I'm pretty sure that its 30fps @ 720p.

Anyways the extensive use of motion blur in MGS4 goes a long way in making 27-30fps look a lot smoother than it really is.

27 my hairy arse!

Jesus christ, who gives a fuck, you can play it right? - YES, quite awesomely.

No need to have a blue.

The overall point is that even though the game is amazing, sony sold us on hype. The 1080p at 60 FPS was a claim that no dev has yet to achieve. And is MGS4 can't do it, they I don't think it will happen anytime soon. I love MGS4 but to say it is without flaw is just foolish.

I think it's only people like Leo-j that have any problem with this. The game plays smooth enough. The part they tested was the single player which doesn't need to be that high of a frame rate to be good enough. This is nothing new for anyone that tweaks their computer for framerate on a PC. For single player, you try to get the highest quality that is playable. For multiplayer you tune the graphics down a bit more to get a higher framerate. MGS has the best graphics they could produce at a playable framerate. It actually would have been irresponsible for them to go for 60fps. It would have cost them graphic quality to do so.

I give this thread a 9.7.

27-30fps is just fine. The standard for movies is 24fps. Unless an object is moving across the screen extremely fast, I don't think you need 60fps. As omgwtfbbq said, it's an MGS game and therefore a slow stealth-based game and doesn't need a high fps. Low fps will hardly be noticable. Until you get to the few in-game cutscenes with Jack (still can't spell the R word, someone help me out here), he moves fast and the frame-rate kind of becomes noticable with him.

I've seen really small dips in framerate here and there in MGS4 but nothing that would make me say it actually has framerate or have any sort of negative opinion performance on it.

As long as the game consistently stays about the 24-25 FPS mark that's good (note that this rule wouldn't apply if the game were allowed to run above 30FPS).

-edit-

As long as the framerate stays consistent and it doesn't dip to something really low like 20FPS having an average framerate of 27 is good.  Now if the game went up to 60 FPS and occassionally even dipped to 30 then it would look terrible.

Hmm 27 fps? Thats about 24 more fps then a midrange PC will run Crysis at. Fine with me. Lol here comes the rage and quotes from toms hardware.

What do you mean by a "mid-range" PC?

Because on medium settings at a resolution that is similar to 720p you should be able to run Crisis at 30 to 60 fps on a $500 PC ... Certainly, if you want ultra-high settings with a resolution far higher than 1080p it will be difficult to maintain 30fps on an affordable system but that is hardly a fair comparison.

I hope Shio doesn't see this.

Anyway, this isn't PC vs PS3 and its best that we leave it at that.

The new radeons absolutely change up the price/performance ratio once more considering that the PS3 hasn't had a price drop since their release. They are smoking HOT!