I get the same thing... sick to my stomach in many fast FPS, especially indoors. Outdoor large environments (CoD3) are fine.
Halo 3 Alpha build screenshots.
- Thread starter nintenho
- Start date
I get the same thing... sick to my stomach in many fast FPS, especially indoors. Outdoor large environments (CoD3) are fine.
so they are gonna make the game run like Quake 4???
edit: 45fps on Gears is one of few things that i liked before selling lol
BenFranklinstein
Newcomer
The game should run at least as smooth as the older halo games. I would hope it runs smoother because on a large hdtv you notice a slower frame rate more, especially if you turn quickly. The frames have more space to move on a bigger TV and being in high def they are even crisper. You will get the same effect as you would while staring at a ceiling fan, it moves smoothly most of the time but every once in a while you will see the individual fan blades.
I think Halflife2 was an exception because of the value POV is set to.
http://games.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/11/23/1631228&tid=204
http://www.scifi.com/sfw/games/sfw13100.html
Generally, I don't think you can get motionsickness from having too high a framerate.
the interesting thing about the "decorators" is if they are used in conjunction with a good physics engine could do wonders for realtime explosions. Regarding explosions and physics: Halo 1 used a physics engine for its game world to great effect so I'd be surprised if they did not cotinue this wioth halo3. Given the probability, and the effect this would create by having a great amount of on ground debris being affected by game world actions the only question I have is how MANY debris/decorator objcts are we talking about?
Strangely enough, the only time I have ever encountered a problem was with HL2. I thought I was the only one. That damned beach driving session about..what? half-way through the game? I literally had to quite playing. Played for about 4-5 hours, no problems, hit that section and got a splitting headache in minutes. Napped it off, sat back down and in about the same time, back comes the headache. What the hell was it about that level that literally made me want to puke?
I had to quite playing there because it was so fricken boring.
There's a nice little option called v-sync, use it.
Fu3lFr3nzy
Regular
why is it that Halo 3 is unlikely to be running at 60fps??? don't bungie like 60fps???
If the game was to run @ 60FPS, its certainly gonna have to sacrifice things for performance, right?
If the game was to run @ 60FPS, its certainly gonna have to sacrifice things for performance, right?
Question is does it need to sacrifice things to run at 60fps? From what I ve seen so far the graphics arent that demanding or special
Fu3lFr3nzy
Regular
Ah, now I get it
. Hmm, well I guess it would certainly be wierd for them not to run @ 60FPS if the game wasnt hardware demanding .If 60 fps was free as an upgrade over 30 fps, then Bungie would take it. But it's not, so they're going to decide between strengths (or weaknesses, if you're a pessemist).
Exactly. Past record is pretty strong on the 30 fps side, and we haven't seen an industry movement to 60 fps in this generation either (if anything, it's been the opposite). Sure, H3 might be 60 fps, but there's no good reason to expect so.It's an educated guess based on the fact that Halo and Halo 2 were 30fps max.
Yes, of course, there's some sacrifice. As for what you've seen, don't you think you're being a little presumptuous? We really haven't seen final effects/artwork/level design yet, so it's a little early to say it doesn't look very demanding.
Thats why I said "so far". Its not my final judgement.
That might change.
But really I doubt there will be some sacrifice. If the game remains visually as it is I think all it needs is better optimization to make it run at 60fps. I doubt a sacrifice is needed unless there is more into the visuals not yet seen
TurnDragoZeroV2G
Regular
Even back in October there was a huge difference between multiplayer and campaign. Unoptimized MP was running at a great framerate even then ( Seriously, what's wrong with their priorities? Graphics, graphics, graphics, graphics....), while EGM also saw the much more impressive singleplayer (I believe Dan Hsu labelled them essentially Halo 2 HD and something that "looks good"/"much more spectacular looking" but [not as good as Gears]). Luke Smith blurbed "and it wasn't even running at an incredible framerate," i.e. sub-30 until otherwise indicated.
Alpha multiplayer shots are neither indicative of final graphics (durr), nor are they indicative of the current state of graphics (not so durr).
Alpha multiplayer shots are neither indicative of final graphics (durr), nor are they indicative of the current state of graphics (not so durr).
Since when does framerate determine the pace of the game.
Thats up to the developer.
Quake 3, last time i ran it on my pc, had an framerate of 500fps (Granted, my monitor could only show 60fps, but never mind that), the game didnt become any more fast paced than it was when it ran at 30fps. It just become a helluva lot smoother
scooby_dooby
Legend
Other way around, it's the pace of the game which determines the necessary framerate. We hear developers talk about it all the time, how certain types of games 'need' higher framerates, where other slower paced games can get away with lower. For example, look at Mark Rein's comments RE framerate in fast paced UE2k7 vs the much slower Gears of War.
Yes, the DIRT developers said they were going for the 30fps w/ Motion Blur approach due to their experience with PGR3.
