Tried 360 Reach & still support 343 on H5 60 fps

A while back I compared the Xbox One version of Reach’s frame rate to Halo 5. Some people pointed out that it wasn’t fair to do so due to the Xbox One version of Reach having issues. Well with people complaining lately about frame rate I thought I would try the 360 version of Reach compared to Halo 5. I even played some Halo 3 (again 360 not X1 MCC) to compare frame rates. And I have to say I support 343’s decision to use 60 fps for Halo going forward. It really makes a difference. Gameplay is important. If you can play Halo on 360 then Halo 5 before saying that 60fps doesn’t matter to you. At least people that play the multiplayer I think would mostly agree. I mean I don’t want to put down on anyone that wants to trade frame rate for graphics, but 60 fps has made Halo much better. I actually would say going 60 fps was one of the smartest decisions 343 has ever made for Halo.

Now that isn’t to say I don’t want better graphics. I think everyone wants the best. And Halo 5 does look better than its predecessors. But the sacrifice for the frame rate is worth it. Maybe 343 could’ve squeezed better graphics by going constant 720p. But I don’t think it would’ve made a huge difference. Some but not huge. You have to remember Halo 5 is running a dynamic resolution. And only so much more power could’ve been added to the Xbox One while remaining at the current price point. And maintaining a reasonable price point is very important.

Now I guess since I’m talking about graphics I should mention the art direction of Halo 5. Overall I think it is great. The multiplayer maps look good. The gun models look great. Now I question the art direction of some of the REQs (actually quite a few), but mostly I just ignore the stuff I don’t find fits in Halo. And some people may like some of the stuff I don’t use. So it’s only fair to them that the game not be just about what I like.

Conclusion:
60fps is important to having a smooth playing Halo. It makes a very noticeable difference. Halo 5 looks good. I’d imagine 343 spent a lot of time testing out frame rates, resolutions, and performance. I think they made a smart decision. While there are some things about Halo 5 that I question 343’s decision on I don’t think their frame rate decision is one of them. Sincerely thank you 343 for bringing Halo into 60fps territory.

Update 1
I just wanted to make a clear distinction. 60fps doesn’t make a game great or bad. Halo has had great gameplay since CE and still does. The 60fps makes the game a lot smoother thus enhancing gameplay. And isn’t gameplay one of the most important aspects of a video game?

Update 2
I notice some people say that Reach isn’t a good example even though I used the 360 version because the frame rate dips. I argue back that I also tried the Halo 3 360 version as a customs game with my character the only one on the map. It still felt sluggish versus Halo 5’s smoothness. So yes while I agree that constant frame rate is better than dips; I still very much think 60fps>30fps. If you can try the 360 Halo games then Halo 5. Maybe you won’t agree with me, but I think you will notice the difference.

You’re Welcome

I love the 60 fps it makes it so smooth but the only thing I don’t like is the art direction on the Spartans. We’re to shiny and don’t look rugged enough.

> 2533274827113670;3:
> I love the 60 fps it makes it so smooth but the only thing I don’t like is the art direction on the Spartans. We’re to shiny and don’t look rugged enough.

Agreed there. Even going from… Destiny shudders you can see the differencd in flow and how smooth the gameplay is. Amd i wish the armor was more like reach. That was the best in terms of style, practicality and form.

> 2533274827113670;3:
> I love the 60 fps it makes it so smooth but the only thing I don’t like is the art direction on the Spartans. We’re to shiny and don’t look rugged enough.

Well it is a simulation… but I agree, the armour looks too much like plastic. Even during the campaign, obviously reality and not a simulated war game, the armour looked too plastic-y.

I loved Reach’s style. The dark colours, the rugged battered look of the armour - matching the tone of Reach’s demise nicely - and just the overall style.

I think it was a good idea. I agree. I just really liked the way the lighting and maps looked like in the beta

60 vs 30…
Noticeable? Yes.
Necessary? No.
Better? Depends.

> 2533274855279867;7:
> 60 vs 30…
> Noticeable? Yes.
> Necessary? No.
> Better? Depends.

Depends on necessary. Does it absolutely has to? No, but in today’s generation people want it, and eventually it’ll be the standard, although I’d say they’re now trying to make it the standard. I’m ok with it personally, makes things play smoother and allows more detail, just hope the devs are careful with what they sacrifice if 60 fps has to come at a cost.

