The 60FPS with Halo 5 gameplay feels excellent, but my personal thought about it is that 343’s goal was too based on consistent 60FPS for entire gameplay. To keep the consistent 60FPS, they removed lots of things, or some. The multiplayer maps are not better than Halo 4’s. The grounds are mostly flat and looks similar to each other. My point is why did they set a goal at keeping 60FPS. They should make a game with satisfying maps, design, campaign, etc. The 60FPS is secondary, if they have extra time to work on it and the game was good without 60FPS. Warzone could have more than 24 players, but it seems to be they limited to 24, because of 60FPS. On next Halo games, I hope they set proper goals for Halo.
60fps was a -Yoink!--if-you-do / -Yoink!--if-you-don’t proposition. By doing it they earned the fury of the split-screen crowd. If they hadn’t done it these forums would be over run by people pointing and laughing at the “next gen console flag ship title” that can’t even muster 60fps like every PS4 game has done since that console launched. There just wasn’t any way they were going to come out of this thing looking good. Personally, I’m glad they chose the 60fps path, but my heart goes out to the people who’ve played this game cooperatively for fifteen years and now can’t.
> 2533274873843883;2:
> 60fps was a -Yoink!--if-you-do / -Yoink!--if-you-don’t proposition. By doing it they earned the fury of the split-screen crowd. If they hadn’t done it these forums would be over run by people pointing and laughing at the “next gen console flag ship title” that can even muster 60fps like every PS4 game has done since that console launched. There just wasn’t any way they were going to come out of this thing looking good. Personally, I’m glad they chose the 60fps path, but my heart goes out to the people who’ve played this game cooperatively for fifteen years and now can’t.
This is exactly what happened.
> 2535456165221911;1:
> The 60FPS with Halo 5 gameplay feels excellent, but my personal thought about it is that 343’s goal was too based on consistent 60FPS for entire gameplay. To keep the consistent 60FPS, they removed lots of things, or some. The multiplayer maps are not better than Halo 4’s. The grounds are mostly flat and looks similar to each other. My point is why did they set a goal at keeping 60FPS. They should make a game with satisfying maps, design, campaign, etc. The 60FPS is secondary, if they have extra time to work on it and the game was good without 60FPS. Warzone could have more than 24 players, but it seems to be they limited to 24, because of 60FPS. On next Halo games, I hope they set proper goals for Halo.
I’d rather have mediocre graphics than a crap framerate. 30 fps feels like crap for a first person shooter period
> 2533274873843883;2:
> 60fps was a -Yoink!--if-you-do / -Yoink!--if-you-don’t proposition. By doing it they earned the fury of the split-screen crowd. If they hadn’t done it these forums would be over run by people pointing and laughing at the “next gen console flag ship title” that can even muster 60fps like every PS4 game has done since that console launched. There just wasn’t any way they were going to come out of this thing looking good. Personally, I’m glad they chose the 60fps path, but my heart goes out to the people who’ve played this game cooperatively for fifteen years and now can’t.
Well said. Exactly my feelings down to the final .
I’m glad they went with 60FPS. It makes the game look smooth and more importantly, makes the game more responsive, which in my opinion is required for the faster gameplay of this game.
> 2535456165221911;1:
> The 60FPS with Halo 5 gameplay feels excellent, but my personal thought about it is that 343’s goal was too based on consistent 60FPS for entire gameplay. To keep the consistent 60FPS, they removed lots of things, or some. The multiplayer maps are not better than Halo 4’s. The grounds are mostly flat and looks similar to each other. My point is why did they set a goal at keeping 60FPS. They should make a game with satisfying maps, design, campaign, etc. The 60FPS is secondary, if they have extra time to work on it and the game was good without 60FPS. Warzone could have more than 24 players, but it seems to be they limited to 24, because of 60FPS. On next Halo games, I hope they set proper goals for Halo.
For me, there’s no excuses for a modern shooter being less than 60 fps. So I’d rather lose splitscreen or have less Warzone players (even though I don’t recall 60 fps being a bottleneck for number of players) to maintain the framerate. When you go back to playing Destiny or other 30 fps shooters it feels like stepping back in time.
> 2533274848285823;7:
> > 2535456165221911;1:
> > The 60FPS with Halo 5 gameplay feels excellent, but my personal thought about it is that 343’s goal was too based on consistent 60FPS for entire gameplay. To keep the consistent 60FPS, they removed lots of things, or some. The multiplayer maps are not better than Halo 4’s. The grounds are mostly flat and looks similar to each other. My point is why did they set a goal at keeping 60FPS. They should make a game with satisfying maps, design, campaign, etc. The 60FPS is secondary, if they have extra time to work on it and the game was good without 60FPS. Warzone could have more than 24 players, but it seems to be they limited to 24, because of 60FPS. On next Halo games, I hope they set proper goals for Halo.
>
>
> For me, there’s no excuses for a modern shooter being less than 60 fps. So I’d rather lose splitscreen or have less Warzone players (even though I don’t recall 60 fps being a bottleneck for number of players) to maintain the framerate. When you go back to playing Destiny or other 30 fps shooters it feels like stepping back in time.
