something you might want to know that will probobly get you pissed of at bungie.
turns out, when they made the second marathon game for XBLA before they made REACH, they made that game work on 60FPS but they decided to leave it out of reach.
discuss
Meh, who cares. Halo 3/2 is still better.
Halo3 and Reach run at 60fps. The engine uses a dual-buffer system that displays an image twice but with different contrasting colours, shades and flares. The problem is that the resource management never got completely debugged in Reach and it stutters often in any mode. However when it runs smoothly, wow it’s smooth.
Honestly, it’s mostly to capture the essence of energy. There’s a lot of energy/light based objects in Halo that gain their look because of the buffer system.
Halo could run at 60fps but it would so without its current artistic approach. To get the 60fps with dual-buffer system, we need the next-gen system because the 360 is limited in RAM and flop-calculating capabilities.
Battlefield has a similar problem of the PCs having the resources to run their FROSTBITE engines to their fullest at 60fps. Both consoles have to be “reduced” to 30fps to maintain most of the lighting/look the PC versions offer. The PS3 is limited in its graphics capabilities (colours, contrasts, lighting) but the 360 is limited in flops (particles, polygons, physics). So to maintain a look and feel capable for both, the compromise was made to make the consoles 30fps. Turns out, the 360 still looks slightly better. I’m not too sure on either’s frame-rate stability though.
Wasn’t the arcade port done third party with Bungie overseeing?
And in a simplified version of what an earlier poster said: 60 FPS means less detail and graphical quality. Gears of War? 30 FPS. Call of Duty? 60.
Another way reach suckz.
Reach is fine at 30fps.
> Halo3 and Reach run at 60fps.
Both Halo 3 and Reach running at a SubHD Resolution with 30fps…
Please don’t talk about ‘fps’ unless you know what it means, what causes higher/lower fps, and how it affects gameplay.
Frames Per Second is how fast the game image you see refreshes. The rate at which it refreshes is determined by how long it actually takes to cycle the different engines. The more intense/detailed the graphics/gameplay are, the slower it can refresh.
Because Halo Reach has exponentially more intricate graphics/gameplay than Marathon, it can’t refresh as fast.
To say bungie ‘left it out’ just makes you sound limited.
Higher FPS rates are better, but the difference between 60 fps and 30 fps is only slightly noticeable to the human eye.
http://www.boallen.com/fps-compare.html
Unfortunately to the video game consumer masses better graphics equals a better game. It’s like a summer popcorn flick with explosions and big -Yoink!- that sells tickets for hollywood and not story. I for one am happy with 30fps game that doesn’t sacrifice performance for eye candy.
0.0
That would be because marathon is like 17 years old… a modern day system has more then enough power to run it at 60+fps, my rig could probably get like 1000+… (it runs CS:S at 600… w/vsync)
Reach on the other hand, is actually a technical marvel considering how low powered the hardware surrounding it is now adays. The scale, freedom and unscripted gameplay requires vast resources.
I have never really cared about the 30 FPS vs 60 FPS “issue”.
Ω
My only concern with 30fps vs 60fps in the next games will be how well they will react to also being in 3d.
> > Halo3 and Reach run at 60fps.
>
> Both Halo 3 and Reach running at a SubHD Resolution with 30fps…
Sorta. Halo3 is 640x1152 and Reach is 720x1152. A long time ago, it was stated.
MW1, 2 and WaW are 60fps but it only achieved it through 600x1152 means. I do not know what MW3 will run at.
> I have never really cared about the 30 FPS vs 60 FPS “issue”.
>
> Ω
If it’s a stable 30fps, I am happy. Halo:CE and 2 were much more stable than 3 or Reach. I blame the RAM for the hiccups in the 360. Well that and due dates. Damn ZBD… damn you to hell!!! 
> Please don’t talk about ‘fps’ unless you know what it means, what causes higher/lower fps, and how it affects gameplay.
>
> Frames Per Second is how fast the game image you see refreshes. The rate at which it refreshes is determined by how long it actually takes to cycle the different engines. The more intense/detailed the graphics/gameplay are, the slower it can refresh.
>
> Because Halo Reach has exponentially more intricate graphics/gameplay than Marathon, it can’t refresh as fast.
>
> To say bungie ‘left it out’ just makes you sound limited.
>
> Higher FPS rates are better, but the difference between 60 fps and 30 fps is only slightly noticeable to the human eye.
> 15 FPS vs. 30 FPS vs. 60 FPS - Bo Allen
Going from a game that runs at 60+ FPS to Halo is… an unsettling experience. It’s most definitely noticeable, but once you get used to it it’s fine.
An odd thing I’ve noticed is at times the game seems to exceed 30 FPS, greatly. Last night playing that silly gametype where everyone has plasma launchers and you’re all in a small box lined with shield doors I could’ve sworn the game was running between 40-50 FPS.
I didn’t realize a 2D game made in the 90’s=a modern 3D shooter.
Marathon and halo through reach are 3d physics on a 2d screen.