someone with knowledge of this plz explain

did 343 leave out the small,simple and easy things that couldve been added easily due to the fact that the game is locked in at 60 FPS? it seems like to me they did leave out quite a bit. can someone with experience in frame rate per second help so hopefully halo 6 wont be like this.idk if its just me but i think they left out alot seeing how halo reach on the 360 had ALOT in it and halo 5 has almost nothing on the xbox one

You’re going to have to be more specific about what you are wondering if they left out. As of right now, I believe the only thing we lost due to 1080p 60fps was split screen.

if your talking about the content its coming stop whining. if not idk you kinda dont know how to spell

if anything i just want the UI fixed for lobbies

that is the most irritating aspect at the moment

You have to understand an unfortunate truth to video games these days. It’s all about marketing for most big name games. Especially in the FPS genre. They focus on making graphics the best they can while attempting to keep frame rates extremely fast instead of focusing on making the gameplay solid.

Halo 5 is extremely confined compared to even Halo 4 because of this. Sure, the maps may look pretty but they’re cramped because if they were any bigger the graphics/framerate would suffer.

Compare any Halo 5 map or campaign level to, say, any Halo 3 map and you will see the differences immediately.

not the content i know its coming trust me lol what i mean is the depth of customization in reach, the downgraded emblem creator, the downgraded UI. the fact that this stuff was in older halos and there not on halo 5 eludes the -Yoink- out of me

> 2533274806696796;5:
> You have to understand an unfortunate truth to video games these days. It’s all about marketing for most big name games. Especially in the FPS genre. They focus on making graphics the best they can while attempting to keep frame rates extremely fast instead of focusing on making the gameplay solid.
>
> Halo 5 is extremely confined compared to even Halo 4 because of this. Sure, the maps may look pretty but they’re cramped because if they were any bigger the graphics/framerate would suffer.
>
> Compare any Halo 5 map or campaign level to, say, any Halo 3 map and you will see the differences immediately.

true but i feel like if 343 had a big community poll asking if everyone would be fine with 30 FPS before halo 5 was released they couldve added alot more stuff and it shouldn’t ruin anyones experience(maybe idk) but older halos were amazing and they were 30 FPS

Some of it is resource constraints. Some of it is simply dev preference.

For the armor customisation, I feel like theres a point worth bringing up: if we had 4/Reach level of customisation and the req system, imagine how much of a pain getting the armor set you want would be; you’d get one shoulder piece, then possibly have to go through 30 or more packs to get the other one. And suddenly the Req System becomes unbearable.

> 2533274842918190;8:
> Some of it is resource constraints. Some of it is simply dev preference.
>
> For the armor customisation, I feel like theres a point worth bringing up: if we had 4/Reach level of customisation and the req system, imagine how much of a pain getting the armor set you want would be; you’d get one shoulder piece, then possibly have to go through 30 or more packs to get the other one. And suddenly the Req System becomes unbearable.

the req system is already unbearably stupid

That’s the thing. 343i wanted to do something different with armor customization but wound up taking that as an opportunity to take the lazy road. I can understand gear being reduced to just suits, visors and helmets but the whole rarity deal is just outright lame.

The difference between a common helmet and an ultra-rare helmet of the same type is just an altered streak of barely noticeable paint. Where is the sense of rarity in something 9/10 players won’t even notice? The whole Req system is purposefully convoluted to encourage players to buy Req packs to get the handful of items they want.

> 2533274842918190;8:
> Some of it is resource constraints. Some of it is simply dev preference.
>
> For the armor customisation, I feel like theres a point worth bringing up: if we had 4/Reach level of customisation and the req system, imagine how much of a pain getting the armor set you want would be; you’d get one shoulder piece, then possibly have to go through 30 or more packs to get the other one. And suddenly the Req System becomes unbearable.

the req system already sucks I mean its good for warzone abilities and vehicles just let us earn armor the old way or the credit way like reach so instead of going through TONS of packs for armor and duplicates we can still earn it but keep the req system for things that are purely warzone so they can still fund the tournaments and if it helps keep assassinations in the req system

> 2533274884116647;7:
> > 2533274806696796;5:
> > You have to understand an unfortunate truth to video games these days. It’s all about marketing for most big name games. Especially in the FPS genre. They focus on making graphics the best they can while attempting to keep frame rates extremely fast instead of focusing on making the gameplay solid.
> >
> > Halo 5 is extremely confined compared to even Halo 4 because of this. Sure, the maps may look pretty but they’re cramped because if they were any bigger the graphics/framerate would suffer.
> >
> > Compare any Halo 5 map or campaign level to, say, any Halo 3 map and you will see the differences immediately.
>
>
> true but i feel like if 343 had a big community poll asking if everyone would be fine with 30 FPS before halo 5 was released they couldve added alot more stuff and it shouldn’t ruin anyones experience(maybe idk) but older halos were amazing and they were 30 FPS

I don’t understand the fascination with 60fps. I’m not 100% sure but like you said, weren’t the previous Halos 30 fps? I would rather have 30 fps and splitscreen than 60fps. And ya, I can tell the difference…but it’s so minor to me. It makes aiming feel different, but that’s easy to adapt to. 60fps is cool and all…but it’s not NEARLY as important as everyone seems to be making it.

