• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Microsoft making a big mistake pushing 1080/60 on new Halo titles...

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Status
Not open for further replies.
futurefields said:
absolutely

xb1 could use the extra frametime to push better physics and visuals

1080/60 has got to be a challenge for a gpu with 16 ROPs and DDR3 for vram
Click to expand...

they aren't changing the games physics though...

yeah you sure seem to know a lot about the game you are trying to bash here. i wouldn't expecting anything less though.
 
im not bashing the game. i think its a good idea overall and gives me impetus to pick up an xb1.

your hyperbole and general attitude though? getting pretty old.

go ahead and keep letting other peoples opinions and judgements get you angry though...
 
futurefields said:
my hyperbole and general attitude though? getting pretty old.
Click to expand...
FTFY

You've routinely displayed not only ignorance, but a fondness of displaying that with multiple threads.

And claiming a game made for SD being ported to full HD at 60fps as a bad thing, is just ludicrous. Please refrain from any further comments on the subject; your opinion is invalid.
 
futurefields said:
im not bashing the game. i think its a good idea overall and gives me impetus to pick up an xb1.

your hyperbole and general attitude though? getting pretty old.

go ahead and keep letting other peoples opinions and judgements get you angry though...
Click to expand...

no one is getting angry here, just making sure that people who aren't in the know don't believe all of the false information you keep bringing up about a game you know nothing about.
 
Wingznut said:
A "big mistake" would directly infer negative consequences. So, what exactly do you think those consequences are of this "big mistake"?

Will it sell less because it's 60fps?
Will fans enjoy it less, thus hurting the brand for future purchases? Sure, I can see it now... "I'd like to cancel my Halo 5 pre-order. Why, you ask? Oh, because Halo 2 remastered was 60 frames per second!"

No doubt you'd criticize it, if it were 30 fps. Or 47 fps, or 192 fps, or...
Click to expand...
So really... What are the consequences of this "big mistake"?

Also, isn't it possible that more gamers would want 60fps?
 
futurefields said:
900/30 would give them more headroom to push the graphics rendering further ie. better lighting, shadows etc...

as it stands a lot of gpu bandwidth will get eaten alive by their 1080/60 requirement. the games look good, but could look a lot better...
Click to expand...

480/20 would give them more headroom to push graphics. Hell, they'd be idiots to go higher than 360i. What were they thinking?
 
When I tried The Last of Us on PS4 with the 30 FPS lock my eyes bled immediately and I lost consciousness for half a day.

There is not a single situation where 30 FPS > 60 FPS.

I am happy MS is doing the 1080p/60 thing. I'll be sure to pick the pack up once I get an Xbox One eventually and the game's fluidity will for sure be a bonus and not a hindrance (played Halo 1 and 2 on PC).
 
it would look better at 900/30 if you value fx over resolution/framerate

thats called an opinion, which can be neither true or false

where did i state they are changing the physics?
 
Playing the devil's advocate for a bit...

I don't think 1080p/60FPS is an ideal target for an Xbox One game right now... not because that's not what makes the most sense for a console game like Halo, but because the Xbox One has a memory bottleneck issue that hasn't quite been figured out by devs yet (and might never be).

900p 60 FPS would probably have been a good option for the Xbox One's hardware... especially since the upscaler does a pretty good job with 900p

I'd probably expect that the next big Halo game will probably be 900p 60 FPS

That said.... I like the 1080p 60 FPS target on this remaster, because the remaster's not really meant to push the top end of the limits on what the Xbox One's GPU can do. Doing that would visually stray too much from the original games' art style too much, and cost too much development effort that could/should be spent on the new Xbox One Halo. This is a smooth running, visually improved version of past Halo games, that needs to adhere to original art.

Thinking 900p 60 FPS is a superior target for an Xbox One game, though, isn't irrational at all. And it's typical that the OP was personally attacked. I suppose that's how some of you roll here.
 
Last edited:
futurefields said:
false information? what have i stated that is false?
Click to expand...

You've stated opinion as fact. That's the false information. You said that 1080-60 IS a mistake, and that 900/30 IS better. You didn't say that they were your preferences, you said that those ARE the right answers.

That, and you're just generally a troll here.
 
Fulle said:
Thinking 900p 60 FPS is a superior target for an Xbox One game, though, isn't irrational at all. And it's typical that the OP was personally attacked. I suppose that's how some of you roll here.
Click to expand...

