The high frame rate is one of my favorite things about this game and I really, really hope that Microsoft makes 60FPS a standard for their first party games, much like Nintendo does for theirs.

The game looks gorgeous. I don't see how you could play this and believe that the 360 could have done this. Maybe at a much lower resolution, but even then it would have struggled to keep up 30. There are so many effects all around you and the vistas you see are so big. To answer your question - yes, they could have halved the framerate and put more detail into textures and thrown more effects onto the screen, but it really wouldn't have been worth it. How much more would you have really noticed?

Do you have the Master Chief collection? Play one of the busier levels of Halo 4 on it, then immediately go play the 360 version. Even if you don't notice the frame rate increase, you have to be able to notice the increase in smoothness and the clarity on the Xbox One - that's what you're sacrificing, just for textures that wouldn't actually be that much better and particle effects that wouldn't actually add that much to the game.

60. Really, really lame that 99% of developers don't target it. But then again, I can't blame them. Graphics sell way more than performance does.

Also, completely off topic, but what happened to BigJeffrey? Noticed his icon was gone on the Top Posters list and his account seems to be totally wiped. :/

When a game targets 60 that usually tells me it'll have little to no performance issues which is always a huge plus. I'm not saying all of them hit that but for the most part they do. So because of that I do prefer 60. But if you can get me a really high fidelity game with a rock solid 30 I wouldn't mind that either.

I'm honestly fine either way. There is noticeable, better difference with 60fps compared to 30, but it's honestly never bothered me too much like the way it seems to bother other people...a lot. Like...a lot.

@steadyingI was wondering the same thing D:

@sackmanjones: That's what I mean though, a rock solid 30fps, or the 60fps that five produces.

@believer258: Of course I notice the frame rate increase from Halo 4 on the 360 to the version on the Master Chief collection. Also, I think saying a game looks like a great last-gen title, doesn't necessarily mean I think it can run on last-gen hardware (though yes, I suppose I do think it can if they made the resolution 720p or lower, like a lot of 360 games actually are, with a 30fps that struggles, which again, is like other 360 titles). I don't think five looks that much better than four, but that's not saying it looks bad. I think it looks great, but not up to the standards I believe games could look, or even have looked already. My choice was, 'I don't know'. If I were to rate the visuals, I'd probably give them an 8.5 out of ten, which to me is 'really great'. I feel as though you read my post and assumed I felt it shouldn't have been 60fps, when I wasn't really making that argument. Oh, and you said 'to answer your question', and yet that wasn't an answer to my question (though you did answer it). I just asked what you preferred. That's okay though.

I am gonna take the visuals and 30fps on this one. I say this because this Halo game doesn't play as differently/better than I thought it would at 60fps. The reticle movement is still kinda chunky. I'm not impressed by any of the visuals in Halo 5 yet. I'm on mission 7.

I would take 60 frames over higher fidelity graphics.

Let's compare MGSV and Witcher 3 on PS4, I'm having an absolute blast with MGSV that I can't stop playing because the gameplay is so good and there's no technical issues that bother me. The visuals are not state of the art/next generation but it gets the job done, and in certain areas it looks pretty damn good. Whereas in Witcher 3 I'm constantly struggling against the sub-par 30 frames even when I'm having fun. I still love Witcher 3 a whole lot, but the performance issues drag it down. I would totally be fine with a Witcher 3 with less processing effects but plays at 60 frames (hell, I'd take even a solid 30).

@probablytuna: But my question is about a steady 30, where it either doesn't falter, or rarely does, with higher fidelity, or the 60 seen in this; not The Witcher 3's version of 30, where it struggles, and often goes into the 20's. So, yes, while I'd definitely take 60 compared to what the Witcher 3 brings, that's not really the comparison I'm talking about. Also, I'd say compare MGS5 and The Witcher 3, they're not actually that far off visually, and going back to back, I felt MGS5 looked better in many areas, but it is a bit more simplistic with just how many things are in the environment. In the Witcher 3 for instance, you have trees all over the place, and NPC's walking around, etc. MGS5 is more barren.

A lot of textures are really fucking gross, especially in multiplayer but God Damn, the game play is soooooo smooth and perfect and still manages to look amazing in spots. Ill always take the 60 over graphics. I think that's why I prefer Xbox this Gen. There is a lot more focus on gameplay over graphics since the hardware is hilariously weak.

@ntm: Ok sure, if we're talking about rock solid 30 with better visuals and a 60FPS, I would still choose a 60FPS. Better visuals is great but I would want more frames. Also I kinda disagree on MGSV looking the same as Witcher 3. Even on consoles, the amount of visual effects/post-processing stuff they added to it gives it a leg up compared to MGSV which makes sense since MGSV is also made with the last generation in mind.

I'd rather they had neither and allowed local multiplayer...

Honestly think Halo 5 looks 'okay', it just looks like Halo 4 again with a higher resolution, it definitely doesn't look like a new gen Halo, some of the textures even look worse in places.

The one thing that really irks me is when the framerate on enemy animations gets cut in half when they're far away, it looks so bad and effects gameplay when you're trying to hit someone in the head from far away but they're too jittery to get a bead, if this is one of the things they had to sacrifice to get a solid 60fps it just isn't worth it.

If the framerate's locked solid at 30, I'm totally fine with it. That's not to say I don't prefer 60, but whatever, I wouldn't say I'm a framerate snob or anything. I appreciate it when I can get it but it's not a necessity, least not for most games. Character action games should run at 60 - full stop.

