Why wouldnt it? At 120fps wpuldnt the image be clearer?Sir Cool One wrote:In theory it's possible. I can't imagine it'd be a worthwhile improvement that's supported, but yeah it could be done.
Frame rate has nothing to do with image clarityBlack96z wrote:Why wouldnt it? At 120fps wpuldnt the image be clearer?Sir Cool One wrote:In theory it's possible. I can't imagine it'd be a worthwhile improvement that's supported, but yeah it could be done.
Maybe smoother motion would have been a better way of putting it.Bensolo31 wrote:Frame rate has nothing to do with image clarityBlack96z wrote:Why wouldnt it? At 120fps wpuldnt the image be clearer?Sir Cool One wrote:In theory it's possible. I can't imagine it'd be a worthwhile improvement that's supported, but yeah it could be done.
Still, smoother motion doesn't make the graphics any better. I'd prefer way better graphics at 60fps over somewhat better graphics at 120fps any day.Black96z wrote:Maybe smoother motion would have been a better way of putting it.Bensolo31 wrote:Frame rate has nothing to do with image clarityBlack96z wrote:Why wouldnt it? At 120fps wpuldnt the image be clearer?Sir Cool One wrote:In theory it's possible. I can't imagine it'd be a worthwhile improvement that's supported, but yeah it could be done.
Most people dont have 4K tv's. But as time goes by more and more people are buying them. As time goes by more and more tv's and monitors will be capable of above 60fps.JOLTLORD wrote:Just putting this out there, many TVs and Monitors can't display above 60fps.
I'm skeptical about the last point. High refresh rates are a much older thing than 4K, yet true high refresh rate TVs aren't really much of a thing, which is both due to, and reflected in, the fact that there is no high refresh rate content available for the living room. The only significant market for high refresh rate displays has for years been competitive PC gaming. So, unless something drastically changes in the coming years, high refresh rates will remain the niche market they are.Black96z wrote:Most people dont have 4K tv's. But as time goes by more and more people are buying them. As time goes by more and more tv's and monitors will be capable of above 60fps.JOLTLORD wrote:Just putting this out there, many TVs and Monitors can't display above 60fps.
Isnt that what Halo is doing is becoming competitive gaming??? Consoles are becoming more like pc's every generation.tsassi wrote:Black96z wrote:JOLTLORD wrote:The only significant market for high refresh rate displays has for years been competitive PC gaming. So, unless something drastically changes in the coming years, high refresh rates will remain the niche market they are.
I loved how H5 played because of how smooth it is. After playing H5 i went back to older Halos and I felt it was hard to play at the lower frames.Sunsdune wrote:Honestly watching TV at that high a refresh rate would be just as jarring (if not worse) than going from 30 FPS to 60 in video games. I may be in the minority but , Halo 5 running at 60 is very smooth ; it is also disconcerting (for me at least) to play at that frame rate. It doesn't "feel natural" after having played 6 Halo games at 30 FPS.
Yes , competitive console gaming is becoming a larger market. This is why Microsoft made a monitor vga cord for the 360 that didn't sell well. (I used a monitor in my 360 days is the only reason I know it existed). Whether they have or are considering the same for the Xone or Scorpio , I can't say. But , with HDMI becoming more and more the accepted connection for TV and monitor input , you could probably get a monitor to play at these refresh rates , instead of trying to influence a medium (TV) that has no other use for such an advancement. There are no shows or movies being produced at that frame rate , and as such the innovation would be mostly wasted on the average consumer.Black96z wrote:Isnt that what Halo is doing is becoming competitive gaming??? Consoles are becoming more like pc's every generation.tsassi wrote:Black96z wrote:JOLTLORD wrote:The only significant market for high refresh rate displays has for years been competitive PC gaming. So, unless something drastically changes in the coming years, high refresh rates will remain the niche market they are.
