Halo: Reach Forum
This topic has moved here: Subject: Bring it up to 60fps?
  • Subject: Bring it up to 60fps?
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • of 2
Subject: Bring it up to 60fps?
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Why can't we run at something in between?

45fps?

  • 08.08.2009 8:47 PM PDT

I would only want Reach to run at 60fps if absolutely no graphical splendor is sacrificed. I'd rather take a better looking game that runs at 30fps.

  • 08.08.2009 8:53 PM PDT
  •  | 
  • Fabled Legendary Member

"Rise and shine Mister Freeman. Rise and----shine." -Gman

Posted by: redearth
Posted by: Hypogonadism
Posted by: redearth
Posted by: USmarine1
do you know that in games FPS stand for first person shooter


Did you know in games and consoles and computers and animations and in all graphics FPS means Frames per Second as well? Seriously, he knows what he's talking about,

I'd rather see 150 FPS, but seeing as that is improbable on a console at this point, 60 sounds good to me! Maybe 80. That would be nice. If my dream of 150 does come true though at least we know we can all say my Xbox runs Halo: Reach. And we can say it to fanboys. : )


150 FPS would be completely pointless. 99.99% of TVs will top out at 60 fps, so you don't need to go above that.

Yes I would like to see 60 fps. Yes I would also like to see people who understand that fps is both first person shooter and frames per second, I'm talking to you USmarine1.


When I said 150 FPS I was joking. 100% joking. I know it's not possible now. At some point though TV's will be able to handle it, and games will follow.


Ontopic:

Better FPS may me worse graphics, but only in a give some to take some scenario, You can increase both at the same time, and I would rather have optimum FPS than optimum graphics.
Well, in older CRT monitors, 120 fps is entirely possible but pretty much pointless because there is no difference above 85 fps. But anyway I would rather have high graphics than high FPS. 30 fps is totally acceptable and playable. And if Halo went 60 fps, it would just look.....weird. We've been stuck at 30 fps for so long.

  • 08.08.2009 9:17 PM PDT

How to spell "space"?

S-P-ACE! SPACE!

Posted by: A7XEric
I would only want Reach to run at 60fps if absolutely no graphical splendor is sacrificed. I'd rather take a better looking game that runs at 30fps.

You have a good point. CoD doesn't look great.

  • 08.08.2009 9:22 PM PDT

Posted by: arachnid223
Posted by: albert275
30/40fps is all i need the game to be up to.
You don't want Halo's resolution to be lowered to 600p - like COD MW2, do you?
it has been comfirmed by microsoft ages ago that ALL 360 games are required to be able to run at 1080p.


MW2's native resolution is 600p.

And to albert275: Who cares if it's "lowered"? The graphics in MW2 look gorgeous and they run at 60 fps. I certainly wouldn't complain if Bungie pulled off the same thing.

[Edited on 08.08.2009 9:51 PM PDT]

  • 08.08.2009 9:51 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

I guess you guys don't realize just how much is going on in Bungie's engines. Having the framerate locked at 30fps is a decisive move: with it, you are able to include a larger variety of effects, overdraw, alpha and whatnot. I believe 30fps with v-sync is a lot better than a variable framerate, and with 60fps, all you get are twice the frames drawn per second. This would have conflicted with Bungie's HDR in a number of ways; the lighting in general. CoD4 is really light on dynamic lights, instead using a primitive fixed point exposure light, bloom, and depth of field to create convincing lighting.

Halo 3's engine has a lot of incredible technology behind it. I suspect Reach will take the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" approach, and keep the same traditional methods that Bungie has used in the past Halo games. Expect Reach to be locked at 30fps, while bursting at the seams with graphical goodness.

  • 08.08.2009 10:00 PM PDT

  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • of 2