An excellent read OP! I found this really interesting. I know for sure COD runs higher, but the only reason Bungie made it run at 30 was because the amount of energy would be taken to run it. It sucks =[

ive never noticed any prob with response time in any tv ive used for gaming. specs are specs and i guess to some those few milisecs count but for me its a total non issue. And its not that i dont understand what the op is saying here.. I get it.. after 200+ posts i get it but it is the biggest non issue ever raised in halo3.

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Kip gethinn [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] EL1TE SUPR3MACY [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Kip gethinn I lost it? I'm fairly sure you did, as you just tried to tell me that halo 3 runs at 30 fps regardless of the TV. that is incorrect and factually it runs at 60 fps on high quality TVs. Like 1080i. So yupp you lost it.[/quote] No it doesn't. The game always runs at 30fps, [b]always[/b].[/quote] Not true halo 3 runs better on 1080i, or other types. It does run at 60 fps, but only on those TVs which is why all pros have the same size TV. Lol that's why you can buy MLG variant TVs because they are specifically for halo 3. Also it will make other games like cod 4 and gow run even better. Dont believe me go watch pros play, MLGpro.com you will notice a major difference, if you don't, you eyes are bad or your PC is horrid.[/quote] Omfg, going back through this thread, you realize the TV has ZERO to do with FPS right? an HDTV is capable of a higher FPS, yes, but halo is capped at 30, and thats what the TV will display, pros at events use identical monitors because they are ones that the big men upstairs running MLG behind the scenes had to find decent sized tvs, good quality, AND LOW RESPONSE TIME.

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] iWilly Spry Whoa break it up into paragraphs that is poop to read.[/quote] Me or him?

Whoa break it up into paragraphs that is poop to read.

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] xRoNiN warriorx [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] CP0 Fraser [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Kip gethinn [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Kip gethinn [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] CP0 Fraser OMFG Learn what you're talking about please, first off, 6 FPS is a big difference when it comes to tweaking framerates, second, bloom is just artificial/fake lighting effects, all it is is a highly brightened area of the map made to look like it was caused by light, nothing to do with the framerate. AND NO, HALO 2, nor are most console games, WAS NOT 60FPS. Besides, in a slower paced game like halo 3, 60fps would most likely be awkward and wouldn't fit right with the slower gameplay.[/quote] and what do you base that assumption on? halo 3 has some of the fastest game play out there. 6 fps is NOT a big difference at all.20 fps is a difference, but not big. Also lets say 2 nades blow up beside you in halo 3, well your fps goes down to about 10. That is awful. The games needs a solid 60 fps like any game released in this time period. 30 is choppy and unreliable. 60 is how games should be.[/quote] Also if you knew anything you would realize that bloom effects fps. which is why they add in blur to try and hide it, which fails completely.[/quote] MOST GAMES ARE NOT 60FPS on xbox 360, good luck getting most modern games running at 60fps on 4 year old hardware. Call of duty 4, one of the few (possibly only, I don't have it memorized) FPS's on 360 to run at 60, guess what? it has recycled smoke gun, and fire effects, bad texturing and low poly environments. (A character model in Cod4 had less polygons then one from cod2 on console) Call of duty 4's high action sequences are also generally, highly scripted with nearly non existent AI in large scale foot soldier combat on a tight linear path, and of course, nearly non existent physics. there, we have what has to be done to make a game run at 60fps on console, huge sacrifices. Halo 3, huge battles with highly detailed soldiers and environments, great AI on enemies and poor Ai on allies, vehicles, each individual weapon creating real light effects with each shot, vehicles which take huge mem caches to run, huge open environments And very little scripting. 30fps, And actually, even the scarab exploding in single player only dropped the framerate exactly 4 fps as proven. Two grenades may drop he multiplayer framerate because A: Sacrifices are made to keep the game running smooth and lag free, and B: Grenade explosions are a big dynamic boom, with real lighting, which is why people can get screenshots from inside the nade and it illuminates the world into weird colors, it's dynamic. But, I don't beleive the framerate really drops, maybe .5-2 fps. And bloom effects have no effect on smoothness, they take stress off the GPU and CPU, but ANYTHING being removed takes stress off the GPU, CPU, Bandwith and Mem.Cache. So it's essentially irrelevant. Don't tell me I don't know what I mean, when it's evident that you sir, are the one who doesn't. [/quote] game, set, match! I think we have a winner!!!! Until kip comes in and says 'ya.. but its only 30fps.. its broken" LOL ... Thank you CP0![/quote] WTYKS [Edited on 10.27.2009 5:38 PM PDT]