> 2533274855279867;7:
> 60 vs 30…
> Noticeable? Yes.
> Necessary? No.
> Better? Depends.

Depends? There is absolutely no case to be made that 60fps is not better and, yes, it is necessary for a competitive shooter and highly preferable for everything else. I would rather modern games looked like OG Xbox games than run at the horrendous sub-30 frame rates that have become acceptable.

> 2533274805980490;1:
> A while back I compared the Xbox One version of Reach’s frame rate to Halo 5. Some people pointed out that it wasn’t fair to do so due to the Xbox One version of Reach having issues. Well with people complaining lately about frame rate I thought I would try the 360 version of Reach compared to Halo 5. I even played some Halo 3 (again 360 not X1 MCC) to compare frame rates. And I have to say I support 343’s decision to use 60 fps for Halo going forward. It really makes a difference. Gameplay is important. If you can play Halo on 360 then Halo 5 before saying that 60fps doesn’t matter to you. At least people that play the multiplayer I think would mostly agree. I mean I don’t want to put down on anyone that wants to trade frame rate for graphics, but 60 fps has made Halo much better. I actually would say going 60 fps was one of the smartest decisions 343 has ever made for Halo.
>
> Now that isn’t to say I don’t want better graphics. I think everyone wants the best. And Halo 5 does look better than its predecessors. But the sacrifice for the frame rate is worth it. Maybe 343 could’ve squeezed better graphics by going constant 720p. But I don’t think it would’ve made a huge difference. Some but not huge. You have to remember Halo 5 is running a dynamic resolution. And only so much more power could’ve been added to the Xbox One while remaining at the current price point. And maintaining a reasonable price point is very important.
>
> Now I guess since I’m talking about graphics I should mention the art direction of Halo 5. Overall I think it is great. The multiplayer maps look good. The gun models look great. Now I question the art direction of some of the REQs (actually quite a few), but mostly I just ignore the stuff I don’t find fits in Halo. And some people may like some of the stuff I don’t use. So it’s only fair to them that the game not be just about what I like.
>
> Conclusion:
> 60fps is important to having a smooth playing Halo. It makes a very noticeable difference. Halo 5 looks good. I’d imagine 343 spent a lot of time testing out frame rates, resolutions, and performance. I think they made a smart decision. While there are some things about Halo 5 that I question 343’s decision on I don’t think their frame rate decision is one of them. Sincerely thank you 343 for bringing Halo into 60fps territory.

arena shooters should always choose function over fashion. it’s not supposed to look great it supposed to play great. remember people would play quake on the lowest setting to get the best fps and to make each other easier to find. halo needs to stay 60 fps. if they want it to look nice than sacrifice the resolution for better textures and lighting

I have played all of the Halo games that were on the Xbox 360, and on the Xbox One, and I have also played Halo 5 on Xbox One.

60fps does not matter. 60fps does not turn poor games into good ones. 60fps does not make Halo 5 a great game. Halo 5 is not a better game than Halo CE, Halo 2, Halo 3, Halo ODST, or Halo Reach.

But, hey, that’s just my opinion. If graphics and frame rate are all that matter to you, then more power to you. You’re entitled to your own views and opinions.

> 2533274865178253;11:
> I have played all of the Halo games that were on the Xbox 360, and on the Xbox One, and I have also played Halo 5 on Xbox One.
>
> 60fps does not matter. 60fps does not turn poor games into good ones. 60fps does not make Halo 5 a great game. Halo 5 is not a better game than Halo CE, Halo 2, Halo 3, Halo ODST, or Halo Reach.
>
> But, hey, that’s just my opinion. If graphics and frame rate are all that matter to you, then more power to you. You’re entitled to your own views and opinions.

60 fps may not make a game “good” but it can make it better. Frame rate is more than just looks, it actually does effect gameplay just as well.

