's a re-imagining. They are redoing the first game with the mechanics they have now, with a slightly altered plot to account for the dozens of species and weapons introduced since 2002 and to work with TJ Fixman's vision of the movie. A reboot would imply we're never seeing the old Ratchet again, but from what we can tell the series will continue as usual after this one game. Even if it WAS a reboot, we wouldn't know, because this plot still fits in snug with the original game in the timeline, except that we (the fans) know about Nefarious and  the Galactic Rangers two years sooner in the continuity.