After playing H2A multiplayer, I am abandoning my hope for a 60fps Halo 5. I would much rather have a STABLE 30fps game with beautiful visuals than one that has horrid pop-in textures and drastically varying frame rates that mess with the flow of firefights as the case with Halo 2 Anniversary maps. On small maps, this doesn’t seem to be a problem but once you get on the medium sized scale of Zanzibar and even Shrine which is relatively small, it becomes very apparent.
Unless the game can HOLD at 60fps rather than have the max set for 60, make it 30.
Well halo 5 has been built from the ground up to run on the XB1 where as the MCC did not have enough time to be fully optimized for the XB1. I want 60 fps and from watching the videos from halofest I didn’t see any texture popping going on so I’m remaining optimistic.
Please, no. I can understand why people say that 30 FPS feels more cinematic, but 60 FPS is required in games that are combat-centric.
Developers just need to learn how to make their games run well and look pretty. 343industries never had to force Halo to render double the framerate until now.
The only reason MCC is having these issues is because all of the games weren’t made for the X1. Plus with all the other work required for the other three games I can see why they had an issue. Where as Halo 5 is being made from the ground up FOR the X1 and they won’t have as many developmental barriers with it as MCC presented. I have very high hopes for Halo 5 for both MM and story line. I think 343i learned from their mistakes with Halo 4 and hoping they learn from the ones with MCC as well with no rushing a game to meet the deadline and miss tons of bugs and glitches.
The human eye can see a maximum of 60 FPS. Cutting that in half would be equivalent to having blinks twice as long as normal throughout your normal day. I understand your concerns with frame rate issues, however I believe they will be able to conquer this, given that they’ve had some time to experiment already now.
> 2533274903612999;6:
> The human eye can see a maximum of 60 FPS.
Technically we can easily see above 60 FPS to theoretical speeds of 200 FPS and higher. Additionally, we don’t see in “frames”, but rather a constant stream of analogue input. Sorry, had to be that guy.
> 2533274881015020;7:
> > 2533274903612999;6:
> > The human eye can see a maximum of 60 FPS.
>
>
> Technically we can easily see above 60 FPS to theoretical speeds of 200 FPS and higher. Additionally, we don’t see in “frames”, but rather a constant stream of analogue input. Sorry, had to be that guy.
No don’t worry I’m with you.
I myself get annoyed by the fact that people treat the human eye like a camera when it is in fact superior. The idea of frames was to illustrate a concept of showing the illusion of movement on a screen anyway.
I agree in that I’d prefer a locked 30fps over a stuttering 60. But 60fps is a must and if need be I’ll take a less than 1080p resolution if that means a quality 60fps can be done.
At 30fps, your eyes can detect framerate drops below that very easily, where as with 60fps, it’s almost impossible, it’s the engine that’s the problem not the framerate.
The reason why TMCC doesn’t run at a stable 60fps is because those are games that they were build for different hardware and I think MS needed the MCC out this holiday season so it seems like they didn’t have enough time optimize the game to perform better, Halo 5 will most likely run at a stable 60fps.