I’m glad they did on 60FPS,but I don’t mind with 30FPS
The universal 60FPS feels great, but if I knew that 343 would be cutting several features in order to allocate most of their resources towards that goal, I would have complained in a heartbeat. I’d rather they spend most of their time and resources on major staple features and gameplay mechanics than on a stable frame rate. IMO the absence of split screen and other features at launch hurt Halo 5 more than 60FPS could ever help it.
> 2535456165221911;8:
> > 2533274848285823;7:
> > > 2535456165221911;1:
> > > The 60FPS with Halo 5 gameplay feels excellent, but my personal thought about it is that 343’s goal was too based on consistent 60FPS for entire gameplay. To keep the consistent 60FPS, they removed lots of things, or some. The multiplayer maps are not better than Halo 4’s. The grounds are mostly flat and looks similar to each other. My point is why did they set a goal at keeping 60FPS. They should make a game with satisfying maps, design, campaign, etc. The 60FPS is secondary, if they have extra time to work on it and the game was good without 60FPS. Warzone could have more than 24 players, but it seems to be they limited to 24, because of 60FPS. On next Halo games, I hope they set proper goals for Halo.
> >
> >
> > For me, there’s no excuses for a modern shooter being less than 60 fps. So I’d rather lose splitscreen or have less Warzone players (even though I don’t recall 60 fps being a bottleneck for number of players) to maintain the framerate. When you go back to playing Destiny or other 30 fps shooters it feels like stepping back in time.
>
>
> I’m glad they did on 60FPS,but I don’t mind with 30FPS
Personally, I haven’t noticed or been affected by any sacrifices made to keep the game at 60 fps. The lack of splitscreen is a shame but the actual scale of it has become more of a negative publicity issue than a game-breaking problem. All modern shooters should be locked at 60 fps and use dynamic resolution to stay there, Halo 5 and COD have both come together in doing this and both have seen great results.
I think it was a necessary goal; but it wasn’t properly achieved.
Specially when at just 25m they start cutting frames out if animation to achieve it.
Its still 60fps, just starts cutting out certain ones. Gets worse (looks pretty funny) at longer ranges when viewed from a respawn screen or a sniper.
> 2533274807544947;12:
> Specially when at just 25m they start cutting frames out if animation to achieve it.
>
> Its still 60fps, just starts cutting out certain ones. Gets worse (looks pretty funny) at longer ranges when viewed from a respawn screen or a sniper.
The irony here is how under powered a console has to be for them to have to cut animation speed to maintain that framerate. Even a pc outdated by 4 years can get 60fps at higher graphics then these consoles. Even the ps4 is underpowered
I still don’t understand why so many are defending/fine with everything that was cut/truncated just to get 60fps.
EVERY other Halo game before this one was 30fps, and no one complained AT ALL.
Game devs need to stop prioritizing framerate and graphics over content and gameplay, and gamers need to not be so obsessive over graphics.
> 2533274792776027;14:
> I still don’t understand why so many are defending/fine with everything that was cut/truncated just to get 60fps.
>
> EVERY other Halo game before this one was 30fps, and no one complained AT ALL.
>
> Game devs need to stop prioritizing framerate and graphics over content and gameplay, and gamers need to not be so obsessive over graphics.
Because they were on an old outdated system
> 2533274800913490;15:
> > 2533274792776027;14:
> > I still don’t understand why so many are defending/fine with everything that was cut/truncated just to get 60fps.
> >
> > EVERY other Halo game before this one was 30fps, and no one complained AT ALL.
> >
> > Game devs need to stop prioritizing framerate and graphics over content and gameplay, and gamers need to not be so obsessive over graphics.
>
>
> Because they were on an old outdated system
But; at the same time; I would rather have a 30fps with split screen.
Yes; 60 looks very natural and great. But bot worth the cuts.
As you stated; this generation of gaming hardware really dropped the ball.
I foresee next gen merging more into a PC type (upgrade as you go) set-up.
People will complain; but it’s really the only smart move to make next. No more 5-10 year hardware locks.
I thought the PC crowd where the only one who shouted for 60fps. I’m totally fine with Halo 6 being 30fps and I game a lot on computer with 60+fps. Fps whores can go cry. Id say more people mean bad graphics are a bigger reason not to buy a game than 30fps.
I agree. 1080p 30fps with better visuals would have been better. It looks like they reduced a lot of the textures in order to get to 60fps. Look at the ground on Warzone maps. Absolutely terrible. Also, I don’t feel the difference between 30fps and 60fps. Sure it looks a little smoother, but it doesn’t play any better. If them pushing for 60fps is what made them cut split-screen as well, then I think that is another reason why it should have been 30fps instead. Destiny is only 30fps, and it plays and feels perfectly fine, and since it is, it can be a lot prettier too.
Edit: someone liked this 6 years later. I am wrong in this post. 60fps is absolutely worth it.
To go back to 30FPS!!
no. I’m glad 343i is sticking with 60fps as it should be.