Awesome , I am seriously happy that you are enjoying the experience. ( I haven't enjoyed Halo multi player for a long time [traditionalist]) After playing it for a while the first few weeks some of the issues I had were resolved , I just couldn't ever get the hang of it.Black96z wrote:I loved how H5 played because of how smooth it is. After playing H5 i went back to older Halos and I felt it was hard to play at the lower frames.Sunsdune wrote:Honestly watching TV at that high a refresh rate would be just as jarring (if not worse) than going from 30 FPS to 60 in video games. I may be in the minority but , Halo 5 running at 60 is very smooth ; it is also disconcerting (for me at least) to play at that frame rate. It doesn't "feel natural" after having played 6 Halo games at 30 FPS.
Yes, 343i is trying to support their own vision of competitive Halo. And yes, modern consoles are not much more than really locked down computers. All I was saying is that the intersection of console gamers and people who have a high refresh rate display isn't awfully large, and so developers don't have much of an incentive.Black96z wrote:Isnt that what Halo is doing is becoming competitive gaming??? Consoles are becoming more like pc's every generation.tsassi wrote:The only significant market for high refresh rate displays has for years been competitive PC gaming. So, unless something drastically changes in the coming years, high refresh rates will remain the niche market they are.
That's interesting. I had the complete opposite experience when I played classic CE a while ago. For a moment I genuinely thought the game was having some unexplainable performance issues. Then I realized it's the frame rate. If there is one thing I like about the gameplay in Halo 5, it's the frame rate, and I'm glad 343i realized to go for what should be the minimum acceptable frame rate in any reasonably fast paced game.Sunsdune wrote:Honestly watching TV at that high a refresh rate would be just as jarring (if not worse) than going from 30 FPS to 60 in video games. I may be in the minority but , Halo 5 running at 60 is very smooth ; it is also disconcerting (for me at least) to play at that frame rate. It doesn't "feel natural" after having played 6 Halo games at 30 FPS.
I don't disagree , as I said Halo 5 is smoother than it has ever been , it just doesn't work for me (I know this is personal preference , and I hold no grudge for those that truly enjoy the game). It is entirely possible that I am just to old to appreciate it (I am 38 , and my Mother still plays NES games because she doesn't like all the complication of "Modern" systems and game mechanics).tsassi wrote:Yes, 343i is trying to support their own vision of competitive Halo. And yes, modern consoles are not much more than really locked down computers. All I was saying is that the intersection of console gamers and people who have a high refresh rate display isn't awfully large, and so developers don't have much of an incentive.Black96z wrote:Isnt that what Halo is doing is becoming competitive gaming??? Consoles are becoming more like pc's every generation.tsassi wrote:The only significant market for high refresh rate displays has for years been competitive PC gaming. So, unless something drastically changes in the coming years, high refresh rates will remain the niche market they are.
I'd love it if every console game with any sort of competitive element came with a set of options that let the player choose between target frame rate and graphical fidelity. But that's just not a thing, and I can't really see it becoming any more of a thing over time.That's interesting. I had the complete opposite experience when I played classic CE a while ago. For a moment I genuinely thought the game was having some unexplainable performance issues. Then I realized it's the frame rate. If there is one thing I like about the gameplay in Halo 5, it's the frame rate, and I'm glad 343i realized to go for what should be the minimum acceptable frame rate in any reasonably fast paced game.Sunsdune wrote:Honestly watching TV at that high a refresh rate would be just as jarring (if not worse) than going from 30 FPS to 60 in video games. I may be in the minority but , Halo 5 running at 60 is very smooth ; it is also disconcerting (for me at least) to play at that frame rate. It doesn't "feel natural" after having played 6 Halo games at 30 FPS.
It's not a matter or image quality, it is a matter of refresh for enhanced response time, which is key to competitive.Bensolo31 wrote:Still, smoother motion doesn't make the graphics any better. I'd prefer way better graphics at 60fps over somewhat better graphics at 120fps any day.Black96z wrote:Maybe smoother motion would have been a better way of putting it.Bensolo31 wrote:Frame rate has nothing to do with image clarityBlack96z wrote:Why wouldnt it? At 120fps wpuldnt the image be clearer?Sir Cool One wrote:In theory it's possible. I can't imagine it'd be a worthwhile improvement that's supported, but yeah it could be done.
