I hope the campaign runs at 30 fps while the multiplayer runs at 60 fps. I know it’s a lot of work, but halo 5 campaign felt somewhat limited. An extra time delta would allow for larger maps and better AI and functional split-scren. Even maybe experimental stuff, what about a reinforcement learning based AI?
Don’t know. I never cared about 60FPS to begin with. It never made the games more fun. All it did for me was take split-screen away.
How about for campaign:
- The game will run at 60fps on single player, - Splitscreen - the game will run campaign at 30fps.I don’t play splitscreen that often, but what I’m suggesting can keep the best of both worlds together.
I’ll be honest, I could never really tell too much of a difference.
If it can be optimized for 60fps then that’d be cool. Otherwise, I agree. Trying to maximize the game’s efficiency&graphics in my opinion should not take precedence over amazing new and grand experiences.
How about a more niche and stylistic look on the visual department which doesn’t require too much from the hardware.
Allowing the large maps, more AI and whatever else you wanted.
I don’t feel like what we need is to push the graphics all the time. It’s time to advance other stuff.
Yes, I notice the difference between 30 and 60 fps. I never thought I’d do, and that people exaggerated when they said going to 30 after being used to 60 is sickening / jarring. I’m not too far off from those experiences.
I think that the game could be 30fps if that means splitscreen will be there but otherwise I wouldnt aim for 30fps. Thats mostly because personally the FPS is more strongly apparent on PC than it is when playing with a controller.
> 2533274795123910;6:
> How about a more niche and stylistic look on the visual department which doesn’t require too much from the hardware.
> Allowing the large maps, more AI and whatever else you wanted.
>
> I don’t feel like what we need is to push the graphics all the time. It’s time to advance other stuff.
> Yes, I notice the difference between 30 and 60 fps. I never thought I’d do, and that people exaggerated when they said going to 30 after being used to 60 is sickening / jarring. I’m not too far off from those experiences.
I would be inclined to agree, but if the announcement trailer is anything to go by, looks like that’s not going to to happen. I’m fairly certain that trailer was in-engine, though probably not representative of the final graphical fidelity. I’d expect the final game to look like a somewhat toned down version of that.
EDIT: I wouldn’t ditch 60 fps for better campaign graphics. Frankly, graphical fidelity in games is at the point for me where I put game responsiveness even in single player ahead of graphics. Heck, if this game was everything I wanted, but hadn’t advanced graphically from Halo 5, I wouldn’t have the slightest problem with that.
I personally enjoy the games better at 30 fps. Probably because I’m an original Halo guy and that’s what I’m so used to. When I play 60 it feels to “smooth” if you know what I mean. Maybe I’m just weird, but I accept that. 
I agree campaign needs this so that a greater scope can be achieved. It needs to be 30 on standard Xbox with Xbox x allowing for 60. The multiplayer needs to be 60 at this point o all machines but 30 frames campaign allows for much more. Gears 4 an example of this perfectly acceptable trade off. All games up to Halo 5 of course being 30 frames and with now a seeming emphasis on open world approach or at the very least expanded spaces, it shouldn’t be expected that the campaign should also be 30 on standard Xbox machines. It’s the same for Forza Horizon of course which also adopts 30 frames necessary from it being less linear
Yes very important we get 30 here for campaign for a resulting greater vision of the sandbox
> 2533274825830455;8:
> > 2533274795123910;6:
> > How about a more niche and stylistic look on the visual department which doesn’t require too much from the hardware.
> > Allowing the large maps, more AI and whatever else you wanted.
> >
> > I don’t feel like what we need is to push the graphics all the time. It’s time to advance other stuff.
> > Yes, I notice the difference between 30 and 60 fps. I never thought I’d do, and that people exaggerated when they said going to 30 after being used to 60 is sickening / jarring. I’m not too far off from those experiences.
>
> I would be inclined to agree, but if the announcement trailer is anything to go by, looks like that’s not going to to happen. I’m fairly certain that trailer was in-engine, though probably not representative of the final graphical fidelity. I’d expect the final game to look like a somewhat toned down version of that.
>
> EDIT: I wouldn’t ditch 60 fps for better campaign graphics. Frankly, graphical fidelity in games is at the point for me where I put game responsiveness even in single player ahead of graphics. Heck, if this game was everything I wanted, but hadn’t advanced graphically from Halo 5, I wouldn’t have the slightest problem with that.
