I have no idea why anyone would want to play 60FPS over 30FPS. 30 is just fine, why do you think “Cinematic Quality” is 24/1080.
IMO, anything over 30FPS looks I’m watching Univision. If preferred 343 to actually fix/keep bugs that they promised instead of upping to 60FPS.
60fps is the why people bought xbox one’s
> 2552709967384648;2:
> 60fps is the why people bought xbox one’s
At the same time, the ONE is capable of 4K output. Why didn’t they move up from 1080p to 4K?
EDIT - Defense before the onslaught.
Yes, I’m aware it’s not native 4K, but it’s 4K in the same sense that the 360 supported 1080p.
> 2533274807544947;1:
> I have no idea why anyone would want to play 60FPS over 30FPS. 30 is just fine, why do you think “Cinematic Quality” is 24/1080.
>
> IMO, anything over 30FPS looks I’m watching Univision. If preferred 343 to actually fix/keep bugs that they promised instead of upping to 60FPS.
They fixed/kept bugs and they upped it to 60 FPS
Typically, hardcore gamers who are familiar with the technical benefits of 60FPS recognize two things 1) That the “cinematic quality” argument is pretty much entirely pointless when talking about a different medium, and 2) that 60FPS improves the game. Increased frame rate buffers against lag and allows the presentation to run significantly smoother. Also, people who may complain about it now, simply aren’t used too it. The difference is jarring, but several games (CoD, Quake, fighting games, Titanfall, Dante’s Inferno, I think the Batman Arkham games, God Of War, etc.) all run at 60FPS and no one notices because there’s nothing else to compare it too. You only notice it so much because you have been playing 30FPS Halo your whole life. But 60FPS is objectively superior, from a tech and presentation perspective.
[Tell me which one seems smoother.
](http://www.30vs60fps.com/)EDIT: Also, you’ll want to turn stretching off.
> 2533274798011936;5:
> Typically, hardcore gamers who are familiar with the technical benefits of 60FPS recognize two things 1) That the “cinematic quality” argument is pretty much entirely pointless when talking about a different medium, and 2) that 60FPS improves the game. Increased frame rate buffers against lag and allows the presentation to run significantly smoother. Also, people who may complain about it now, simply aren’t used too it. The difference is jarring, but several games (CoD, Quake, fighting games, Titanfall, Dante’s Inferno, I think the Batman Arkham games, God Of War, etc.) all run at 60FPS and no one notices because there’s nothing else to compare it too. You only notice it so much because you have been playing 30FPS Halo your whole life. But 60FPS is objectively superior, from a tech and presentation perspective.
Understood, makes sense as I wouldn’t consider myself a gamer, as I only play Halo Games, but I’ve watched my brother-in-law play CoD, Titanfall, Etc. Seems to… Eh. I dunno. Like that odd, fake feeling of watching a BluRay at 600hz.
I’m used to my Sony with just 120hz
> 2533274798011936;5:
> Typically, hardcore gamers who are familiar with the technical benefits of 60FPS recognize two things 1) That the “cinematic quality” argument is pretty much entirely pointless when talking about a different medium, and 2) that 60FPS improves the game. Increased frame rate buffers against lag and allows the presentation to run significantly smoother. Also, people who may complain about it now, simply aren’t used too it. The difference is jarring, but several games (CoD, Quake, fighting games, Titanfall, Dante’s Inferno, I think the Batman Arkham games, God Of War, etc.) all run at 60FPS and no one notices because there’s nothing else to compare it too. You only notice it so much because you have been playing 30FPS Halo your whole life. But 60FPS is objectively superior, from a tech and presentation perspective.
60fps is objectively better than 30fps but only if it’s locked.
A locked 30fps is better than an erratic 45-60fps 
I’ve been watching some of the game footage now that YouTube is supporting 60fps, it just looks so much smoother but it did take me a few minutes to adjust to it. Halo running that smooth is going to be sooo good
As for framerate drops, I kind of expect that to happen occasionally
OP, are you a Ubisoft PR employee?
60fps improves gameplay; it’s not a point open to debate, it’s a fact based on how games work. You can debate all day about which one you prefer the look of (which still is silly to prefer choppy over smooth), but at the end of the day, gameplay is what matters in a game, and 60fps provides superior gameplay.
