Forums / Games / Halo 5: Guardians

What does 60 fps do?

OP Neplusultra009

  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. ...
  7. 6
Smoother visuals and prevention input lag issues, not to mention eliminates the need for motion blur which often times makes me physically ill.

Also go play halo 4 MM on the xbone for a hour, then go to the 360 and play for a hour. Then back to the Xbone. You will feel the difference so much that your eyes and head actually hurt from the frame rate changes. The 30FPS feels super slow and sluggish that it hurts.
This is a very good way to compare them.
S 000 DeM wrote:
I think it should be toggable for people who don't want those sacrifices.
The game wasn't designed in a way that allows for that functionality.
I don't understand. Delta timing has existed for 20 years now. Was 343 unable to implement this for some reason, or is it not applicable for some reason I'm overlooking?

Sorry for the double post. Tried to copy the quote and edit it into my currently existing post, but Waypoint ui.
Awsomonium wrote:
Also go play halo 4 MM on the xbone for a hour, then go to the 360 and play for a hour. Then back to the Xbone. You will feel the difference so much that your eyes and head actually hurt from the frame rate changes. The 30FPS feels super slow and sluggish that it hurts.
This is a very good way to compare them.
What I did. Whe The whole, sacrifice 60 fps to 30 fps to get split-screen back bs started. Tried this out and said.

"Keep split-screen out. I'm never going back to 30 fps on a halo title again"
Thanks for all of the responses they clarify what benefits are available much better than before, but does 60fps have a higher chance of dropping its frame rates than a 30fps game because of all the strain on the system?
Only ask because I thought the frame rate drops were the major issues with some games that caused the most problems and not the aimed for fps level.
Makes the gameplay slightly smoother. Its nice but imo not worth sacrificing split screen for.
However I may be biased as I happily play games on my PC at 20 fps...
I have mixed feelings about it because it does make the game play smoother but it just looks soooo cheesey.

It's worse when there is something large in the distance that's moving slowly and 60fps makes it look so weird.
Thanks for all of the responses they clarify what benefits are available much better than before, but does 60fps have a higher chance of dropping its frame rates than a 30fps game because of all the strain on the system?
Only ask because I thought the frame rate drops were the major issues with some games that caused the most problems and not the aimed for fps level.
Okay first off if you have an unstable frame rate no matter what the top is the game will still feel awful to play. Assassins creed unity is an example of game that runs bad no matter what.

As for your initial question 60 fps allows for double the input time. So lets say you're playing Halo 3 and you press the trigger at 30 fps the game has 30 chances to register your input, but at 60 fps the game has 60 chances. This is the primary benefit, but as stated by others there are many more.
I played a match of Horde on Gears 3 after the Gears 1 beta ended since it reminded me how great and fun of a series it is.

The drop is nauseating
gethtones wrote:
I have mixed feelings about it because it does make the game play smoother but it just looks soooo cheesey.

It's worse when there is something large in the distance that's moving slowly and 60fps makes it look so weird.
What are you talking about?
60fps removes blur caused by the gaps between frames. That's it.
It doesn't change anything else or make things look weird...
60fps is the new standard, and that's how it should be.
It helps makes the game be more responsive too
Smoother visuals and prevention input lag issues, not to mention eliminates the need for motion blur which often times makes me physically ill.
UC4 is at 30fps and has some of the best character animations, but Halo 5 will have a lot more stuff going on with dozens of enemies at a single time, so 60 fps is better for smoother gameplay but not necessarily for animations. At one point in the vidoc I counted about 6 elites with about 8 grunts and a few jackals all in that one snowy area. They could have done more with 30 fps but sacrificed gameplay.
Erik L wrote:
gethtones wrote:
I have mixed feelings about it because it does make the game play smoother but it just looks soooo cheesey.

It's worse when there is something large in the distance that's moving slowly and 60fps makes it look so weird.
What are you talking about?
60fps removes blur caused by the gaps between frames. That's it.
It doesn't change anything else or make things look weird...
60fps is the new standard, and that's how it should be.
60fps was the standard right up to the Playstation and Nintendo 64. I don't know why people can't grasp the fact that games have been running at 60fps for more than 35 years. It became industry standard to put games at 30 because they wanted games to have a more cinematic feel to them. The only games that continued to run at 60 were fighting games and racing games. Once the console first person shooters became king Call of Duty started running at 60. Since at least Call of Duty 3 they have ran at 60, and that is why every single Call of Duty since 3 has look identical to the last. This isn't something new that should be debated; video games should run at a higher frame rate because the more frames you have the more chances the game has to register the inputs.
Thanks for all of the responses they clarify what benefits are available much better than before, but does 60fps have a higher chance of dropping its frame rates than a 30fps game because of all the strain on the system?
Only ask because I thought the frame rate drops were the major issues with some games that caused the most problems and not the aimed for fps level.
Okay first off if you have an unstable frame rate no matter what the top is the game will still feel awful to play. Assassins creed unity is an example of game that runs bad no matter what.