It’s been a while since I layed eyes on H5, and I may be too used to PC stuff at the moment, MW5 looks gorgeus, but I wasn’t too impressed by the quality of the actual assets used in the teaser. I know it’s work in progress, but what stuck out to me were the effects.
As long as the effects are somewhat good looking yet cheap on the hardware, it shouldn’t be too mich of an issue.
I’d be ok with a downgrade even from H5.
I’m sure their new engine will be fully optimized to take advantage of 60fps all around. The whole Trailer was 60FPS
> 2533274870286221;10:
> I agree campaign needs this so that a greater scope can be achieved. It needs to be 30 on standard Xbox with Xbox x allowing for 60. The multiplayer needs to be 60 at this point o all machines but 30 frames campaign allows for much more. Gears 4 an example of this perfectly acceptable trade off. All games up to Halo 5 of course being 30 frames and with now a seeming emphasis on open world approach or at the very least expanded spaces, it shouldn’t be expected that the campaign should also be 30 on standard Xbox machines. It’s the same for Forza Horizon of course which also adopts 30 frames necessary from it being less linear
>
> Yes very important we get 30 here for campaign for a resulting greater vision of the sandbox
They cannot do that. It’s either going to be 30fps on both consoles or 60fps on both consoles. If they did it that way there would be a HUGE advantage for people running in 60FPS over the 30FPS players.
I never noticed a difference with FPS, but I did notice a difference for games with and without split screen. 343 knows this. They’ll do 60fps if it can handle split screen, but I’m sure they’ll drop the fps if it means keeping split screen.
I prefer 60 fps over 30, like many people. However, if the full game came out at 30 fps I would still probably get it. However, doing this:
> 2533274832948697;1:
> I hope the campaign runs at 30 fps while the multiplayer runs at 60 fps.
Would be a no-sale for me. I don’t want different FPS in the same game- I just can’t adjust to that. I hope the final product stays consistent. Best case scenario for me is all 60 fps.
I prefer 60FPS, but it is in no way a dealbreaker for me when it comes to campaign/single player elements.
> 2533274832948697;1:
> I hope the campaign runs at 30 fps while the multiplayer runs at 60 fps. I know it’s a lot of work, but halo 5 campaign felt somewhat limited. An extra time delta would allow for larger maps and better AI and functional split-scren. Even maybe experimental stuff, what about a reinforcement learning based AI?
I agree,30 fps for more details in Singleplayer and 60 in Multiplayer.Since we will probably have split screen that sounds like a good compromise for Campaign.
> 2533274821033065;13:
> > 2533274870286221;10:
> > I agree campaign needs this so that a greater scope can be achieved. It needs to be 30 on standard Xbox with Xbox x allowing for 60. The multiplayer needs to be 60 at this point o all machines but 30 frames campaign allows for much more. Gears 4 an example of this perfectly acceptable trade off. All games up to Halo 5 of course being 30 frames and with now a seeming emphasis on open world approach or at the very least expanded spaces, it shouldn’t be expected that the campaign should also be 30 on standard Xbox machines. It’s the same for Forza Horizon of course which also adopts 30 frames necessary from it being less linear
> >
> > Yes very important we get 30 here for campaign for a resulting greater vision of the sandbox
>
> They cannot do that. It’s either going to be 30fps on both consoles or 60fps on both consoles. If they did it that way there would be a HUGE advantage for people running in 60FPS over the 30FPS players.
Yes I was referring to campaign. I think people aren’t figuring into this that for a more expanded vision in the form of more sprawling ambitiou campaign then it would be more suitable that it’s 30 frames. Far Cry 5 for example is intensive enough that this requires 30 and runs nicer on the Xbox x at 60. At this point Halo multiplayer I think most would agree needs to be 60 on all machines but the campaign would then need as a result of this need to be scaled back like in fact it clearly was in Halo5 if at 30. This has always been the case that you need to free up recourses when more detail and scale is required for campaign otherwise there’s only so much that can be achieved. On xbox x then yes that can be dialled up to 60 but the standard xbox one isn’t a god machine and with campaign looking like 343 want to step it up some, yes of course 30 is rather important to maintain this
Can’t go back to 30 fps for halo after getting used to 60. 60 is just so much smoother. 60 for both sp and mp
I do not care for FPS so long as splitscreen is included in the game. Hopefully nothing will make them go back on their word this time around.