Note: I am speaking strictly about CAMPAIGN - and no, I don’t think 30 fps is better than 60, but given the constraints of the hardware, I would prefer 30 fps target than 60.
This is going to be a hot topic, especially amongst FPS fans (as 60 fps is the gold standard), but let’s consider the following facts:
**60 fps prohibited split screen:**This is a particularly egregious mistake, IMO, by 343i. Split screen campaign is a hallmark of the franchise. Yes, I’ve heard all the arguments about “nobody uses split screen”, but the reality is that Halo 4 targeted a strictly CO-OP game with Halo 5, then didn’t allow for matchmaking OR split screen in the campaign. It was a stupid decision.
60 fps prohibited graphics: Yes, I know the difference between graphics and art style (and resolution, for that matter) and the graphics in Halo 5 just simply aren’t up to part or expectation for a first-party game on new hardware. The game looks like a slightly improved Halo 4. Hell, even Halo 3 had better water physics than Halo 5. For me, it’s just not acceptable for us to have copy and pasted explosion physics from Halo 4 (which were god awful then, and even more so now) for the sake of 60 fps. I expected a lot more from Halo 5 in terms of graphics and physics. A lot of the graphics (lighting, particle effects, etc) have to be dialed back when the player gets closer to view because the engine simply can’t produce.Take a look at Star Wars Battlefront (an online only game) and compare the graphics, particularly the explosions. There’s no comparison whatsoever. Halo 5 looks dated, and honestly, on my 60 inch television, it looks like unfinished in some areas. The level of polish just isn’t there, which brings me to my next complaint…
60 fps prohibited full HD: I’m sorry, but the game doesn’t “mostly run in 1080p”, and there’s really nothing more to be said that wouldn’t be already beating a dead horse.
Who knows what the arbitrary target of 60 fps hamstrung in the game. We were promised a game that was “epic” is scale and size, and frankly, it just wasn’t. There really wasn’t anything in size or scale that was breathtaking or notably impressive beyond previous installments of the game. I never looked at the game and said “my God, that’s amazing”. Sure, I had fun with the game, and that’s the most important thing, but I was really hoping 343 would prove that the Xbox was capable of more than people were giving it credit for, and it really just made the case that the hardware just isn’t capable. With that constraint in mind, 343 needs to go with 30 fps in campaign (where it really doesn’t matter as much as 60 fps in matchmaking) for Halo 6, IMO.
That really wouldn’t work, Halo 6 is guaranteed to run on the same engine, so it would have to run at 60 fps. The only way this would work is if they used a different engine, but then it would end up like Medal of Honor with two different engines for different modes, which just made the transition incredibly jarring, or like Gear UE. The only way they can get split-screen in is if they dedicate a ton of time to polishing and optimizing it.
> 2533274944778648;6:
> That really wouldn’t work, Halo 6 is guaranteed to run on the same engine, so it would have to run at 60 fps. The only way this would work is if they used a different engine, but then it would end up like Medal of Honor with two different engines for different modes, which just made the transition incredibly jarring, or like Gear UE. The only way they can get split-screen in is if they dedicate a ton of time to polishing and optimizing it.
PC games seem to have no engine problems when playing at locked framerates. Most modern games won’t break if you play them at 30 or 60 fps or anything else. 343 are just inexperienced and incompetent devs. The game could have looked better even with its current 60 fps.
For the peasantry comment up top: if H6 came out on PC I would gladly purchasse it. Too bad that might never happen.
> 2533274826203061;7:
> > 2533274944778648;6:
> > That really wouldn’t work, Halo 6 is guaranteed to run on the same engine, so it would have to run at 60 fps. The only way this would work is if they used a different engine, but then it would end up like Medal of Honor with two different engines for different modes, which just made the transition incredibly jarring, or like Gear UE. The only way they can get split-screen in is if they dedicate a ton of time to polishing and optimizing it.
>
>
> PC games seem to have no engine problems when playing at locked framerates. Most modern games won’t break if you play them at 30 or 60 fps or anything else. 343 are just inexperienced and incompetent devs. The game could have looked better even with its current 60 fps.
>
> For the peasantry comment up top: if H6 came out on PC I would gladly purchasse it. Too bad that might never happen.