I can’t tell whether the OP is trolling or actually has this flawed way of thinking.
Myself, I will take it either way but if they have the capability to do 60 FPS I will much rather have that. If you play BF4 you will notice how much different it is. For an first person shooter it does make a significant difference.
you’re kidding, right?
for an fps, 60fps is a must, especially in a high-octane setting like what halo provides.
60fps is great.
I just hope they don’t go and up it in a couple of years because my TV is only 60hz, so above 60fps, I’m in trouble 
This whole… “Cinematic” argument… All stuff about how it’s objectively technically superior has already been said. So, I’m going to take a more artistic approach. Now, take Oliver Stone’s Natural Born Killers (an amazing 90’s film for those who don’t know). Now the film uses a large variety of film types, varying from HD full colour, to old grainy black and white. It does this to set different moods relating to the content of a scene, so you can really get a feeling of what’s going on. A big summer blockbuster like The Avengers uses HD digital film, and amazing realistic looking CGI to immerse you in the action, to make it as realistic and awe inspiring as possible. Now take an independent horror film like The Blair Witch Project. Uses hand held camera, all close up shots, shaking all over the place, on some cheap, everyday camera. It gives the film this really creepy vibe, the camera quality is low, there’s no fancy special affects, it’s just you, the characters, in this dark forest.
Halo I is a big budget summer blockbuster, with a huge universe to be immersed in, and therefore, it should be as realistic and fancy as possible. Full HD, high frame rate, lots of beautiful, high textures. This isn’t Alien Isolation, where some of the cinematics have been converted to VHS and messed around with to give it this creepy old looking feeling. It’s Halo.
> 2533274962205071;8:
> > 2533274798011936;5:
> > Typically, hardcore gamers who are familiar with the technical benefits of 60FPS recognize two things 1) That the “cinematic quality” argument is pretty much entirely pointless when talking about a different medium, and 2) that 60FPS improves the game. Increased frame rate buffers against lag and allows the presentation to run significantly smoother. Also, people who may complain about it now, simply aren’t used too it. The difference is jarring, but several games (CoD, Quake, fighting games, Titanfall, Dante’s Inferno, I think the Batman Arkham games, God Of War, etc.) all run at 60FPS and no one notices because there’s nothing else to compare it too. You only notice it so much because you have been playing 30FPS Halo your whole life. But 60FPS is objectively superior, from a tech and presentation perspective.
>
>
>
> 60fps is objectively better than 30fps but only if it’s locked.
>
> A locked 30fps is better than an erratic 45-60fps
Couldn’t disagree more. Anything consistently above 30 is preferable over a locked 30 to me. Less frames per second, less quality.
There are many benefits of 60 FPS that Halo is definitely benefiting from it this time around.
One of the main arguments against Halo back in the COD days were that COD felt more responsive. In truth, they tried their best to maintain a 60 FPS target. The thing about 60 FPS compared to 30 FPS is that the game feels more responsive at a higher framerate.
Movies have always been recorded at 24/1080, but that doesn’t mean that games should too. Most of the reasons films do that is because of them being (or at least used to be) recorded on film. Which naturally had a lower framerate.
> 2533274826920712;17:
> Movies have always been recorded at 24/1080, but that doesn’t mean that games should too. Most of the reasons films do that is because of them being (or at least used to be) recorded on film. Which naturally had a lower framerate.
There’s also the fact that movies are just that - movies. There’s no input, so the issue of responsiveness just isn’t there. That’s why even if you preferred a low-framerate + heavy motion blur look on games, attempting to approximate films, it still wouldn’t be desirable for gameplay, because higher framerate yields objectively better and more responsive gameplay as you point out.
Historically, I understand why they did 30fps. They wanted to push the visual fidelity of the game.
For Halo MCC though, pushing up to 60fps is a no-brainer. There is plenty of horsepower within the X1 to get those original engines up to 60fps.
For Halo 5 - I kind of hope they do a 30fps for single player campaign and 60fps for multiplayer. 60fps is just so much better for a competitive pvp experience. Aiming is just so much smoother and tight. But for single player campaign, I wont turn away a little eye candy, 30fps would be welcome.
Becuase 60 FPS is objectively better? The faster the frames switch the closer the picture is able to mimic natural human vision. And isn’t that a good thing?