How does Halo do 30 FPS so well?

  • 49 results
  • 1
  • 2
#1 Edited by PS4hasNOgames (1771 posts) -

Halo is probably the best and funnest shooter I ever played, overall. Goldeneye was epic as a kid but as a whole franchise Halo is the best. How does it manage to be so fluid and pretty while running at 30 frames per second? It really must be all about developer talent because Killzone shadow fall looks choppy as hell at 30 fps.

#2 Posted by Motokid6 (5716 posts) -

Halo was always easy on the eyes. Purhaps it's the art the direction.

#3 Edited by MonsieurX (30426 posts) -

Because it was never a graphic powerhouse

#4 Posted by freedomfreak (40918 posts) -

Halo Reach's framerate was pretty bad sometimes. Not to mention the game Halo games aren't exactly lookers.

#5 Posted by Shewgenja (9622 posts) -

Anything less than 60fps is garbage. I thought everyone knew that.

#6 Posted by Pikminmaniac (9051 posts) -

wait... Halo games run at 30fps? I always thought such a competitive series like Halo had to be mandatory 60 fps. I'm no shooter expert so I don't know how much frames matter competitively, but for fighters, it's 60fps or don't bother releasing the game.

#7 Edited by PAL360 (26933 posts) -

Consistant 30fps are acceptable. Doesnt change the fact that it would/will play alot better at 60.

#8 Posted by Alucard_Prime (3036 posts) -

Because, well....it's Halo

#9 Edited by wolverine4262 (19383 posts) -

They focus more on art and performance than technical graphics. Reach pushed it though. Had plenty of slowdown.

#10 Edited by farrell2k (6343 posts) -

It does so well at 30fps because it has to. 30fps isn't really as bad as hermits claim, but 60fps is nice.

#11 Posted by wolverine4262 (19383 posts) -

@farrell2k:

I see cows whining more about framerate than anyone else.

#12 Posted by Shewgenja (9622 posts) -

@wolverine4262 said:

@farrell2k:

I see cows whining more about framerate than anyone else.

You must not go into DriveClub threads much.

#13 Posted by wolverine4262 (19383 posts) -

@Shewgenja:

Hell no, I dont.

#14 Posted by handssss (1837 posts) -

Acceptable if it isn't up and down and all over the place. Even then though, it'd be hard to go back to 30fps if you get to play the game in 60fps and compare. With all of the MCC being 60fps, there should eventually be some good comparison videos posted.

#15 Posted by intotheminx (703 posts) -

Because 30fps isn't as bad as some make it out to be. The only genre you can tell doesn't feel right at 30fps is fighting games. It feels like slo motion some reason with those types of games. 30fps is playable and can be enjoyed...when it dips down to the mid twenties is when you notice something is off.

#16 Posted by jun_aka_pekto (16345 posts) -

@PAL360 said:

Consistant 30fps are acceptable. Doesnt change the fact that it would/will play alot better at 60.

My view as well.

#17 Posted by MightyMuna (1743 posts) -

That's because you've never seen 60FPS Halo.

#19 Posted by Guy_Brohski (299 posts) -

Halo CE was definitely a graphics powerhouse for its time. No other game at that time had such detailed textures and the effective use of bump-mapping gave it a unique look.

#20 Posted by getyeryayasout (7602 posts) -

Stopped at 'funnest'.

#21 Posted by Ripsaw1994 (112 posts) -

Ugly graphics allows the 30fps to remain stable.

/thread

#22 Posted by faizan_faizan (7866 posts) -

It was the PS3 with the frame-rate issues last-gen.

#23 Edited by JigglyWiggly_ (23604 posts) -

Oh man whenever I see system wars topics listed on the homepage they are hilarious.

Looking at 60fps is pretty horrible, 30fps just means turn your computer out and throw it away.

If you have a 144hz display, you don't want to go lower.

You can cap midgame in any quake based engine game like Quake Live. If you have good eyes you can also tell the difference between com_maxfps 120 and 144 in a blind test, I can.

#24 Posted by lamprey263 (24166 posts) -

Halo CE:A wasn't smooth, it often got choppy, though I think some of that must have to do with it being able to be switched between new and old graphics on command. Reach even dipped in framerates at times and it was noticeable from the beginning. This stuck out to me when I played them, don't recall this bugging me in Halo 3 or ODST... but, fun series nonetheless.