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] CP0 Fraser [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Kip gethinn [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Kip gethinn [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] CP0 Fraser OMFG Learn what you're talking about please, first off, 6 FPS is a big difference when it comes to tweaking framerates, second, bloom is just artificial/fake lighting effects, all it is is a highly brightened area of the map made to look like it was caused by light, nothing to do with the framerate. AND NO, HALO 2, nor are most console games, WAS NOT 60FPS. Besides, in a slower paced game like halo 3, 60fps would most likely be awkward and wouldn't fit right with the slower gameplay.[/quote] and what do you base that assumption on? halo 3 has some of the fastest game play out there. 6 fps is NOT a big difference at all.20 fps is a difference, but not big. Also lets say 2 nades blow up beside you in halo 3, well your fps goes down to about 10. That is awful. The games needs a solid 60 fps like any game released in this time period. 30 is choppy and unreliable. 60 is how games should be.[/quote] Also if you knew anything you would realize that bloom effects fps. which is why they add in blur to try and hide it, which fails completely.[/quote] MOST GAMES ARE NOT 60FPS on xbox 360, good luck getting most modern games running at 60fps on 4 year old hardware. Call of duty 4, one of the few (possibly only, I don't have it memorized) FPS's on 360 to run at 60, guess what? it has recycled smoke gun, and fire effects, bad texturing and low poly environments. (A character model in Cod4 had less polygons then one from cod2 on console) Call of duty 4's high action sequences are also generally, highly scripted with nearly non existent AI in large scale foot soldier combat on a tight linear path, and of course, nearly non existent physics. there, we have what has to be done to make a game run at 60fps on console, huge sacrifices. Halo 3, huge battles with highly detailed soldiers and environments, great AI on enemies and poor Ai on allies, vehicles, each individual weapon creating real light effects with each shot, vehicles which take huge mem caches to run, huge open environments And very little scripting. 30fps, And actually, even the scarab exploding in single player only dropped the framerate exactly 4 fps as proven. Two grenades may drop he multiplayer framerate because A: Sacrifices are made to keep the game running smooth and lag free, and B: Grenade explosions are a big dynamic boom, with real lighting, which is why people can get screenshots from inside the nade and it illuminates the world into weird colors, it's dynamic. But, I don't beleive the framerate really drops, maybe .5-2 fps. And bloom effects have no effect on smoothness, they take stress off the GPU and CPU, but ANYTHING being removed takes stress off the GPU, CPU, Bandwith and Mem.Cache. So it's essentially irrelevant. Don't tell me I don't know what I mean, when it's evident that you sir, are the one who doesn't. [/quote] game, set, match! I think we have a winner!!!! Until kip comes in and says 'ya.. but its only 30fps.. its broken" LOL ... Thank you CP0!

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] CS Legend [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Kip gethinn lol china called? I'm sorry but I don't know how that pertains to this. If it does though please explain. [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] CaLL Me Screamo China called.....[/quote][/quote]They want their wall back...[/quote] They are comparing your paragraph to a wall. And yeah, 30 fps isn't perfect. Neither is 540p. Hope it's better in Reach.