> 2533274826203061;7:
> > 2533274944778648;6:
> > That really wouldn’t work, Halo 6 is guaranteed to run on the same engine, so it would have to run at 60 fps. The only way this would work is if they used a different engine, but then it would end up like Medal of Honor with two different engines for different modes, which just made the transition incredibly jarring, or like Gear UE. The only way they can get split-screen in is if they dedicate a ton of time to polishing and optimizing it.
>
>
> PC games seem to have no engine problems when playing at locked framerates. Most modern games won’t break if you play them at 30 or 60 fps or anything else. 343 are just inexperienced and incompetent devs. The game could have looked better even with its current 60 fps.
>
> For the peasantry comment up top: if H6 came out on PC I would gladly purchasse it. Too bad that might never happen.
Their engine has functions tied to the 60 fps, dips would result in computation problems. The reason PC games work like that is because devs have to leave framerate customizable or else you end up with certain ports(Arkham Knight which had functions tied to 30 fps for console versions). And please stop with the incompetence remarks, very few games on X1 let alone PS4 run at flawless 60 fps so how exactly does that reflect against their ability to optimize games? If they had more than a three year cycle they could probably have squeezed more out of the X1, but as it stands all the consoles are vastly underpowered so that’s on Microsoft.
Oh and don’t worry Halo 6 won’t come out on PC, Microsoft has that front covered up.
Oh god no! My eyes hurt playing games like The Witcher 3 and Fallout 4 because of the low framerate. 60 FPS is a must and it pains me that studios make games like Fallout 4 and Rise of the Tomb Raider are only at 30 FPS. 60 FPS is the single greatest thing added to the Halo franchise. Downgrading the gameplay experience for the sake of graphics is incredibly stupid.
I would say the only real loss we got was a lack of split-screen.
However, if I’m not wanting to or ever plan to use split-screen why should I get a lesser experience? There’s no need to cap it at 30.
They just need to make Halo 6 able to lower its frame rate to 30 in split-screen mode. In Halo 5 they basically locked it to 60 and told it to lower the resolution if it needed to.
Well beyond the fact that they won’t do that, I don’t see it as a worthy trade off. 60 FPS or 30 FPS there would still be sacrifices to be made. If 343 continues enlarging battle spaces and amounts of enemies they will have to make sacrifices in different areas to make sure it all works accordingly. Halo Reach in the 360 which people often say looked better than Halo 4 or 5 had a tanked frame rate every time there were large amounts of enemies in Firefight. Things like this would happen regardless.
It’d be stupid to trade off increased performance for irrelevant stuff like graphics. As for splitscreen, I would think the lessons learned in developing a full 60 FPS game would allow them to build at least 2 player splitscreen into Halo 6 given more advanced technology, but one can only hope I suppose.
No, the lack of splitscreen wasn’t solely a result of the 60fps target, it also had to do with memory issues that occur in local co-op when players move too far away from one another. It’s the reason Halo 3 teleported players back together if one lagged behind the others.
This means including splitscreen co-op would have put a constraint on level design and scale, regardless of framerate.
> 2533274826203061;7:
> > 2533274944778648;6:
> > That really wouldn’t work, Halo 6 is guaranteed to run on the same engine, so it would have to run at 60 fps. The only way this would work is if they used a different engine, but then it would end up like Medal of Honor with two different engines for different modes, which just made the transition incredibly jarring, or like Gear UE. The only way they can get split-screen in is if they dedicate a ton of time to polishing and optimizing it.
>
>
> PC games seem to have no engine problems when playing at locked framerates. Most modern games won’t break if you play them at 30 or 60 fps or anything else. 343 are just inexperienced and incompetent devs. The game could have looked better even with its current 60 fps.
>
> For the peasantry comment up top: if H6 came out on PC I would gladly purchasse it. Too bad that might never happen.
343 aren’t incompetent by any means. Halo 5 looks the best it can possibly look at 60 frames. They did a better job at optimizing Halo 5 than most devs, actually. Look at Digital Foundry.
> 2533274819029930;17:
> “60 fps prohibited split screen”
>
> No, the lack of splitscreen wasn’t solely a result of the 60fps target, it also had to do with memory issues that occur in local co-op when players move too far away from one another. It’s the reason Halo 3 teleported players back together if one lagged behind the others.
> This means including splitscreen co-op would have put a constraint on level design and scale, regardless of framerate.
The teleporting thing still happens in Halo 5, so I doubt that’s an issue.
They couldn’t get the game to perform at 60 fps in spilt-screen, so they cut it. A dumb decision, in my opinion.