As for your initial question 60 fps allows for double the input time. So lets say you're playing Halo 3 and you press the trigger at 30 fps the game has 30 chances to register your input, but at 60 fps the game has 60 chances. This is the primary benefit, but as stated by others there are many more.
I understand frame rate drop happens in any game I was wondering, is a game running at a higher frame rate at a higher chance to have a drop if not done well than a lower fps?
I am not trying to antagonize anything with this least of all halo just for anyone thinking, I am just trying to get a better grasp on the subject particularly as it relates to halo.
It allows for a smoother gameplay experience. It also improves aiming and hit registration because in addition to just the graphics processing at double the frame rate, most other gameplay function also operate at a higher rate like physics simulation, hitscan detection, etc.

On another note, in light of all these people whining about local split screen being omitted in favor of a better gameplay experience...343i is absolutely right. I just tried to play split screen (with only 1 other player) last night in a LAN party at a buddy's place for the first time in years and it's just terrible...the lag and frame rate drop is insane.
Thanks for all of the responses they clarify what benefits are available much better than before, but does 60fps have a higher chance of dropping its frame rates than a 30fps game because of all the strain on the system?
Only ask because I thought the frame rate drops were the major issues with some games that caused the most problems and not the aimed for fps level.
Okay first off if you have an unstable frame rate no matter what the top is the game will still feel awful to play. Assassins creed unity is an example of game that runs bad no matter what.

As for your initial question 60 fps allows for double the input time. So lets say you're playing Halo 3 and you press the trigger at 30 fps the game has 30 chances to register your input, but at 60 fps the game has 60 chances. This is the primary benefit, but as stated by others there are many more.
I understand frame rate drop happens in any game I was wondering, is a game running at a higher frame rate at a higher chance to have a drop if not done well than a lower fps?
I am not trying to antagonize anything with this least of all halo just for anyone thinking, I am just trying to get a better grasp on the subject particularly as it relates to halo.
Honestly no regardless of how high the frame rate is you're just as likely to have dips here and there in very busy scenes. It typically depends on how well optimized the game is and what hardware it is running on. Take for example Skyrim, on PC it runs like a Bethesda game and caps out at 60fps. On playstation 3 and Xbox 360 it runs at 30fps, but runs better on 360. Why is that? Because the PS3 had a proprietary operating system which was hard to code for, while the 360 had a fairly basic OS. Optimization is the key my friend if it isn't optimized no matter how high the ceiling it will run poorly.

In all honesty that post wasn't meant to come across as hostel. If it did I apologize, but frame rate is something I feel should not be taken lightly.
Thanks for all of the responses they clarify what benefits are available much better than before, but does 60fps have a higher chance of dropping its frame rates than a 30fps game because of all the strain on the system?
Only ask because I thought the frame rate drops were the major issues with some games that caused the most problems and not the aimed for fps level.
Okay first off if you have an unstable frame rate no matter what the top is the game will still feel awful to play. Assassins creed unity is an example of game that runs bad no matter what.

As for your initial question 60 fps allows for double the input time. So lets say you're playing Halo 3 and you press the trigger at 30 fps the game has 30 chances to register your input, but at 60 fps the game has 60 chances. This is the primary benefit, but as stated by others there are many more.
I understand frame rate drop happens in any game I was wondering, is a game running at a higher frame rate at a higher chance to have a drop if not done well than a lower fps?
I am not trying to antagonize anything with this least of all halo just for anyone thinking, I am just trying to get a better grasp on the subject particularly as it relates to halo.
Honestly no regardless of how high the frame rate is you're just as likely to have dips here and there in very busy scenes. It typically depends on how well optimized the game is and what hardware it is running on. Take for example Skyrim, on PC it runs like a Bethesda game and caps out at 60fps. On playstation 3 and Xbox 360 it runs at 30fps, but runs better on 360. Why is that? Because the PS3 had a proprietary operating system which was hard to code for, while the 360 had a fairly basic OS. Optimization is the key my friend if it isn't optimized no matter how high the ceiling it will run poorly.

In all honesty that post wasn't meant to come across as hostel. If it did I apologize, but frame rate is something I feel should not be taken lightly.
No fear it was not taken as hostile just earlier I was accused of trolling and just wanted to restate that. I appreciate your answers greatly and I agree that anything that could make the game better should be taken seriously.
As for your initial question 60 fps allows for double the input time. So lets say you're playing Halo 3 and you press the trigger at 30 fps the game has 30 chances to register your input, but at 60 fps the game has 60 chances. This is the primary benefit, but as stated by others there are many more.
It's even more than that. Games generally take 3-4 frames to turn the input into action on the screen, which adds up to 100-133 milliseconds of input lag from the game alone at 30 fps, and 50-67 milliseconds at 60 fps. Shaving off that extra 50 millseconds from the input lag is huge for responsiveness. This is the greatest benefit for games, which unfortunately gets lost in any video comparison.
Do not post inappropriate comments.

Spoiler:
Show
BSHADY wrote:
From what I have gathered it is not the 60 fps that did that but the manner in which 343 elected to handle its implementation. But I am like wise greatly upset by its removal.
  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. ...
  7. 6