230°

60fps? Don’t Believe the Hype

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.

Read Full Story >>
game-insider.com
ShinMaster3912d ago (Edited 3912d ago )

I see the author's point and I agree that 60 or 30fps does not determine the game's quality, worth or validity.

When it comes down to it, I prefer solid 30fps in games like Uncharted or Last Of Us which run pretty smoothly instead of pushing for 60fps with physics and lighting taking a hit.

What matters most to me is frame rate consistency.
For example, Ryse http://youtu.be/VzVlVRe9QYI... runs at 30fps but it tends to have drops and people say it looks the best of all E3 games.

WrAiTh Sp3cTr33912d ago (Edited 3912d ago )

"30 is enough"
Oh really?

http://www.eurogamer.net/ar...

http://www.eurogamer.net/ar...

and...this

http://www.eurogamer.net/ar...

Be sure to use Google Chrome.

Kietz3911d ago (Edited 3911d ago )

I read that as "graphic over gameplay" which, in every other conversation on this site, as far as I have seen, should apparently not be the case.
It was like how I felt about the majority of console games at the end of this gen, where I was seeing sub-hd resolutions and sluggish framerates.
I would have largely preferred proper clarity and overall smoothness over pushing consoles beyond their limits engine-wise and hitting them in the areas mentioned.
Games feel better around 60 frames. 30 is simply passable and anyone who plays at those speeds regularly know there is a huge difference.
Where are all the DmC whiners that were complaining that it only ran at 30?

JokesOnYou3911d ago

While I love Halo I dont think its genuine to say 30fps is a artistic choice for a more cinematic look. NO, system limitations and game design are why its 30fps and its a good choice rather than cutbacks in other areas to make it 60fps. Bottom line is 30fps is fine but 60fps is better, at this point I think 60fps should be the target fps for all shooters, racers, sports and of course fighting games.

3911d ago
ShinMaster3911d ago

@ disagrees

60fps is obviously better than 30fps. We know that.
But my point point is, if 60fps comes at the cost of physics, lighting, etc taking a hit, then I'd rather the game be in 30fps. In which case, it better be a pretty consistent 30 frames with virtually no drops or stutters.

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 3911d ago
HammadTheBeast3912d ago

Only when the graphics look damn amazing and can rival high-end PC's.

AngelicIceDiamond3911d ago

30 is enough but if 60 is achievable, then you can do no wrong.

logan_izer103912d ago

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.

MadLad3911d ago

FPS is THE genre, if any, that should be pushing for 60 frames.

Pandamobile3912d ago

"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".

Shadowolf3912d ago (Edited 3912d ago )

Then you may have never played COD. Ultimately, I believe what the author is getting at is the balancing act of framerate and overall performance.

Since you've been gaming for 15 years I would assume with your experience you understand that a higher framerate doesn't make for a better game, and that is the point being made.

In COD's defense, running at 60fps is perfect for what the game does however, as we can clearly understand, the game offers a shooting gallery affair with dumbed down enemy A.I. for it campaigns while offering a more intimate MP encounters mainly played on smaller maps - All at the expense of 60fps.

There is a trade-off. On the other hand, games like Killzone and HALO can afford to offer larger more cinematic eye-candy b/c of a solid framerate and 30fps has been that mark this gen. Next-gen due to the CPU and GPU horsepower we should begin to see more games at the 60fps mark. Yet, I would always take quality over quantity any day of the week.

Pandamobile3912d ago (Edited 3912d ago )

"higher framerate doesn't make for a better game"

It doesn't make the game better, but it does make the overall experience better. You have faster response times and smoother motion. Obviously, trade-offs have to be made in order to achieve higher frame rates on consoles, but 99% of those trade-offs are visuals. You don't have to dumb down your AI in order to up the frame rate.

Shadowolf3912d ago

"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.

Pandamobile3912d ago (Edited 3912d ago )

You have no idea what you're talking about. When you're dealing with ANYTHING interactive, you always want to minimize the time it takes between a user action and a program's response.

60 FPS > 30 FPS. It's as simple as that. There is no other scenario where a developer would choose 30 over 60 other than to maximize graphical fidelity.

AI computations are generally asynchronous, which means they can be updated at a lower rate than the rendering output. Physics are also asynchronous, and are often updated at a higher rate than rendering output.

30 FPS is not an artistic choice, it's a technical limitation.

Shadowolf3912d ago

I actually do - You're correct in stating that 30fps is a technical limitation however, it isn't a bad limitation. It is a tradeoff.

While a faster response time is accompanied with a higher framerate oftentimes it is at he expense of adding multi-layered shadows, wind and particle effects, and levels that changed in real time.

Check out what 343 Industries had to say about being locked 30fps.

Kiki Wolfkill, Halo 4’s executive producer explains - “We are full 720p this time around; we are 30fps, which we have always been. For us, making sure we are locked at 30fps is the priority and that those large-scale encounters feel good.”

She goes on to say “This version of the engine is based off the Halo: Reach engine but we’ve done ton of work on it and in some cases rebuilt whole parts of it from scratch. That was driven early on by the parts of the game we really wanted to invest in.”

“Lighting, is certainly one of them, AI is another and audio, too. Areas where we really wanted to push beyond what had been done before and some of those systems have been extensively rebuilt.”