> 2533274923562209;12:
> > 2533274865178253;11:
> > I have played all of the Halo games that were on the Xbox 360, and on the Xbox One, and I have also played Halo 5 on Xbox One.
> >
> > 60fps does not matter. 60fps does not turn poor games into good ones. 60fps does not make Halo 5 a great game. Halo 5 is not a better game than Halo CE, Halo 2, Halo 3, Halo ODST, or Halo Reach.
> >
> > But, hey, that’s just my opinion. If graphics and frame rate are all that matter to you, then more power to you. You’re entitled to your own views and opinions.
>
>
> 60 fps may not make a game “good” but it can make it better. Frame rate is more than just looks, it actually does effect gameplay just as well.

Particularly with input response.

I don’t know why in its entirety, but when a game runs at 60, the game responds quicker to a variety of external factors in a much better way than 30 FPS does. If this were as meaningless as people claim, then 15 FPS would have still been seen as acceptable.

It’s not as bad at 30, but it isn’t the standard anymore. once you start dipping below 15 FPS in any scenario, you’ll start to really notice how framerate affects controller/KB&M responses… The root of the matter is that games (particularly where split-second decisions come into play regularly) run much more smoothly at 60 rather than 30, this is a fact that PC Gamers have been touting since the 360 era, and we’ve only been getting the benefits for Halo on the Xbox One. I refuse to go back.

And at this point, the argument is irrelevant. 343 isn’t brainless enough to go back to 30 FPS, neither is any other developer that has a clue as to how to make a good modern shooter. (Bungie is not one of them, having sacrificed it for “last gen console parity”)

60 FPS doesn’t make a good game, but the benefits of it are well-known.

> 2533274923562209;8:
> > 2533274855279867;7:
> > 60 vs 30…
> > Noticeable? Yes.
> > Necessary? No.
> > Better? Depends.
>
>
> Depends on necessary. Does it absolutely has to? No, but in today’s generation people want it, and eventually it’ll be the standard, although I’d say they’re now trying to make it the standard. I’m ok with it personally, makes things play smoother and allows more detail, just hope the devs are careful with what they sacrifice if 60 fps has to come at a cost.

It actually has been the standard for several years now. Even on last generation consoles, COD was 60. Games that aren’t 60 are looked at as archaic now, because we have so much better technology to run them. Well, except for the Xbone. That thing is rather bad.

The good things that happen when PCGMR people get really vocal over frame rates.

> 2533274826920712;13:
> I don’t know why in its entirety, but when a game runs at 60, the game responds quicker to a variety of external factors in a much better way than 30 FPS does. If this were as meaningless as people claim, then 15 FPS would have still been seen as acceptable.

That comparison is moot, as 15 FPS is below the human threshold to recognise motion, whereas 30 FPS is not.

> And at this point, the argument is irrelevant. 343 isn’t brainless enough to go back to 30 FPS, neither is any other developer that has a clue as to how to make a good modern shooter.

Well, then they better start pumping out miracles, because all those compromises they had to make in favor of 60 FPS coughsplitscreencough has cost them more customers than the advantages gained them. John Doe does not care (as much) about framerate as they care about missing features… They either go back to 30, or they start making it work with the XBones limited hardware. They might have tricked unaware customers with H5G, but they’re aware and cautious for the next release…

> 2533274801176260;15:
> > 2533274826920712;13:
> > I don’t know why in its entirety, but when a game runs at 60, the game responds quicker to a variety of external factors in a much better way than 30 FPS does. If this were as meaningless as people claim, then 15 FPS would have still been seen as acceptable.
>
>
> That comparison is moot, as 15 FPS is velow the human threshold to recognise motion, whereas 30 FPS is not.
>
>
>
>
> > And at this point, the argument is irrelevant. 343 isn’t brainless enough to go back to 30 FPS, neither is any other developer that has a clue as to how to make a good modern shooter.
>
>
> Well, then they better start pumping out miracles, because all those compromises they had zo make in favor of 60 FPS coughsplitscreencough has cost them more customers than the advantages gained them. John Doe does not care (as much) about framerate as they care about missing features… They either go back to 30, or they start making it work with the XBones limited hardware. They might have tricked unaware customers with H5G, but they’re aware and cautious for the next release…

Then maybe they shouldn’t be trying to hit 1080p on a console that can’t do it with inferior hardware and settle for 900p or 720p instead.

Their reason for omitting it was due to physics being tied to framerate, logical conclusion is to untie the two.

Problem solved, resolution isn’t nearly as important. And I don’t know about you, but I can see the difference in motion and in gameplay between 30 and 60.