Though I don't find the first Halo game nearly as satisfying when I did when I first got an Xbox, I still find Halo 2 quite fun, which is kind of ironic because I was actually disappointed with it originally when I got it, thought it felt short, plus it seemed like forever for the sequel to come out, I remember I pre-ordered it as soon as they offered it from Electronics Boutique, and by the time it released the pre-order slip they gave me was so old they were dumbfounded when they saw it... anyhow, the game had years of me and my friends' anticipation to live up to and if kind of fell short. But, in retrospect, I love it a lot. I especially like the bits playing as the Arbiter, I especially love the bit when he went to hunt down the heretics. As for the games on Xbox 360 Reach and ODST are my favorites. Halo 3 and 4 not so much, but still enjoyable.

My opinion though, and my friends and probably everybody else disagrees with me, but I liked the Halo series from ODST and Reach for making games that don't center around Master Chief, that there can be other characters with important stories in the games big universe worth exploring. I mean focusing on Master Chief so much just cheapens the whole experience for me, it's too grandiose to me for it to be compelling. I like the game but don't particularly like the character... he really has none.

#25 Posted by geniobastardo (1294 posts) -

@MonsieurX said:

Because it was never a graphic powerhouse

#26 Posted by Wasdie (50001 posts) -

I believe they still are receiving inputs at 60hz or maybe even higher. They aren't capping the game's timer at 30 hz, but have a 30 hz rendered while running 60 hz or higher for a timer.

30 fps doesn't have to feel sluggish. 60 fps is always preferred but if you're going to go with 30fps you gotta commit to that. It's not just a last minute decision. If the game is going to be 30fps you need to build the entire game around that feel or it's going to end up feeling sluggish.

#27 Posted by charizard1605 (58179 posts) -

From what I understand, the entire game is build with a target framerate of 30FPS in mind, and the mechanics are uniquely constructed around it. That's why Halo looks and plays as well as it does, in spite of the 30FPS limitation, it's built around a 30 frame target, rather than being scaled back from a higher frame rate.

#28 Posted by Gaming-Planet (14022 posts) -

They decrease the FOV, remove the shadows, less particle effects, low res textures, add better lighting and bloom effects to hide the low res textures, run it at sub hd, no anti aliasing, etc.

They remove things that are demanding but don't make the game look totally different either.

#29 Posted by soulitane (13603 posts) -

It did under Bungie. Halo 4 in multiplayer split screen was near unplayable due to the frame rate on some of the bigger maps.

#30 Posted by dakan45 (18621 posts) -

Simple graphics, simple shooting mechanics etc etc.

#31 Edited by PS4hasNOgames (1771 posts) -

@charizard1605 said:

From what I understand, the entire game is build with a target framerate of 30FPS in mind, and the mechanics are uniquely constructed around it. That's why Halo looks and plays as well as it does, in spite of the 30FPS limitation, it's built around a 30 frame target, rather than being scaled back from a higher frame rate.

So this has me thinking, halo at 30 fps, is better than every single shooter I ever played at 60 fps. Halo is just a perfect blend of shooters. To me it proves that FPS isn't even as important as hermits claim, because well, they have nothing else to boast about.

#32 Posted by lawlessx (46775 posts) -

@ps4hasnogames said:

@charizard1605 said:

From what I understand, the entire game is build with a target framerate of 30FPS in mind, and the mechanics are uniquely constructed around it. That's why Halo looks and plays as well as it does, in spite of the 30FPS limitation, it's built around a 30 frame target, rather than being scaled back from a higher frame rate.

So this has me thinking, halo at 30 fps, is better than every single shooter I ever played at 60 fps. Halo is just a perfect blend of shooters. To me it proves that FPS isn't even as important as hermits claim, because well, they have nothing else to boast about.

Right..because its the hermits and not cows that have been making threads and random comments about FPS these passed few months.

#33 Posted by charizard1605 (58179 posts) -

@ps4hasnogames said:

@charizard1605 said:

From what I understand, the entire game is build with a target framerate of 30FPS in mind, and the mechanics are uniquely constructed around it. That's why Halo looks and plays as well as it does, in spite of the 30FPS limitation, it's built around a 30 frame target, rather than being scaled back from a higher frame rate.

So this has me thinking, halo at 30 fps, is better than every single shooter I ever played at 60 fps. Halo is just a perfect blend of shooters. To me it proves that FPS isn't even as important as hermits claim, because well, they have nothing else to boast about.

Nah, you'd be wrong. Halo works the way it works because it's a very different kind of shooter. Something like Call of Duty, or something like Tribes or Quake, on the other hand, would always benefit from a higher framerate.

#34 Edited by Gue1 (10197 posts) -

@Wasdie said:

I believe they still are receiving inputs at 60hz or maybe even higher. They aren't capping the game's timer at 30 hz, but have a 30 hz rendered while running 60 hz or higher for a timer.

