The numbers are less important than the manner of selection (to a point). I can't speak for the study either way, though.

T3H CELL

depends on the game really.

First person shooters and racing games are pretty bad when they aren't played at 60 fps. RPG's don't really matter. Cartoony games like Ratchet and Clank and Mario Galaxy get a huge benefit from 60 fps. Whereas more realistic looking games benefit from a lower framerate to look more realistic, 60 fps is unnaturally smooth for those types of graphics.

This is a great decision for Incomniac. IMO there are many things that can be done that are much less costly to nulify the need for a 60fps game now days. The only reasons I ever hear fps fan boys brag about high fps are;

-sense of motion
-animation
-more precises controls

I beleive Uncharted 2, and Killzone 2 proved sense of speed and annimation have no excuses anymore. As far as controls go, I just want the game to work and feel right. I have more to do thaan waoory about how precise the controls are, because I have spent 400 hours playing said game in online compotition.

I am a gamer for the experiance, the story, and the engagement only games can provide. If 30fps is what is needed to provide more animated charicters, more explosions, and more artistically inspiring moments, then I am all for it.

Hell yeah! That was a good blog post imo.

and R3 won't be 60 fps.

I think it depends on the game for me. Slower games I don't mind having a bad frame rate while faster ones it is definitely going to be noticeable. I remember playing oblivion on my laptop and thinking the FPS was around 30, I checked with "show fps" and it averaged around 15fps. Now for a game like say, Quake, I want 60fps all of the time. It is just too fast, and that difference can just cause you a death.

Play Mario Sunshine then play Mario Galaxy.

Now tell me you don't notice the difference between 30 and 60FPS.

60FPS feels sooooooo much better. I will never buy one of their games again if they sell out like this.

Sure, unless it comes at the cost of a less fluid game.

Graphics > Framerate sounds stupid though, imo. I don't care how much eye candy there is if the game has bad framerate.

I'd be in the "as long as it's a solid frame rate" boat myself. However, I like how smooth the first PS3 Ratchet and Clank game felt with a solid 60fps (I haven't played the other two yet and I probably wont buy QFB as long as it's just on PSN).

it doesn't matter what the framerate is as long as it is stable and constant. the last thing i want is to have 60 fps on a game then have it chug when enemies fill the screen.