Proof of what?

And I don't understand. The topic is about a tech analysis of R&C for PS4 in which the decision to make the game run at 30fps instead of 60fps was discussed. I wasn't taking the conversation in any direction it wasn't already set up to be in by the video itself and the content discussed within it, unless you mean the comment about the PS4 not being a powerhouse, in which case the proof is explicitely in the fact that it can't run this game at an appropriate framerate at 1080p when there is tech available today, regardless of how much exponencially more expensive they would be, that could do it easily.

I don't think I was being particularly harsh on the platform, as I didn't call it weak or underpowered, just that it couldn't run the game an appropriate framerate while pushing hardware-intensive graphics at a 1080p resolution, which is a fact. It can't. Which isn't an issue because it's a console and is meant to be affordable and accessible, not some benchmark machine. It's not meant or designed to push high intensive graphics and, like I said, it can still output absolutely excellent looking and visually impressive games at a playable framerate, including the game I'm criticising, by just lowering the resolution from 1080p to 720p and toning down some of the visuals a bit.

So I don't mean to be a rebel, but how exactly was that post taking the conversation somewhere it shouldn't go? Was I going off topic? Was I being unfair with my criticism? Should I not be criticizing that decision at all? Was I being inappropriately harsh on the game, the developer, or the platform in any way what-so-ever? Was I leading it in a direction where those concerns might become a reality?

There hasn't been a 60fps R&C game in7 years. I think people will be fine.

it is really rare and it is probably getting patched asap.

I was just trying to work out how to say the same thing. How are people accustomed to playing a game at 60fps that they haven't played in 10 years.

And also I only found out JUST NOW that R&C was 60fps. I had no idea and didn't care.

Frame dipping at 60fps is far more noticeable than at 30fps. That's why I much prefer a stable 30fps than a dipping 60fps.

And I can only look at one screen at a time so I don't need two screens lol

Considering everybody except Andrew from GameXplain has said that the controls are the problem in Star Fox, literally nobody except the most hardcore of apologists wants two screen Star Fox aiming. And this is coming from somebody who is usually a stout Nintendo guy. 

Let's not make an issue out of something that isn't one, especially if you're going to ignore the big problems with your very argument. 

Not sure if serious.  The frame-rate drops between the two games aren't even comparable, Star Fox's drops are way more frequent and way higher.

I don't think they would go with 60fps, no matter how much GPU juice you give them, they would still go with 30fps and better visuals (game looks great, but let's be realistic, that's not Pixar level, let alone ILM with Rango). It's simply design decision, just like, let's say, Zelda@30fps is design decision.

I REALLY liked that Tools Of Destruction and A Crack In Time looked as good as they did, and also ran at 60fps. I remember Insomniac stating that all future R&C games, starting with Into The Nexus (which I have yet to play), would be at 30fps, and being crestfallen at the news. It won't influence my purchase at all, but I still lament the loss of 60fps glory the first 2 PS3 games had.

The origin of that assumption precisely is the decision Insomniac (and too many developers) made to make their games run at 30fps. The reason that decision was made was specifically to cut gameplay corners as a way to achieve a visual fidelity they couldn't achieve on the platform they're working with without doing so because they make games on consoles, platforms not designed or priced to push high resolution intensive graphics at an acceptable framerate. That's a creative decision I take issue with, and a creative decision that was brought up, discussed, and even slightly criticized in the video that makes up the topic of this thread. I mentioned the PS4 specifically and only because this is a PS4 exclusive game, so there would be no reason for me to bring up other platforms. I've made similar comments about Sunset Overdrive, as well as any game on a console that isn't attempting to push boundries that directly effect gameplay in a positive way as an alibi for not running a game at 60fps. This is a sentiment I've echoed on countless occasions about many games for every single gaming platform.

I mention this in case you or anyone else feels that my statement had anything to do with the specific platform its on (it didn't), rather than the more general propensity for console developers exactly like Insomniac to make these kinds of decisions to make a game play objectively worse just to try and make their game compete visually with PC hardware that is deliberately designed and priced to outclass them, something I feel I shouldn't need to have to explain or defend because I wasn't being inflamatory anyway.

Needless to say, I feel the report was completely unwarrented. That being said, I do appreciate you catching me up. I didn't even think about that post after I posted it until you quoted me - that's how harmless I thought it was - which is why I wanted some clarification on the matter.