30 fps doesn't have to feel sluggish. 60 fps is always preferred but if you're going to go with 30fps you gotta commit to that. It's not just a last minute decision. If the game is going to be 30fps you need to build the entire game around that feel or it's going to end up feeling sluggish.

that is nonsense. The fastest input achievable by 30 frames is 100ms without Vsync. With Vsync it usually goes up to 133ms. Uncharted 2 is actually one of the fastest 30fps games with Vsync of the last generation of consoles BTW, and its P2P servers are even faster than most dedicated servers too.

Now, theoretically speaking, let's supposed that it was possible to achieve faster input than 100ms on a 30 frames game.There would no point in faster input when what's on screen is lagging behind, it makes no sense and goes against all logic of how latency in games is perceived by the player or how it actually works. There is a direct correlation between frame-rate and input lag. And not to mention that when it comes to input lag, Vsync is your greatest enemy.

#35 Edited by Wasdie (50001 posts) -

@Gue1 said:

@Wasdie said:

I believe they still are receiving inputs at 60hz or maybe even higher. They aren't capping the game's timer at 30 hz, but have a 30 hz rendered while running 60 hz or higher for a timer.

30 fps doesn't have to feel sluggish. 60 fps is always preferred but if you're going to go with 30fps you gotta commit to that. It's not just a last minute decision. If the game is going to be 30fps you need to build the entire game around that feel or it's going to end up feeling sluggish.

that is nonsense. The fastest input achievable by 30 frames is 100ms without Vsync. With Vsync it usually goes up to 133ms. Uncharted 2 is actually one of the fastest 30fps games with Vsync of the last generation of consoles BTW, and its P2P servers are even faster than most dedicated servers too.

Now, theoretically speaking, let's supposed that it was possible to achieve faster input than 100ms on a 30 frames game.There would no point in faster input when what's on screen is lagging behind, it makes no sense and goes against all logic of how latency in games is perceived by the player or how it actually works. There is a direct correlation between frame-rate and input lag. And not to mention that when it comes to input lag, Vsync is your greatest enemy.

You've never once spent any moment of your life programming have you?

You can have a much higher input rate and game clock speed than that of the renderer's refresh rate.

You talk like you know what you're saying but the words you write are nonsense.

#36 Posted by SuddenlyTragic (782 posts) -

Because Halo isn't as much of a twitch shooter as other FPS's out there and moves at a generally slower pace than other games. Just think about how when you jump it has that floaty feel to it and movement isn't as quick as a lot of other FPS's. Because of this it's much easier to get away with 30fps and 60fps doesn't exactly feel necessary. Having said that, Halo CE and Halo 2 played much better at 60fps on PC, but few console gamers got to see that. A lot of games need to be at 60fps though because of their pacing. For example, Call of Duty, Unreal Tournament, and other "twitch shooters" would feel off at 30fps.

#37 Posted by parkurtommo (27228 posts) -

30 fps is only smooth if it never dips. there's your explanation; Halo had no dips, Halo was smooth.

#38 Posted by PS4hasNOgames (1771 posts) -

@parkurtommo said:

30 fps is only smooth if it never dips. there's your explanation; Halo had no dips, Halo was smooth.

no the actual shooting when the guns go off weren't choppy like it is in killzone.

#39 Posted by CrownKingArthur (4895 posts) -

yeah halos, i find 'em acceptable at 30 fps.
i have the second one on pc, it locks at 60 - still an enhancement.

#40 Posted by RoboCopISJesus (1408 posts) -

Bragging about 30 fps is bad enough for any game, but one with medium-low gfx like Halo series? lol ouch.

#41 Posted by JangoWuzHere (16570 posts) -

@RoboCopISJesus said:

Bragging about 30 fps is bad enough for any game, but one with medium-low gfx like Halo series? lol ouch.

That's weird considering that Halo 4 was the best looking console game last generation.

#42 Edited by Masculus (2868 posts) -

The third one is not easy on the eyes. It kept a constant frame rate, but would often takes a dive when too many things were thrown around by explosions. The fact that Halo Reach had a very decent motion blur really helped it to look more fluid.

#43 Edited by RoboCopISJesus (1408 posts) -

@JangoWuzHere said:

@RoboCopISJesus said:

Bragging about 30 fps is bad enough for any game, but one with medium-low gfx like Halo series? lol ouch.

That's weird considering that Halo 4 was the best looking console game last generation.

1. no it wasn't

2. best looking console game IS medium-low gfx, we don't live in a vacuum where pc doesn't exist.

#44 Edited by Nengo_Flow (9834 posts) -

First of all, why is doing 30fps well a great thing?