I don’t know the difference between the 60 and the 30. Although I feel the other games basically played just as well?

> 2533274821269382;12:
> > 2533274884116647;7:
> > > 2533274806696796;5:
> > > You have to understand an unfortunate truth to video games these days. It’s all about marketing for most big name games. Especially in the FPS genre. They focus on making graphics the best they can while attempting to keep frame rates extremely fast instead of focusing on making the gameplay solid.
> > >
> > > Halo 5 is extremely confined compared to even Halo 4 because of this. Sure, the maps may look pretty but they’re cramped because if they were any bigger the graphics/framerate would suffer.
> > >
> > > Compare any Halo 5 map or campaign level to, say, any Halo 3 map and you will see the differences immediately.
> >
> >
> > true but i feel like if 343 had a big community poll asking if everyone would be fine with 30 FPS before halo 5 was released they couldve added alot more stuff and it shouldn’t ruin anyones experience(maybe idk) but older halos were amazing and they were 30 FPS
>
>
> I don’t understand the fascination with 60fps. I’m not 100% sure but like you said, weren’t the previous Halos 30 fps? I would rather have 30 fps and splitscreen than 60fps. And ya, I can tell the difference…but it’s so minor to me. It makes aiming feel different, but that’s easy to adapt to. 60fps is cool and all…but it’s not NEARLY as important as everyone seems to be making it.

join my cause lol amen to you

the only thing they left out because of frame-rate was split screen. The rest was because of the new console generation, making modern games is harder than it was back in 2010, that is why Reach was so feature packed! BTW I do wish that in the future games will release with features like they did back then haha.

> 2535413364534857;15:
> the only thing they left out because of frame-rate was split screen. The rest was because of the new console generation, making modern games is harder than it was back in 2010, that is why Reach was so feature packed! BTW I do wish that in the future games will release with features like they did back then haha.

If that’s the case then they need to lower the price if video games. How does it make sense to charge a full $60 to get less content than the previous games?

> 2533274814289862;16:
> > 2535413364534857;15:
> > the only thing they left out because of frame-rate was split screen. The rest was because of the new console generation, making modern games is harder than it was back in 2010, that is why Reach was so feature packed! BTW I do wish that in the future games will release with features like they did back then haha.
>
>
> If that’s the case then they need to lower the price if video games. How does it make sense to charge a full $60 to get less content than the previous games?

They’ll only increase. Look at COD:AW - full content was $120 or more.

> 2533274806696796;5:
> You have to understand an unfortunate truth to video games these days. It’s all about marketing for most big name games. Especially in the FPS genre. They focus on making graphics the best they can while attempting to keep frame rates extremely fast instead of focusing on making the gameplay solid.
>
> Halo 5 is extremely confined compared to even Halo 4 because of this. Sure, the maps may look pretty but they’re cramped because if they were any bigger the graphics/framerate would suffer.
>
> Compare any Halo 5 map or campaign level to, say, any Halo 3 map and you will see the differences immediately.

What complete crap. Say what you will about Halo 5’s campaign, but “cramped” is just not applicable. Swords of Sanghelios and Enemy Lines have some of the biggest, most complex areas in the series and, quite honestly, the only game that could potentially claim greater scale is Halo 3 and that had plenty of smaller levels as well. And confined compared to Halo 4? I would advise you replay that game before you make a claim that is so patently false. They made some clear sacrifices in the name of gameplay and scale. If graphics were their primary concern, you would have legitimately “cramped” levels (like H2, Reach, and 4) and many fewer visual concessions like draw distance, texture resolution, texture filtering, dynamic resolution, etc. You’re talking out of your posterior.

> 2533274794097852;13:
> I don’t know the difference between the 60 and the 30. Although I feel the other games basically played just as well?

Play destiny after halo 5. You will immediately see the difference.

> 2533274910203606;19:
> > 2533274794097852;13:
> > I don’t know the difference between the 60 and the 30. Although I feel the other games basically played just as well?
>
>
> Play destiny after halo 5. You will immediately see the difference.

Or Black Ops 3. The difference is HUGE