What Would Uncharted 3 Look Like At 60 Frames Per Second?

Eurogamer's Digital Foundry section does a fair bit of in-depth Xbox 360 vs PS3 comparisons, giving console fanboys the ammunition they need to slaughter one another -- metaphorically speaking -- but I'm a fan. They've noticed that recent marketing footage from Sony actually showed Uncharted 3 running at 60 frames per second, and it looks fantastic.

Of course Uncharted 3 is one of the most visually dazzling games of this generation, but it runs at a more standard 30 frames per second. Eurogamer's video gives you a look at what might have been, if the PS3 had a good deal more grunt. I'm actually one of the few folks that believes 60 frames per second adds a fair bit to a game, particularly action games -- I'd love to play Uncharted 3 with this improved frame rate.

Ah well, maybe in a next gen remake!

What if Uncharted 3 ran at 60FPS? [Eurogamer]

WATCH MORE: Playstation News


    Okay, now your just teasing us Mark. HAS IT BEEN BROKEN OR NOT?!? Im hardly ever up this early and I'm weighing up weather to just go to EB or not.

      Is it out?

      Yeah man, I just called in sick from work just incase it breaks!! At home waiting for word...

    well it should be out today


      If Sony AU has it then it's gotta be. Right?......right?

      lol, I never noticed that in the past, I wonder if stores would honour that.

      I mean, that IS the Official AU PlayStation site!

      Do you reckon EB would sell it to me if I showed them that?

        I mean, I'm paying $208 dollars for the game. You'd think I'd get special treatment.

          Oh dude.....import the same thing for $100. Sure it means waiting a few days but..

            I WANT IT NOW THOUGH!!!! I'm perfectly happy paying a premium on a game as good as Uncharted anyway.

              Yeah i know how you feel. Im buying the standard, playing through it, then putting it on ebay for $50-60, and buying the super special one early next year.

                I've refreshed Kotaku so many times today I think I might need an intervention. UNCHAAAAAARTED.

      I'm sorry, what am I missing? it says on that site that it's released on the 3rd... today being the 2nd, means it's not out today...

    Remember the days when if a game ran below 6O it was considered crap? I remember playing Crazy Taxi on Dreamcast, then switching to Conker's Bad Fur Day.....ugh!

    Call me crazy but I think 60 fps actually makes games look worse than 30fps. Uncharted, or Killzone, or Crysis 2 look far more cinematic than say Call of Duty. Or for a better example compare Ratchet and Clank all 4 one to the other 3 which run in 60. I think 60fps makes games look cheaper.


      Try looking at a single game at different fps. 60 is much better, the only reason some 30 fps games look better is from superior animation or textures. Not lower fps. :P

        It's a fair point, it's just not due to the frame rate itself, as you mentioned. If designed for 60fps it's always going to look better (smoother at the very least.).

        He's not trolling, I agree with him. There's just something about 60fps that's off-putting. Same reason I don't like the new 120htz TVs.

          Dont confuse actual 60FPS/120FPS with that 60hz/120hz/200hz motion flow crap. When the source is running at the advertised framerate its always going to look better. The practice of adding frames that aren't there via interoperlation is terrible and the tech needs to die.

            I'm not confused, I'm simply comparing the two. 60fps looks unnaturally smooth to me, I can't stand TV shows filmed at frame rates around that range either. I simply prefer the more cinematic 30fps.

          I asked my mate in TV production about it. He said its because 60 fps is actually day-time TV speed, which is why to most people it actually feels a bit cheap. Cinema is 24 as standard (though James Cameron is trying to change that), because for the most part increases in frames per second are not perceivable after that. Generally, the only time you'll notice a difference between 24 and 60 is wide sweeping shots or particularly high-speed segments which appear to stutter (Ignoring 3d, which has its own needs). Having not played the game, I can't tell you if 60fps is actually discernible. I suspect it would be, given the train segment in the last game.

            yea, 24 FPS in movies is something else that needs to die. Some people say that the eye can't tell the difference... but mine can! Plenty of other people's can too. I'm not really a fan of James Cameron, but I hope his push works. Things look so much more natural at higher frame rates.

            PC is where to look to see the difference in FPS for some games. Battlefield 3 runs at around 80fps and looks fantastic in motion. Naturally the PS3 doesn't look as good generally, but the motion is nowhere near as smooth. Given enough power, higher is better.

            30FPS is fine for a movie, where everything is scripted and nothing unexpected happens. However, games are much more 'fluid' than movies, so they require a much mroe 'fluid' framerate. 30FPS might seem fine if you are just riding in to the sunset, but what if you veer off into the jungle. What if you suddenly get into a firefire and start desperately looking around. What if more enemies than you (and the game) expected are on screen at once, in a specific location?

    I would rather less frames than blurry textures..

      Interesting......... I would prefer the exact opposite. Something that doesn't make my brain bleed after 10 minutes is worth a play no matter how fugly.

    I remember seeing trailers of Crysis 2 and going 'that looks awesome!' The feeling of disappointment when the PS3 version wasn't as smooth was very bitter. I'd never considered FPS to be a massive issue, but seeing as how it seemed ot make such a big difference in that game, it's now something I do take note of.

    If your TV supports it turn on Motion Plus. Then It looks like this

      Kinda, though Motion Plus tends to look a lot worse. I much prefer to see Uncharted running at 30fps, and it's one of the few games where I'd take that attitude.

    A next gen remake?... pfft, how about some solid backwards compatibility and an update to change the frame rate from 30 to 60 fps?

    Firstly motion plus is an abomination and no movie at 24p should have it. Games shouldn't have it either because it's not a true representation of high framerate and essentially will judder and change do the 'interpretive' nature of the tech.

    30fps games can play well if there is some flavour of motion blur as it gives games that 'cinematic' feel. Without it they can just look and feel crap. Crysis was able to pull this off and seemed to be playable at lower than normal fps due to the inclusion of motion blur.

    60fps is the magic fluid number though that knowing the framerate becomes difficult to nail (120fps or more is purely guessing as far as I'm concerned). Coming from a PC background especially the grand days of CRT's, real 120hz screens and massive framerates were the norm. Keeping track of things also was a lot easier since it was so fluid. High framerate is far as I'm concerned is needed for any twitch shooter. There were also engine glitches/exploits in older games in which higher framerate enabled you to do things movement wise that weren't posssible at other framerates. Quake is good example of this (see: http://www.funender.com/quake/articles/fps.html). This has lead to game engines being internally capped at certain framerates to prevent this.

    Kmart is selling uncharted 3 in port pirie, street date broken

    Wait... 30FPS is the standard for consoles? Jesus Chirst! When my PC games hit 30 FPS I say 'whelp, looks like my graphics card is 5 years old, time for a new one!'. Wow. I cannot imagine playing games lower than the stock 60FPS i've enjoyed all my life. Wow

Join the discussion!

Trending Stories Right Now