globalisateur said:
Titanfall is also a "healthy 60fps shooter" (by the words of Eurogamer) but in reality runs with constant screen tearing at ~40~45fps with ~30fps drops when Titans are out (the core of the game), even single digits fps allegedely but DF performance video suddenly stopped showing under 20fps levels, just starting for this game...) . Sniper Elite 2 on XB1 is also labelled 1080p60fps game and has constant screen tearing. If we follow this logic Infamous SS uncapped is also a true 1080p 60fps game.
But those games are in fact 30fps games just uncapped, at least Infamous hasn't go any screen tearing (triple buffering) and can be 30fps capped.
They are gonna label those Halo games 1080p60fps, no doubt for marketing purposes, but at what cost? They already announced that Halo 2 is sub-1080p, they even showed us a ~900p Halo 2 game with empty bland environments so that's not promising for the Halo 3 and 4 at 1080p60fps (solid framerate without screen tearing) in my book. I am in fact a true Halo fan, and I did buy the original Xbox with Halo CE (and the X360 with Gears of war BTW). And I am so angry at Microsoft for having released this esram bottlenecked, screen tearing filled console. A next gen console at this price that can't even do triple buffering on any 1080p game? What were they thinking? Halo collection with constant screen tearing, a la Titanfall? because if they really follow this 1080p60fps marketing target, that's what we'll get. I mean, show me a 1080p 60fps first person shooter (with ~open environments) game without constant screen tearing on XB1 (not counting dynamic resolution like Wolf which isn't anymore a true 1080p game). |
Halo 2 is not confirmed anything yet because its running 2 games on top of each other for instant switching. The rest are 360 games that were simply upgraded to 1080p 60fps Halo 2 remastered's possible 900p has nothing to do with the other 3 games. What makes you think 3 360 games are going to have screen tearing?