That all said, I'm really disappointed that the Gears Ultimate Edition's campaign doesn't run at 60. I mean, the fuck? This is one of your tentpole franchises and you couldn't give it the utmost polish?

Same here. I'd have settled for 30fps if that had made split-screen possible.

60 is preferable, but 30 is not the end of the world for me, especially not in singleplayer.

As long as they target something 30 or above and stick to it, I could care less. Rock solid 30 is more than serviceable. Issues only arrise when framerate frequently dip below the intended target. This doesn't just mean 30 fps dropping to 20's, but 60 fps dropping to 50. Build your game from the ground up with a target in mind, and fucking stick to it. Doesn't matter what concessions you have to make to get there.

You think Halo 5 looks like a last gen game?

I don't really care about frame rate or resolution, but if I had to choose I would pick a solid high frame rate over a game running in high resolution all the time.

Primarily playing games on PC but I do dabble in PS4 from time to time - I do prefer 60fps (or higher) however I really don't like it when they achieve nice frame rates by narrowing down the Field of View. I can handle frame rate drops or 30fps but tiny FOVs can make games completely unplayable for me.

I wish it was all 60, because every time I see a distant enemy operating at 30 frames it shakes me out of the moment.

@zombie2011: Yes, I think Halo 5 looks like a superb looking last-gen game, though you have to understand what I mean, because I'm not referring to frame rate or resolution, I'm simply saying, if this game was on last-gen running in 30fps (even when it may not be entirely steady), and is 720p (or again, a bit lower as many 360 games are), it technically, and artistically looks last-gen, when you take say, just last years Call of Duty, I can't see that being on last-gen without textures and what have you being seriously toned down, which is not the case with Halo 5. I think some parts are a bit much for last-gen though, like the look of the towering sangheili statues.

@yummylee: Yeah, I agree. I played Ultimate Edition, and though I knew it wasn't going to be a 60 for campaign, I expected a solid 30 at least, and it wasn't even that.

@probablytuna: I think the issues with The Witcher 3's visuals hamper it compared to MGS5. I think, if we were to compare PC versions, that's a different story, but yes, the effects are much better in The Witcher 3, but there are a lot more times when I look at The Witcher 3, and go 'that doesn't look so good'. I acknowledged The Witcher 3 has more going for it, but to me, that's not necessarily the thing that makes it look better. Also, I didn't mean same on every level, but when comparing the pros and cons, to me they round out to be the same.

I don't really care about graphics from a technical/hardware perspective, although I wonder if I am in the minority. I feel like art direction and style ultimately make a bigger difference and its why you can have games like Mario Kart 8 or Super Mario 3D World (which are on vastly underpowered hardware even compared to the new consoles let alone PC) look as good as or better than games taking advantage of the highest end hardware. I can pop in a 360 game that runs at a stable 30 FPS and not be bothered by lower res textures. I think (and this is me talking with no experience in development) we have hit a point where there is a baseline of quality that is relatively easy to achieve in terms of a big budget AAA game and I think that baseline is fine. I understand the argument, especially from people who have spent money on high end hardware, for making games look fantastic but I would prefer flawless gameplay over more detailed textures or effects any day of the week.

This site almost always votes for 60, and other opinions get made fun of.

I like both for different styles of games.

I prefer a solid 60 or 30. I don't like massive swings between the two.

Game is of a kind that benefits from 60fps? 60 preferred, make that the target, cut back to reach it.

Game doesn't suffer from being locked to 30fps? 30 preferred, prettify the game, cut back until a steady 30 is maintained.

Good design can make both games better or worse. Dull environments in the most impressive VR 4K120fps game will make a forgettable area where you only remember the experience inside your head of being there, but unforgettable top of the class environmental designs in a 900p30 game will be with you for generations to come.

60fps no doubt. I really enjoy all the HD collections that are released running at 60fps with last gen graphics.

I like high resolution but I like 60 fps more. The game wouldn't be as engaging and impactful as it is if it were locked at 30 or had a variable framerate. 343 did a good job in making the resolution transitions seamless so that you barely notice them a lot.

And I'm actually surprised Halo 5 looks as good as it does at the fps it's at. The game looks great.

60 no contest.

60 fps is nice, but I honestly like 30 fps. Better graphics, and honestly I still find the super smoothness of 60 distracting at times.

At least 60fps no matter what. A choppy game is more distracting than an ugly one. I've accepted that I won't get a ton of 60fps games on the consoles. I'm aware of the hardware in those things and that's fine. I expect optimization, but not miracles. Halo 5 looks damn good given the hardware and frame rate. It's possible to strike a good balance when developers are given the time and budget to optimize and tweak. I just got a 144hz monitor and have found myself adjusting settings to aim for 120-144fps. It's fantastic. Gameplay > Framerate > Visuals.

Of course I don't need high frame rates in side scrollers or anything silly. My opinion is based on what I play most (shooters and racing games).

I want frame rate and will always prefer frame rate over pretty visuals. Smooth games look better than pretty games if you ask me.

I tried going back to Destiny on PS4 after playing some Halo 5 and man is the framerate on Destiny rough.

For Halo, I definitely prefer 60.

On a related note, Halo 4 at 60 frames per second and Halo 5 look nearly indistinguishable to me. I recently went back to Halo 4 over the weekend via the Master Chief Collection and was simply floored at how pretty that game still is.