It's called a contrary opinion with every topic posted. Not to play devil's advocate or spur conversation, but to draw the ire of the forum.
 
I don't know why you guys want 1080p. Only PS4 losers get and want that.

If you were a real gamer you would game on 480i on tube.


I am sure Microsoft is going to do the best it can do. I think this game is a huge deal for them and they have a lot riding on it. Halo channel and tv show has to be an expensive ordeal. It is the only game for me that made me completely lean toward XB1.
 
drbrock said:
I don't know why you guys want 1080p. Only PS4 losers get and want that.

If you were a real gamer you would game on 480i on tube.


I am sure Microsoft is going to do the best it can do. I think this game is a huge deal for them and they have a lot riding on it. Halo channel and tv show has to be an expensive ordeal. It is the only game for me that made me completely lean toward XB1.
Click to expand...
Pretty much this but I got the xb1 because I could and I want to play all the games I can. Some of those won't be on ps4.
 
KentState said:
It's called a contrary opinion with every topic posted. Not to play devil's advocate or spur conversation, but to draw the ire of the forum.
Click to expand...

I just noticed I said 900p 60 FPS there, when the OP was suggesting 900p 30 FPS. Which, is a valid suggestion, actually.

Visual quality is definitely a factor. You can get more effects into a game that's 900p 30 FPS, but then there's the issue of smoothness.

Some displays might not seem as fluid in gameplay that's variable between 30-60FPS, as they would if things were locked to 30. On the Xbox One, the visual benefit from going from 900p to 1080p, might not be worth it, since the GPU just isn't large enough, and the memory bandwidth just isn't there, to run things well at that resolution.

It's too bad it's not left up to customer choice. I would really like the option to change settings like this in game.

On the PS4 some games have added some minor graphic control options. I recall being able to turn off some effects like FOV in Warframe, inFamous lets you lock to 30 FPS if you want, and FF14 lets you change between 720p and 1080p resolutions. A game like Halo could be a great trend setter if it had lots of graphic options.
 
i really hope they don't start having graphics settings. they are already making consoles too pc like, i hope they don't continue along that line. one of the benefits of console gaming is that EVERYONE is playing the same exact game performance, graphics, etc., wise.
 
Back in the PS2 days (before I knew anything about graphics or hardware) I always felt the additional smoothness of games running at 60 fps provided sort of a well-tuned, polished feel.
 
Lil Frier said:
You've stated opinion as fact. That's the false information. You said that 1080-60 IS a mistake, and that 900/30 IS better. You didn't say that they were your preferences, you said that those ARE the right answers.

That, and you're just generally a troll here.
Click to expand...


Do I need to preface my opinions with "in my opinion..." ?
 
Its the sort of game where a choice between 30 and 60 fps might be worth it. Those wanting 30 could have it along with some additional quality effects and graphics and the 60 fps crowd could also have their reduced graphics and increased smoothness. One of the big issues with consoles lack of graphics settings is that you don't get to make this choice, and in some games it matters quite a bit.

I recently got gsync and one thing I just noticed is I enjoy some games I never got into now that I didn't before. These games were notorious stuttery games, and while when playing them I never really complained about that too much now they are smooth I seem to like the game again. There is definitely something for me at least associated with how smooth gameplay is that keeps me playing, stutter breaks immersion.

The crew is one of those games that on PC in the beta we have been able to set it to 60 fps. The difference is amazing, at 30 its just not enough, a fast driving game has too much input latency and stutter at low fps.

I just think this debate shows that maybe its time for some of these console games to finally start offering the basic option, 30 or 60.
 
Exactly, Halo was never 60fps and doesn't need to be now. This is consolewars/marketing driven game development. It's easy to write "1080/60" it's not as easy to explain enhanced global illumination, parralax occlussion mapping, tessellation, foilage rendering distance etc...
 
The "choice" doesn't belong on consoles though. Not for a game with a competitive MP aspect to it.

Observe Last of Us on PS4 with the option for 60fps or 30fps with slightly better shadows and then tell me 30fps is "just fine".
 
futurefields said:
Exactly, Halo was never 60fps and doesn't need to be now. This is consolewars/marketing driven game development. It's easy to write "1080/60" it's not as easy to explain enhanced global illumination, parralax occlussion mapping, tessellation, foilage rendering distance etc...
Click to expand...

Halo doesn't need enhanced global illumination, parralax occlussion mapping, tessellation, or foilage rendering distance either.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top