Yeah but these games more than most require split second timing.

While I’m glad that a 60 fps option exist, I comment to show that there are a small sub set of gamers who like playing single player games with all the graphical bells and whistles at 30 fps.

In SP games 60 fps and 30 fps is negligible to me after 10 minutes of playing (60fps is better but I get lost in the game so I stop noticing).

While at 60fps I do notice the reduced resolution and textures so ultimately I chose 30 fps for games like Ratchet and Spiderman.

I hope devs keep allowing us a choice.

I feel that you get a much bigger improvement in a game from the fps boost than a typically relatively modest resolution and details boost.

Once you start playing the fluid motion is far more important than a graphical boost that you don’t notice during the action.

But I do feel people should get the choice.

Options are fine but I will always be framerate>graphics. Resolution and graphics don't have a direct effect on gameplay. Framerate does.

@Espangerish

I know that most people prefer fps but having tried the two I personally prefer seeing a crisp resolution and very high rez textures in my play through at the sacrifice of frames.

I just love beautiful graphics in single player games. I would hate for devs to take away the option I enjoy more.

That’s why I think the option should remain. Best of both worlds.