EDIT: And if MS can get DX12 to work on the Xbox One, you might just get your miracle wish

> 2533274826920712;16:
> Their reason for omitting it was due to physics being tied to framerate, logical conclusion is to untie the two.

I didn’t say it’s impossible, but that would mean putting actual work into creating an entirely new engine instead of recycling the same one from 2001 with minor adjustments.

> Problem solved, resolution isn’t nearly as important. And I don’t know about you, but I can see the difference in motion and in gameplay between 30 and 60.

I see some difference, but not for the reasons that you think. That being said, I see more difference between 720/1080 than 30/60. As already mentioned in another thread, I’d take 1080@30 over 720@60 anyday. In fact, I’d even accept 720@30 if it meant getting splitscreen back…

EDIT: I just saw your edit. DX12 isn’t the magic solution to all the XBones performance problems. In fact, it was already shown that it only adds like 20% more power at the absolute best case scenario.

> 2533274801176260;17:
> > 2533274826920712;16:
> > Their reason for omitting it was due to physics being tied to framerate, logical conclusion is to untie the two.
>
>
> I didn’t say it’s impossible, but that would mean putting actual work into creating an entirely new engine instead of recycling the same one from 2001 with minor adjustments.
>
>
>
>
> > Problem solved, resolution isn’t nearly as important. And I don’t know about you, but I can see the difference in motion and in gameplay between 30 and 60.
>
>
> I see some difference, but not for the reasons that you think. That being said, I see more difference between 720/1080 than 30/60. As already mentioned in another thread, I’d take 1080@30 over 720@60. In fact, I’d even accept 720@30 if it meant getting splitscreen back…

On the bolded point, they have done more work on the engine than Bungie ever did, to be fair. Remember how content couldn’t be added so easily, and if it did, it was only limited to a subset of maps (or a single map)? That’s not as big of an issue today, if at all. It would stand to reason that they could find a way to have Halo 5’s excellent physics (Hilarious momentum issues aside) through other means

As for the second, I can accept that opinion, though we can differ on the matter. Most of my experience comes from PC gaming, and having played many competitive shooters over the years at both 30 and 60 Frames per second on both PC and Console.

> 2533274826920712;18:
> > 2533274801176260;17:
> > > 2533274826920712;16:
> > > Their reason for omitting it was due to physics being tied to framerate, logical conclusion is to untie the two.
> >
> >
> > I didn’t say it’s impossible, but that would mean putting actual work into creating an entirely new engine instead of recycling the same one from 2001 with minor adjustments.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > Problem solved, resolution isn’t nearly as important. And I don’t know about you, but I can see the difference in motion and in gameplay between 30 and 60.
> >
> >
> > I see some difference, but not for the reasons that you think. That being said, I see more difference between 720/1080 than 30/60. As already mentioned in another thread, I’d take 1080@30 over 720@60. In fact, I’d even accept 720@30 if it meant getting splitscreen back…
>
>
> On the bolded point, they have done more work on the engine than Bungie ever did, to be fair. Remember how content couldn’t be added so easily, and if it did, it was only limited to a subset of maps (or a single map)? That’s not as big of an issue today, if at all. It would stand to reason that they could find a way to have Halo 5’s excellent physics (Hilarious momentum issues aside) through other means
>
> As for the second, I can accept that opinion, though we can differ on the matter. Most of my experience comes from PC gaming, and having played many competitive shooters over the years at both 30 and 60 Frames per second on both PC and Console.

Yes, I know they changed significant parts of the engine. But they were still using the same one, even though they claimed to have a complete new one for H5G, which was a blatant lie. (And I concede that Bungie was worse in that point as they claimed the same for Reach.)

However, separating FPS from physics won’t be possible, since it seems hard-coded into the engine itself. It’d be the same as trying to have C++ run without relying on classes.

As for your second point, you’re only comparing framerate under the same resolution. I’d argue that when comparing 720@60 to 1080@30, the latter runs and feels significantly smoother. Of course if possible, I’d want both but having to choose either, I rank resolution significantly higher than framerate.

Wait, was this even controversial? I honestly haven’t met anyone who thought Halo going 60 FPS was a bad idea.

For campaign, though, 30 FPS doesn’t bother me.