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Kip gethinn [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Kip gethinn [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] CP0 Fraser OMFG Learn what you're talking about please, first off, 6 FPS is a big difference when it comes to tweaking framerates, second, bloom is just artificial/fake lighting effects, all it is is a highly brightened area of the map made to look like it was caused by light, nothing to do with the framerate. AND NO, HALO 2, nor are most console games, WAS NOT 60FPS. Besides, in a slower paced game like halo 3, 60fps would most likely be awkward and wouldn't fit right with the slower gameplay.[/quote] and what do you base that assumption on? halo 3 has some of the fastest game play out there. 6 fps is NOT a big difference at all.20 fps is a difference, but not big. Also lets say 2 nades blow up beside you in halo 3, well your fps goes down to about 10. That is awful. The games needs a solid 60 fps like any game released in this time period. 30 is choppy and unreliable. 60 is how games should be.[/quote] Also if you knew anything you would realize that bloom effects fps. which is why they add in blur to try and hide it, which fails completely.[/quote] MOST GAMES ARE NOT 60FPS on xbox 360, good luck getting most modern games running at 60fps on 4 year old hardware. Call of duty 4, one of the few (possibly only, I don't have it memorized) FPS's on 360 to run at 60, guess what? it has recycled smoke gun, and fire effects, bad texturing and low poly environments. (A character model in Cod4 had less polygons then one from cod2 on console) Call of duty 4's high action sequences are also generally, highly scripted with nearly non existent AI in large scale foot soldier combat on a tight linear path, and of course, nearly non existent physics. there, we have what has to be done to make a game run at 60fps on console, huge sacrifices. Halo 3, huge battles with highly detailed soldiers and environments, great AI on enemies and poor Ai on allies, vehicles, each individual weapon creating real light effects with each shot, vehicles which take huge mem caches to run, huge open environments And very little scripting. 30fps, And actually, even the scarab exploding in single player only dropped the framerate exactly 4 fps as proven. Two grenades may drop he multiplayer framerate because A: Sacrifices are made to keep the game running smooth and lag free, and B: Grenade explosions are a big dynamic boom, with real lighting, which is why people can get screenshots from inside the nade and it illuminates the world into weird colors, it's dynamic. But, I don't beleive the framerate really drops, maybe .5-2 fps. And bloom effects have no effect on smoothness, they take stress off the GPU and CPU, but ANYTHING being removed takes stress off the GPU, CPU, Bandwith and Mem.Cache. So it's essentially irrelevant. Don't tell me I don't know what I mean, when it's evident that you sir, are the one who doesn't.

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Demache [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Kip gethinn [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Demache [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Kip gethinn man, they could easily add in an option to tone down the graphics. the only way they couldn't is if MS made them sign a contract about not doing that specifically. If so, I feel for you bungie, MS has ruined your game.[/quote]No, Bungie has INTENDED it to be 30 fps on purpose. Its going to stay that way.[/quote] they intended on making there game 30 fps.... that makes no sense, its not smooth and will play horribly, what kind of game developers intend on making there game broken? I mean come on, anyone who owns a decent PC will think halo 3 is the worst garbage ever. Have you even experienced over 200 fps?[/quote]No because I have never seen a monitor that can possibly do 200 fps.[/quote] lol you've never seen a CRT? they can run it. My friend does it every day on his pc, no lie. If you think i meant that a monitor will boost the fps regardless of hardware, well obviously it wont you need top line equipment.

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] JustBiscuit [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Iggyhopper It's actually a decimal, it's like 23.9 FPS[/quote] Bah, I think nothing is wrong with the FPS in Halo. It doesn't seem choppy to me..[/quote]I feel the same way, yet this thread is is still going. -.-

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Eric95 Pwnnoobs k the games graphics are great. i have a 32 inch tv with 1080p and the picture is great. on the back of the game it says it runs up to 1080p. halo 2 graphics sucked so bad halo 3 is a big diffrence and were are you getting this information anyway? call of duty MW2 is going to run in 60fps that the only game i have heard of that runs that high. halo graphics are amazing and the game is 3 years old.[/quote] Not what we were talking about, the graphics are great, the fps is bad. Don't tell me you think graphics and fps are the same......