And it cuz Halo isnt a doesnt do anything sophisticated in anything, graphix, physics, lighting, details, A.I., environment scale, environment interactivity (destructibility and whatever). Halo is as plain as can be and very simple in everything, but it does what it needs to do to be what is wants to be. There aint nothing wrong with that.

I know we live in an era where it seems all people want and all devs want to do is hyper realistic everything and super cinematic everything. But not ever game even needs that stuff to be really good and unique.

And, you know he's trolling (you should of known right away, but if you made it so far with out noticing) when he said Killzone Shadow Fall runs at 30fps. It runs at 60 on campaign and between 30 and 60 in multiplayer. So how is he saying it runs "choppy at 30fps" cuz he's implying that it dips below 30 (thats wat choppiness is, when it dips lower)?

#45 Edited by MiiiiV (504 posts) -

Because Halo isn't very fast paced, therefore 30 fps feels okay. But Halo (just like every other shooter) is much smoother and more responsive running at 60 fps or above, which is evident if you played it both on xbox and pc.
And Halo CE was a graphic powerhouse back in 2001. I also think that Halo 4 looks really good considering the relativity weak hardware it's running on and there are a lot of things going on at the same time in that game, fighting more than a dozen enemies alongside with allies and there are sometimes several vehicles and aircrafts involved as well.

#46 Posted by parkurtommo (27228 posts) -

@ps4hasnogames said:

@parkurtommo said:

30 fps is only smooth if it never dips. there's your explanation; Halo had no dips, Halo was smooth.

no the actual shooting when the guns go off weren't choppy like it is in killzone.

I haven't played either so I don't know. But I'm going to assume you mean the animations are smooth? Then the animations are smooth lol.

Some games like Brutal Legend have animations made for 30 fps, so when the game is played with 60 fps on PC, the game appears choppy.

#47 Edited by Articuno76 (18860 posts) -

@Nengo_Flow said:

First of all, why is doing 30fps well a great thing?

And it cuz Halo isnt a doesnt do anything sophisticated in anything, graphix, physics, lighting, details, A.I., environment scale, environment interactivity (destructibility and whatever). Halo is as plain as can be and very simple in everything, but it does what it needs to do to be what is wants to be. There aint nothing wrong with that.

And, you know he's trolling (you should of known right away, but if you made it so far with out noticing) when he said Killzone Shadow Fall runs at 30fps. It runs at 60 on campaign and between 30 and 60 in multiplayer. So how is he saying it runs "choppy at 30fps" cuz he's implying that it dips below 30 (thats wat choppiness is, when it dips lower)?

Why is doing any framerate well a good thing? Maybe you should rethink that question as in essence that is what the OP is asking.

Your post doesn't address the OP's point that the Halo games seemingly run smoother at 30FPS than other games that also 30FPS. The OP isn't necessarily taken aback by the stability of the framerate, but how two games at the same framerate can appear so drastically different in motion.

The OP simple states what Shadowfall looks like in 30FPS (most likely using the capping feature which was patched in IIRC). Who said he was talking about framerate dips? He simply stated it appears choppy... which can be attributed anything as including animation quality and motion blur. Somehow you've framed the entire discussion in very narrow terms and then proceeded.

Animation quality makes a huge difference. I urge anyone to try Ninja Gaiden Sigma Plus on the Vita which runs at 30FPS. The level of fluidity in the motion in that game beggars belief and defies pre-conceived notions of what a game running in 30FPS looks like.

#48 Posted by Heirren (17328 posts) -

@ps4hasnogames said:

Halo is probably the best and funnest shooter I ever played, overall. Goldeneye was epic as a kid but as a whole franchise Halo is the best. How does it manage to be so fluid and pretty while running at 30 frames per second? It really must be all about developer talent because Killzone shadow fall looks choppy as hell at 30 fps.

Bungie simply got the weight right; on how much give/take there is to the analog sticks vs what happens on screen. So many shooters miss this simple part, imo.

"Simple shooting mechanics" was mentioned earlier. That is the dumbest thing I've read here in awhile. The mechanic itself should be second nature. It is how the mechanic is utilized within the game that should gradually be complex.

Also, Halo was a visual powerhouse at the time--pc included.

#49 Posted by NUSNA_Moebius (42 posts) -

@MonsieurX:

First Halo was the first console game released with bumpmapping. It beat Rogue Squadron by a day (literally).

Halo 2 was a showcase for large, open FPS environments on console, with good ragdoll, box, and vehicle physics + AI + scripting all running in unison. Oh and it could be played at 720p.

I'll admit, Halo 3 and ODST were not as good looking as they could've been, but they still looked good and ran smoothly which is important.

#50 Posted by AdrianWerner (28058 posts) -

Because it's a very slow game