It looks very nice, who cares

When does it run at 60fps?  The highest I see from the info available is 30fps.

Looks fine to play and at no point have I found gameplay in any way impacted by framerate.

Also of course it could be done on 360 but it would need adapted and multiple disks. Likewise I haven't seen anything on 360 you could put on PS3.

Its funny all this talk of framerates and resolution - the HD consoles have done a great job of bringing the traditional wrangling discussions of PC gamers to the masses! I guess the sheer number of PC like games now hitting consoles (FPS in particular) and the focus on graphics the whole notion of HD raised is too blame though.

The even funnier thing is that consoles are still behind PCs and I've been switching from PC to consoles to avoid these arguments as I liked the whole 'it works and its on your TV in front of a big comfy couch' promise of console gaming.

And here we have everyone worrying about FPS and resolution... oh well, I guess I can always spend more time on my PC and 'bitch' about consoles dumbing down games!

J-oel have you even played the game?

Maybe that's because Heavenly Sword is a fast-paced action game and MGSIV is a slow paced stealth shooter?

Obviously, low framerates will be less noticable on slow paced games because everything is moving slower. These figures don't surprise me at all. Nor do they matter, from all accounts the low framerate is barely noticable except in rare circumstances, so who cares what the number is.

Just stop pretending it's not true, and that your magic eyes can somehow tell better than software analysis.

Funny - Apart from the usual fanboy wranglings I haven't seen any real criticism of the frame rate/resolution. Its just nice information to have, its for rational members of Vgchartz to apreciate more than anything. The framerate is fine and dandy and everyone with sense or has played the game can see that.

Certain individuals believe that the game runs at 60fps and in the interest of stopping that spread of misinformation I felt it was appropriate to post some real data to the contrary.

Since this whole thread hasn't devolved into 360vsPS3 or PCvsPS3 im pretty pleased with the overall result.

Considering how mind blowing this game looks, how detailed the characters and enviroments are and how many things happen on screen at once, all the bullets flying everywhere, explosions and tens of AI controlled soldiers fighting against you or with you or simply against each other, i'd say we are looking at a technological marvel here guys.

Yeah - I was mostly joking.  The last few days most posts I've read have been pretty well conducted which is great.

60fps?  That seems unlikley - well, maybe when you're crawling face down slowly and position the camera looking directly down... I'd imagine that isn't too taxing on the PS3 no matter what's going on around you.  I actually crept like that through some pretty big battles just to see what would happen - which was nothing unless I stuck my head up for a look around.  I so suck as stealth as I keep getting dragged into the action.  My kill count is high already and  haven't even finished the thing.

While MGS has never been graphics dependent, it is somewhat odd to see this game not be a little better in FPS. But its really no big deal.

It's mostly running at around 30 FPS. There's a little stuttering in some situations but nothing serious and at times it's 60 FPS for a short while but it's nothing serious either. No, it's not between 30 FPS and 60 FPS either - it's 30 FPS with a little stuttering sometimes.The runs just fine, it's not that bad to have a framerate of 30 FPS. The game is still excellent. Oh, and it clearly is 30, not 60. If you say it's 60 FPS, you obviously haven't played any 60 FPS games. Yes, I've played it - three times actually, and I'm planning to play again a few times.

Oh, and it appears that MGS4 might actually have a few pre-rendered scenes. Only a few, though, but still some.