One should expect a game like Madden Football to play at 60fps because it’s simulating a live sporting event while a game such as HALO or Killzone on the other hand, is better presented as 30fps which is closer to 24fps resulting in a cinematic look.
Of course this is all subject to artistic interpretation, vision, and the imagination of the developers. They ultimately choose how to make their respective games, all I ask is for developers not to take advantage of the ignorant gamers who fall for the ‘big number’ marketing and also not to give into fanboys who constantly fan the flames of this ignorant 60fps type of thinking.
Original Destiny artist Darren Bacon recalls how Bungie reacted to the art style change of Halo 4 by 343 Industries.
Bungie at that time became the most wonderful bunch of hypocrites in the gaming industry. Knowing this now, gosh the entitlement they felt was out of this world.
Nothing like buying yourself from Microsoft because you don't want to be the Halo Studio anymore, and the FIRST THING you do is sign your next IP over to Activision, for a DECADE, while they are in the middle of ousting the heads of Infinity Ward so they can exert even more control over COD while screwing out the devs at IW...
Should've come as no surprise then that Activision gutted the content of Destiny 1 before launch and was a horrible partner through Destiny 2, until history repeated itself and Bungie had to split from Activision only to wind up in the arms of another major conglomerate that also doesn't know how to handle these unmanageable devs.
Tti their credit they praised the technical abilities of 343 and I remember at the time thinking halo 4 was a huge graphical leap above reach everything else was rubbish when I actually got to play it but there was no doubt it looked good for the 360 and is probably the best looking game on the system.
But ultimately I think bungie has always had a leadership problem and going independent ultimately proved this it's only getting worse with studio heads being outed by Sony for abuse allegations seems like all bungies past success has been in spite of management not because of it.
But really I think the bungie we have today is not the same one we had in that Xbox era of Bungie
I liked the artstyle change. For the most part. Something looked worse but most of everything else looked better. Weapons and vehicles for sure. The wraith come to my mind instantly.
And how can they get mad when the bungie changed it with Halo Reach?
I know a lot of people dislike Halo 4’s arts style, but there’s thing about it I like and dislike. Personally, the Halo 4 design of Master Chief’s armour is my favourite depiction of the character’s armour.
In Halo 4, 5, and Infinite, Master Chief became a more nuanced, human character.
In spite of the Halo series’ struggles, 343 deserves praise for adding nuance and characterisation to the ever-beating heart of Halo - The Master Chief. Playing through Infinite, it's abundantly clear that the events of the current and previous trilogies have irrevocably changed the iconic hero. He’s no longer the ‘blank slate’ that was previously presented by Bungie. He’s a fatigued, damaged and fallible protagonist, and one who is meandering through currents of grief, while reveling in his newfound agency. Giving the Chief a compelling and meaningful voice was no small feat, and 343 should be proud of that victory.
This article completely misses part of the appeal of the original iteration of character in the original game trilogy. It was the Chief and Cortana vs an entire alien collective. The blank slate Bungie displayed in their games was genius, he was an mysterious hero a wide audience could identify with because he wasn't as clearly defined as most characters.
The books added a lot of lore and backstory but most Halo players just want a fun game with exposition that doesn't get in the way of gameplay, it's why the Cortana level in Halo 3 was derided.
Not every character has to be a damaged soyboy, a soldier has to suck it up and do his duty.
A lot of people give the 343 version of Master Chief a lot of slack.
But Fundamentally he is still the same character, he just has a couple more dialogues. He has not changed in terms of attitude.
"Not every character has to be a damaged soyboy, a soldier has to suck it up and do his duty."
And that's what he has done at the end of the day, he did his duty. Watch his partner die, and was ready to destroy the weapon in Halo infinite....he is still the same soilder that everyone remembers
Halo Infintes one was a nice balance between both.
The 343i Master Chief has is based on the books. However, in Halo 4-Infinite, the Master Chief overtime become. gradually becomes more willing to show some emotion.
"However, in Halo 4-Infinite, the Master Chief overtime become. gradually becomes more willing to show some emotion."
Which is awesome! I love how Master Chief become more John and less soldier.
It’s a law of nature that eventually, every long-running game franchise will have a particular entry that gets dinged for straying too far from what made it so fun in the first place. Your Super Mario Sunshine, your Dragon Age II, Assassin’s Creed III, and so on. Whether or not that opinion changes more favorably over time, the initial specter of negativity will forever hover it. Microsoft’s Halo is no exception, except that negative specter hasn’t hovered over one particular game, but one whole studio.
30 is enough
As the article touches on. It's a preference. Not all games should be aiming for 60. Killzone:SF will be just fine at 30/1080p. But sometimes... 60fps looks so dang smooth.
"HALO or Killzone on the other hand, is better presented as 30fps which is closer to 24fps resulting in a cinematic look."
Hahahahaha.
Choosing to target 30 FPS is not an "artistic" choice. Games don't look more cinematic by having lower framerates - that's absurd. Every time console game production is started, developers will sit down and discuss what their goals for this game are.
Last generation, you couldn't make a game look very pretty and run at 60 FPS, so cutbacks were made. COD is the best example of that; targeting 60 FPS on consoles at the cost of graphics.
Now that the new generation has arrived, console game developers suddenly have a lot more room to add pretty graphics AND target 60 FPS. I can pretty much gurarantee that Guerrilla Games didn't want KZ:SF to run at 30 FPS. Their initial target was certainly 60 FPS, but had to drop that when they realized that they couldn't achieve the level of graphical fidelity they had intended.
There's never been a single moment in my 15+ years of gaming that I've ever thought to myself: "Damn, this game would be SO much better if it was running at a slower framerate".
what a joke. /facepalm
"It doesn't make the game better, but it does make the overall experience better."
Not necessarily - Sure smoother motion and quicker responses are direct result of a faster frame rate but is that always the best results? I have to say no. Oh and yes a faster rate because of the added CPU stress does subtract from other gameplay influences which are depending on the resources at the devs disposal.
However, as I mentioned before this may more than likely change for the better beginning with large scale MP battles presented in BF4 which is running at 60fps. You're right, it is a trade-off.