Halo 3's frame rate is 30 fps. The only times you won't see it at 30 FPS is when there is a lot of stuff exploding on the map at once. TV won't make a difference.

anyway I'm done posting for now, I will check back tomorrow for some more discussion on how 6 fps is a BIG change lol. No but really thanks for taking the time today to put what you think. Cyall tomo. Oh P.s. My acc is out of gold membership so if u want to 1v1 the kip, message "kip runz lif3" as this is a 1 month I currently have.

please make your OP with paragraphs, it really does make it so much easier to read.

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Iggyhopper It's actually a decimal, it's like 23.9 FPS[/quote] Bah, I think nothing is wrong with the FPS in Halo. It doesn't seem choppy to me..

k the games graphics are great. i have a 32 inch tv with 1080p and the picture is great. on the back of the game it says it runs up to 1080p. halo 2 graphics sucked so bad halo 3 is a big diffrence and were are you getting this information anyway? call of duty MW2 is going to run in 60fps that the only game i have heard of that runs that high. halo graphics are amazing and the game is 3 years old.

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Kip gethinn [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] CP0 Fraser OMFG Learn what you're talking about please, first off, 6 FPS is a big difference when it comes to tweaking framerates, second, bloom is just artificial/fake lighting effects, all it is is a highly brightened area of the map made to look like it was caused by light, nothing to do with the framerate. AND NO, HALO 2, nor are most console games, WAS NOT 60FPS. Besides, in a slower paced game like halo 3, 60fps would most likely be awkward and wouldn't fit right with the slower gameplay.[/quote] and what do you base that assumption on? halo 3 has some of the fastest game play out there. 6 fps is NOT a big difference at all.20 fps is a difference, but not big. Also lets say 2 nades blow up beside you in halo 3, well your fps goes down to about 10. That is awful. The games needs a solid 60 fps like any game released in this time period. 30 is choppy and unreliable. 60 is how games should be.[/quote] Also if you knew anything you would realize that bloom effects fps. which is why they add in blur to try and hide it, which fails completely.

ahh, that sucks. I think hl2 runs better at 72hz though. so you could try plugging in a CRT and see if it makes a difference. as for older games yea they will run well because they were made to use a lower or higher refresh rate.

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] CP0 Fraser OMFG Learn what you're talking about please, first off, 6 FPS is a big difference when it comes to tweaking framerates, second, bloom is just artificial/fake lighting effects, all it is is a highly brightened area of the map made to look like it was caused by light, nothing to do with the framerate. AND NO, HALO 2, nor are most console games, WAS NOT 60FPS. Besides, in a slower paced game like halo 3, 60fps would most likely be awkward and wouldn't fit right with the slower gameplay.[/quote] and what do you base that assumption on? halo 3 has some of the fastest game play out there. 6 fps is NOT a big difference at all.20 fps is a difference, but not big. Also lets say 2 nades blow up beside you in halo 3, well your fps goes down to about 10. That is awful. The games needs a solid 60 fps like any game released in this time period. 30 is choppy and unreliable. 60 is how games should be.

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Kip gethinn [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Demache [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Kip gethinn 72r is another way of saying 72hz lol. and okay movies look around 48 fps. still it is tricking the eye and you cannot do that in video games because of the 72hz/r. When you turn your console on, or your PC, you are running at a refresh rate of 72. No matter what your TV/monitor is. I have a tube TV not an HDTV. If i had an HDTV my fps would probably be better, depending on the quality though. Now when you turn your TV on to watch something off cable, or your DVD player it is running at a standard of 60hz so it can trick your eye and allow the fps to be down.[/quote]72r = 72 hz. I figured that. Anywho, you can set the hardware refresh rate. Not on the 360, but on your computer. Like mine is doing ~60hz on my laptop. On my computer monitor for my 360, it actually does 59.8hz. While not a very high quality monitor (its roughly 6 years old), that's the refresh rate the 360 is feeding it over VGA. Maybe I am just super special since I can tell the difference between 23.946 fps, 30 fps, and 60 fps.[/quote] yupp I know you can set it on the PC. How old is your laptop though? Can it play next gen games? Also any new game, if you have hardware decent enough, will optimally run at a refresh rate of 72. For older games they run in the 50hz and 85hz. Why they display thing worse is physics and i cannot explain that completely. It has something to do with the human eye though. Also your 360 tells your TV to go to 72hz, I don't know exactly how, but I remember reading it on xbox.com. I will try to find it for proper citing.[/quote]Actually no. My laptop is 3 years old and pretty piss poor at gaming. Even stuff as old as Half Life 2 (20 fps max for the win?) Although older games will peak at about 100 frames per second, the screen only can possibly do 60hz. The actual video card itself can do 120 hz if you have the right monitor.