Apparently at 60fps their vision of HALO 4 would not have been possible on a current gen console of course.

Pandamobile3912d ago

Yeah, it's a trade-off due to technical limitations.

Your quotes from 343 don't mean anything. We already know that you can't do Halo 4 at 60 FPS on an Xbox 360. The hardware is not fast enough. One might say it's a (wait for it) "limitation".

Hicken3911d ago

Lower framerate will ALWAYS be an artistic choice, because you can ALWAYS cut framerate for improved graphical fidelity. Doesn't matter if we're talking about dropping to 30fps, or dropping to 200fps; if you want more graphical fidelity, you will cut framerate to achieve that.

There's no scenario where you can have ALL the graphical fidelity you want AND ALL the framerate you want. To make no sacrifices would require technology without limitations. And since that doesn't exist, there's no point in trying to state it as a technical limitation.

30fps IS an artistic choice, and only that.

Pandamobile3911d ago

The argument was that 30 FPS is the artistic choice, because some people believe that a frame rate closer to that of film is somehow more cinematic.

Aiming for 30 FPS is a compromise of game play in exchange for increased visuals.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 3911d ago
Show all comments (45)
50°

Master Chief Became More Than A Machine In 343's Halo

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.

Read Full Story >>
thegamer.com
kingnick405d ago

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.

BandarHub404d ago

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.

slate91404d ago

Chief and the halo franchise became a joke under 343

Sciurus_vulgaris404d ago

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.

Obscure_Observer404d ago

"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.

Sciurus_vulgaris404d ago

I didn’t even notice my typos,lol

50°

Halo's Identity Problem Began With an Admirable Mess

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.

The3faces525d ago

True Halo 4 was a sign of 343i's incompetence and the decline of Halo.

180°

10 Years Later, Halo 4 Proves Itself a Disappointing Omen for Halo Infinite

Halo 4 released 10 years ago today, and its disappointing reception was just an omen of things to come with 343 Industries at the helm.

Read Full Story >>
gamerant.com
Sonyslave3533d ago (Edited 533d ago )

Halo 4 and infinite have a 87 on metacritic and five a 84🤣. 343i need contents and everything else will play it self out.

ChasterMies533d ago

Halo 4, 5, and Infinite reviews are good examples of the pressure on review sites to score everything between 8-10 out of 10.

ChubbyBlade532d ago

As if reviews scores are any indication of a franchises health.

Halo has been in shambles for YEARS

-Foxtrot533d ago

Halo 4-6 are like the Star Wars sequel trilogy

They all just seem like a brand new games with small connections to the last one but no solid arc connecting them, you’re just told stuff that happened off screen in between the games and nothing makes sense

It’s like they didn’t plan a new trilogy out

CoNn3rB533d ago

That's actually a pretty good way to sum it up

LucasRuinedChildhood533d ago (Edited 533d ago )

I would argue that the new Star Wars trilogy is still better. lol

Most Halo fans would kill for the equivalent of The Force Awakens at this stage (a competent rehash of what came before it). Halo Infinite tried to be that but was undercooked and failed. Halo 4 wasn't that either - they started messing with the formula straight away although the story was okay.

There was nothing particularly compelling about Halo 5's story besides the fake plot they advertised. The Last Jedi is a divisive movie but as RedLetterMedia would say, it was "sporadically interesting" because it tried some new things and set up things that could have been great (like Kylo teaming up with Rey after backstabbing Snoke). That conversation with Yoda is great and it felt like the real Yoda, not that CGI thing in the prequels.
- "Skywalker, still looking to the horizon. Never here, now, hmm? The need in front of your nose."
- "The greatest teacher, failure is ... Luke, we are what they grow beyond. That is the true burden of all masters."
- "That library contained nothing that the girl Rey does not already possess." (because she already took them, haha).

The Rise Of Skywalker is the only one where loads of stuff happens off screen ("Palpatine has returned") in between and nothing makes sense because ... they just needed a main villain and 100 star destroyers to blow up. They could have done something much better.

MrChow666533d ago

no, all disney star wars sucks also disney marvel and everything godamn disney touches

533d ago Replies(3)
Yui_Suzumiya533d ago

Um, didn't Halo 4 have the best campaign out of the new Trilogy? Lol

ChubbyBlade532d ago

Yep and even then it wasn’t very good.

Levii_92533d ago

I'm getting a good gaming laptop soon and i'm finally going to play through the Halo franchise again plus Infinite but i never played Halo 4 before .. can anyone tell me how's the campaign in comparison to the games before it and compared to Halo 5 ?

Stanjara533d ago

Halo 4 campaign great, multi bad.
Halo 5 campaign trash, multi good.

Best Cortana halo 4.

ChubbyBlade532d ago (Edited 532d ago )

Halo 4 was when they started turning it into a “modern” game. Aka taking tips from CoD.

The older titles were sandbox based with weapons that all filled a niche and vehicles that did the same. Open levels with multiple ways to approach in different spots with different weapons etc.

Halo 4/5 doesn’t have that. It’s a linear shooter and nothing else. The story is alright but that’s about it. If it wasn’t a halo game, it would be ok but because it is a halo game, it’s outshone by the previous games.

It’s a hell of a lot better than 5 though. I found infinite pretty meh

Show all comments (25)