60 fps is a necessity for multiplayer, but when I’m playing campaign I want to be wowed. I want gorgeous graphics, with lots of things happening on screen. I’m talking H3 level where I’m fighting a scarab on a mongoose getting attacked by banshees and wraiths, with fellow marines driving in warthogs engaging other enemies.
None of that was happening in the background in H3. It was in your face; it was real.
In H5, yes you could see aerial battles off in the background and such; but the large scale battle always feels like it’s elsewhere.
Take for example the scorpion section towards the end with master chief. It just felt meh. Like “oh there’s one enemy i’ll line up to shoot it then wait for the next one.”
I know for a fact they had to scale back situations like that because there’s only so much you can put on screen at once while maintaining 60 fps; even with dynamic resolution.
There were many problems with H5 campaign but in retrospect I feel that this was one of them. I’d be willing to trade 60 fps for 30 fps in campaign if it means making moments for epic and special.
Maybe just reduce the framerate by less. I still don’t understand why 343 was able to manage MCC with 60 fps and split-screen, but leave it out in 5. A better solution to me would be to have two options: a mode with 30 fps and a mode with 60 fps.
People saying “it’s too jarring” come on.
This is a normal thing. Gears of war 4 is doing it. Uncharted 4 is doing it. This is not some crazy idea that disorients players or I think it’d be less mainstream.
Drop the fps to 30 and add split screen. Sacrificing split screen for graphics was total baloney. Only two reason I could see a company drop split screen is to try to increase the number of copies sold or they’re lazy and don’t want to do it (seeing what 343i has released over the past few months proves (in my mind) they are a hard working company), so I think the main reason was Microsoft wanted more sales. … Oh yeah! CoD has split screen and they are doing just fine. … In fact they’ve blown past “fine” and left it in dust.
> 2535459784977630;9:
> Drop the fps to 30 and add split screen. Sacrificing split screen for graphics was total baloney. Only two reason I could see a company drop split screen is to try to increase the number of copies sold or they’re lazy and don’t want to do it (seeing what 343i has released over the past few months proves (in my mind) they are a hard working company), so I think the main reason was Microsoft wanted more sales. … Oh yeah! CoD has split screen and they are doing just fine. … In fact they’ve blown past “fine” and left it in dust.
No, keep 60 FPS and add split screen back.
Ditch the resolution “standard” of 1080, that and lower graphics details in order to get gameplay done.
> 2533274795123910;10:
> > 2535459784977630;9:
> > Drop the fps to 30 and add split screen. Sacrificing split screen for graphics was total baloney. Only two reason I could see a company drop split screen is to try to increase the number of copies sold or they’re lazy and don’t want to do it (seeing what 343i has released over the past few months proves (in my mind) they are a hard working company), so I think the main reason was Microsoft wanted more sales. … Oh yeah! CoD has split screen and they are doing just fine. … In fact they’ve blown past “fine” and left it in dust.
>
>
> No, keep 60 FPS and add split screen back.
>
> Ditch the resolution “standard” of 1080, that and lower graphics details in order to get gameplay done.
I don’t know if ditching 1080p would make it able to have a constant 60fps and split screen. If it can, great! If it can’t, I’d take 30fps for split screen and better graphics back.
Oh god no! I don’t want to get a headache when I play. Higher framerate should always be before graphics and resolution. What’s the point of a high resolution if its used for motion blur. Woohoo, 1080p blur guys!
> 2535459784977630;9:
> Drop the fps to 30 and add split screen. Sacrificing split screen for graphics was total baloney. Only two reason I could see a company drop split screen is to try to increase the number of copies sold or they’re lazy and don’t want to do it (seeing what 343i has released over the past few months proves (in my mind) they are a hard working company), so I think the main reason was Microsoft wanted more sales. … Oh yeah! CoD has split screen and they are doing just fine. … In fact they’ve blown past “fine” and left it in dust.
Definitely this, I will be very disappointed if Halo 6 doesn’t have split screen.
Weird suggestion… But would it be possible to make a game 2 disc?
1 disc for Campaign and 1 disc for multiplayer.
I can see that it might be annoying to have to switch between discs, but would that not leverage restrictions on frame rate, game size, and added options? Such as split screen, while still maintaining 60fps?
I’m not sure on the technicalities of doing such a thing, but could it be feasible?
60fps plays and feels way too amazing for me to go back. As well, 60fps is the bare minimum that all games should operate at these days. I don’t care about split screen anymore since most of my friends have moved away and the only way we’re ever be able to regularly play Halo together now is online. If they can’t make a split-screen co-op mode run well at 60fps, then cut it.
> 2533274807881873;12:
> Oh god no! I don’t want to get a headache when I play. Higher framerate should always be before graphics and resolution. What’s the point of a high resolution if its used for motion blur. Woohoo, 1080p blur guys!
wtf is the link between 30 fps and motion blur? am i living in an age where people have actually forgotten what it’s like to play games at 30 fps?