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Demache [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Kip gethinn 72r is another way of saying 72hz lol. and okay movies look around 48 fps. still it is tricking the eye and you cannot do that in video games because of the 72hz/r. When you turn your console on, or your PC, you are running at a refresh rate of 72. No matter what your TV/monitor is. I have a tube TV not an HDTV. If i had an HDTV my fps would probably be better, depending on the quality though. Now when you turn your TV on to watch something off cable, or your DVD player it is running at a standard of 60hz so it can trick your eye and allow the fps to be down.[/quote]72r = 72 hz. I figured that. Anywho, you can set the hardware refresh rate. Not on the 360, but on your computer. Like mine is doing ~60hz on my laptop. On my computer monitor for my 360, it actually does 59.8hz. While not a very high quality monitor (its roughly 6 years old), that's the refresh rate the 360 is feeding it over VGA. Maybe I am just super special since I can tell the difference between 23.946 fps, 30 fps, and 60 fps.[/quote] yupp I know you can set it on the PC. How old is your laptop though? Can it play next gen games? Also any new game, if you have hardware decent enough, will optimally run at a refresh rate of 72. For older games they run in the 50hz and 85hz. Why they display thing worse is physics and i cannot explain that completely. It has something to do with the human eye though. Also your 360 tells your TV to go to 72hz, I don't know exactly how, but I remember reading it on xbox.com. I will try to find it for proper citing.

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] TES Christian I'm down for more FPS. Hell, I don't know why everyone on this sight acts like an employee. "Yeah, that's just too much work and stuff and who cares the game is fine the way it is.", you want a better game don't you people![/quote]There's a difference between unrealistic expectations and improvements. They game was not designed this way and was never intended for 60 fps. Sure I would love for it to 60 fps. I would jizz my pants if that happened. Maybe Halo Reach eh? But I have got to go now. Please keep this thread alive so I can come back here later.

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Kip gethinn [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Demache [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Kip gethinn man, they could easily add in an option to tone down the graphics. the only way they couldn't is if MS made them sign a contract about not doing that specifically. If so, I feel for you bungie, MS has ruined your game.[/quote]No, Bungie has INTENDED it to be 30 fps on purpose. Its going to stay that way.[/quote] they intended on making there game 30 fps.... that makes no sense, its not smooth and will play horribly, what kind of game developers intend on making there game broken? I mean come on, anyone who owns a decent PC will think halo 3 is the worst garbage ever. Have you even experienced over 200 fps?[/quote]FPS is not the deciding factor in the quality of the game. You are dumb.

I'm down for more FPS. Hell, I don't know why everyone on this sight acts like an employee. "Yeah, that's just too much work and stuff and who cares the game is fine the way it is.", you want a better game don't you people!

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Kip gethinn [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Demache [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Kip gethinn man, they could easily add in an option to tone down the graphics. the only way they couldn't is if MS made them sign a contract about not doing that specifically. If so, I feel for you bungie, MS has ruined your game.[/quote]No, Bungie has INTENDED it to be 30 fps on purpose. Its going to stay that way.[/quote] they intended on making there game 30 fps.... that makes no sense, its not smooth and will play horribly, what kind of game developers intend on making there game broken? I mean come on, anyone who owns a decent PC will think halo 3 is the worst garbage ever. Have you even experienced over 200 fps?[/quote]No because I have never seen a monitor that can possibly do 200 fps.