Bloodborne is looking gorgeous. It’s even getting me hopeful about a PS4 version of Dark Souls 2; the gruesome and grotesque artwork really deserves the new console’s processing power – it looks amazing. Bloodborne, however, will only run at 30 fps. But this is on purpose.
In an interview with PlayStation Lifestyle, Bloodborne producer Masaaki Yamagiwa stated that while no official announcement has been made,
They will probably go for 30fps since that’s what they found to be the best fps (frames-per-second) to play action games. […] they weren’t targeting 60fps because it’s not first-person shooting, it’s an action game.
I’m not sure I understand why a first person shooter needs a higher frame rate than an action game. Surely at close quarters with melee weapons, or while taking on those enormous enemies, the more frames per second the better? This is probably just a compromise to keep the game looking so pretty at high resolutions, but I’m really surprised that frame rates are coming up so often with issues.
Based on what I’ve seen so far of the game, Bloodborne looks magnificent at 30 fps. It’s smooth and impressive. But do you think this is silly of game studios? Should they all be aiming for 60 fps, regardless of the genre? Other studios have come under fire for claiming that 30 fps is more “cinematic” than 60 fps – should it just become an industry standard to aim for the higher frame rate, or can action games sustain excellent gameplay without striving for those higher fps counts?
Last Updated: October 28, 2014