Reach Campaign Framerate

Title says it all really. Please 343, could you maybe clean up the Reach Campaign? It’s an absolute mess right now. It’s jerky, some sections are so slow it affects play drastically, there’s weird glitches etc. Please? Just a solid 30 would be nice.

> Title says it all really. Please 343, could you maybe clean up the Reach Campaign? It’s an absolute mess right now. It’s jerky, some sections are so slow it affects play drastically, there’s weird glitches etc. Please? Just a solid 30 would be nice.

While it’s true that Reach has some frame rate issues, but I doubt 343 will be completely rebuilding the Reach engine just to clean up the frame rate. They are too busy working on Halo 4, which ships next year.

campaign plays fine for me

Yes, it’s true the framerate int he reach campaign is an absolute mess, but I wouldn’t want to ask 343i to fix this problem while they’re busy working on halo 4. The TU will be enough for me.

This weeks’ challenge was kinda nice. I watched the majority of cutscenes as I played the levels in no particular order. And aside from the framerate issues, I loved it.

And while playing the game or watching a cutscene, I gave sighs if disappointment how some moments were ruined by the stuttering.

But I wonder, was it time or vision constraints that led to this outcome? Right up until the moment of failure, the game is quite stunning to view.

Oh and the sound, I love my DB5.1 loud.

Thanks for the replies. I reckon it’s a mix of slack QA and rushed finish. They should’ve spent at least another year on Reach to my mind.

> This weeks’ challenge was kinda nice. I watched the majority of cutscenes as I played the levels in no particular order. And aside from the framerate issues, I loved it.
>
> And while playing the game or watching a cutscene, I gave sighs if disappointment how some moments were ruined by the stuttering.
>
> But I wonder, was it time or vision constraints that led to this outcome? Right up until the moment of failure, the game is quite stunning to view.
>
> Oh and the sound, I love my DB5.1 loud.

I don’t have a real answer; just my own personal guess.

There are lots of visual improvements from Halo 3 to Halo Reach, but I think that the Reach engine just couldn’t quite handle the upgrade to 720p. The frame rate suffers from time to time, and there is a slight “ghosting” of player models and objects when they move quickly. But I think the bigger problem is the anti-aliasing (or lack of) seen throughout Reach. I almost wish the game ran at a lower resolution, just so the jagged edges wouldn’t be so apparent.

I personally have a little conspiracy theory that Reach’s technical performance was a bit of an unknown factor right up until the very end of development. I followed Reach’s development as closely as anyone in the public could, and there are a lot of question marks left behind.

For example: 6 player co-op? Back during the Reach Beta, there was a playlist called “Network Test 1”. It was a spartan vs elite Generator defense gametype, and it ran on Reach’s Co-op/Firefight network model. It was also a 6 player gametype. Bungie was clearly testing their co-op network model for 6 player co-op. During one of the Bungie Podcasts in April of 2010, Luke “Camp Froman” Timmins (bungie network lead) mentioned that there may be some game types in reach that they would only let you play if you had a strong network connection. The Co-op network code in Reach requires a very strong connection to run smoothly, so this is clearly what Timmins was hinting at.

Then, as recently as E3 2010, Joe Tung (Halo Reach executive producer) flat-out dodged the question: “How many players will online co-op support?”. Joe’s response was “we’re not ready to talk about that yet”. They never did end up talking about it until right before the game shipped.

This is just one example. There is the entire issue of some game-modes in Reach requiring a Hard drive. This is a perfectly understandable technical restraint, but what is strange to me is that absolutely no one mentioned this fact leading up to release, and bungie refused to comment on it after release. It makes me wonder if it was a last-minute change that they weren’t really happy with.

We’ve also seen issues like this before. Right up until the last few weeks of development, there was a possibility that Halo 3 would have required a hard drive to be playable. The original Halo engine was designed around having guaranteed access to a hard drive. Halo 1 and 2 were completely dependent on running off a hard drive. Halo 3, and even Reach, are still based on that original game engine. The engine was upgraded, overhauled, and customized almost beyond recognition, but it is still based on the same original core engine.

TL,DR: The Halo game engine was originally designed to work with a hard drive. Ever since moving to the 360, Bungie needed to make great compromises in order to make Halo 3, ODST and Reach work on a console that may or may not have a hard drive. As a result, Reach could not be optimized to its best potential (my own personal guess), and suffers in some minor performance areas.

The engine couldn’t handle 720p or the 360 has a lack of RAM that could have help solve the resource problem? :wink:
I agree I too can only speculate, but a good answer is a good answer .