Support NeoGAF

[Dictator93]

Looking good. Dynamic resolution works great with a game like Halo because the environments basically take place in a fantasy world. Its an artist interpretation. Maybe they wanted that sand to look blurry or the trees to be static. Games that take place in a real world environment like for example Forza 6. Need to be a 1080p or greater because you are trying to mimic a real environment people can relate to. Either way 60fps is the way to go if you can make it work.

I do not think that is a good justification as to why the game should use a variable resolution. I mean, do you think an artist really wants the model, texture, and material he spent 5 days on to be rendered at a sub native resolution that makes it indiscernable to something he couldhave made in 2 minutes? Similar arguments pop up in other tech threads of beloved game series when someone points out some sort of graphical inconsistency ("it is artistic will as to why it looks that way!"). It is a bad line of reasoning IMO.

Rather, the obvious and correct reasoning is that performance is king in console games.

 

[Pseudo_Sam]

Dynamic res, shame it wasn't developed by 343p, amirite?

AMIRITE?

 

[VinFTW]

Crazy optimisation:

Dynamic sub-1080p resolution
Poor texture filtering
Aggressively close LoD pops and dithered fades (even then you don't always get a high quality mesh)
Half-framerate distant enemy animation
Low-res prebaked lighting
Realtime shadows fading or popping in/out just a few feet in front of you
Low quality motion/impact blur (highly visible steps, even in motion)

And some straight up low quality textures not fit for a current-gen AAA game.

They're getting the positive clear (steady 60fps) out of the way before hitting with the clear sacrifices made to get there.

If these are the required sacrifices devs need to make in order to achieve a game this pretty, open, and unpredictable while running at a locked 60fps, then please, let every game go this route.

 

[RowdyReverb]

Crazy optimisation:

Dynamic sub-1080p resolution
Poor texture filtering
Aggressively close LoD pops and dithered fades (even then you don't always get a high quality mesh)
Half-framerate distant enemy animation
Low-res prebaked lighting
Realtime shadows fading or popping in/out just a few feet in front of you
Low quality motion/impact blur (highly visible steps, even in motion)

And just some straight up low quality textures not fit for a current-gen AAA game


They're getting the positive clear (steady 60fps) out of the way before hitting with the clear sacrifices made to get there.

Those all look like examples of optimization toward the target of locked 60fps to me. The whole point of optimizing is cutting corners to reach your target framerate and resolution. They try to do it in the least apparent ways, but nobody is perfect.

 

[Sniffynose]

Dynamic res, shame it wasn't developed by 343p, amirite?

AMIRITE?

Lol

Still hyped though =P

 

[Dictator93]

Those all look like examples of optimization toward the target of locked 60fps to me. The whole point of optimizing is cutting corners to reach your target framerate and resolution. They try to do it in the least apparent ways, but nobody is perfect.

Having people admit this is the first step.

 

[Asd202]

Not to nitpick, but one thing in the video commentary seemed funny to me:

"Halo 5 holds 60fps without breaking a sweat" - Isn't dynamic resolution the literal equivalent of the console breaking a sweat? lol.

Pretty much.

 

[Twilight Gap]

Dynamic res, shame it wasn't developed by 343p, amirite?

AMIRITE?

 

[JumPeRJumPzZ]

Why the hell do they need this Animations "LoD"? it just looks bad. Other 60fps games dont need that.

 

[TaintedHotSauce]

They're getting the positive clear (steady 60fps) out of the way before hitting with the clear sacrifices made to get there.

And all of those sacrifices are worth it. Halo feels like right at 60fps.

 

[Twilight Gap]

Crazy optimisation:

Dynamic sub-1080p resolution
Poor texture filtering
Aggressively close LoD pops and dithered fades (even then you don't always get a high quality mesh)
Half-framerate distant enemy animation
Low-res prebaked lighting
Realtime shadows fading or popping in/out just a few feet in front of you
Low quality motion/impact blur (highly visible steps, even in motion)

And some straight up low quality textures not fit for a current-gen AAA game.

They're getting the positive clear (steady 60fps) out of the way before hitting with the clear sacrifices made to get there.

That last one

 

[see5harp]

Having people admit this is the first step.

Every game that has ever been released has been optimized. This is nothing new, which is why it's sorta silly to say "GOTCHA" in any thread.

 

[Dictator93]

Why the hell do they need this Animations "LoD"? it just looks bad. Other 60fps games dont need that.

Almost all games do that, just you are not noticing it.

Updating animations for lots of things is expensive. Halo probably has more "things" than your average game.

Every game that has ever been released has been optimized. This is nothing new, which is why it's sorta silly to say "GOTCHA" in any thread.

There is a prevailing opinion on gaf that cutting corners is "downgrading" rather than being a necessary part of making a game run at a target framerate.

 

[SmartWaffles]

Why the hell do they need this Animations "LoD"? it just looks bad. Other 60fps games dont need that.

Literally in this thread someone already said even Bloodborne, a 30fps game, uses it.

 

[AllIsOneIsNone]

The only thing that kinda throws me off is the enemy animations at 30fps. Looks like some claymation shiz. Other than that, really great stuff. 343 worked with what they had and made all the right choices...or the one right choice: performance over everything. I think it's going to really pay off in the end.

 

[Bits N Pieces]

Crazy optimisation:

Dynamic sub-1080p resolution
Poor texture filtering
Aggressively close LoD pops and dithered fades (even then you don't always get a high quality mesh)
Half-framerate distant enemy animation
Low-res prebaked lighting
Realtime shadows fading or popping in/out just a few feet in front of you
Low quality motion/impact blur (highly visible steps, even in motion)

And some straight up low quality textures not fit for a current-gen AAA game.

They're getting the positive clear (steady 60fps) out of the way before hitting with the clear sacrifices made to get there.

Haha, you're great

 

[Shin-Ra]

Those all look like examples of optimization toward the target of locked 60fps to me. The whole point of optimizing is cutting corners to reach your target framerate and resolution. They try to do it in the least apparent ways, but nobody is perfect.

If you know you've got an aggressive performance target (1080p60), you should target simpler, but more polished graphics that don't reveal the corner cutting in such an unattractive way.

 

[JumPeRJumPzZ]

Literally in this thread someone already said even Bloodborne, a 30fps game, uses it.

I dont remember Battlefront or Battlefield doing it...

 

[Durante]

That consistency in frame delivery is admirable, well done.

Every game that has ever been released has been optimized. This is nothing new, which is why it's sorta silly to say "GOTCHA" in any thread.

The problem I have with this is that "optimization" is used in two fundamentally different ways:

• Delivering the same result more effectively
• Changing the result to another, which can be delivered more effectively

Generally, in CS, "optimization" means the former.

 

[Freiya]

If these are the required sacrifices devs need to make in order to achieve a game this pretty, open, and unpredictable while running at a locked 60fps, then please, let every game go this route.

Game really isn't that pretty tbh.

 

[Papacheeks]

The Dynamix resolution I don't have as much of an issue with, it's the Texture Pop-in, and texture loading that is a big issue.

But to me the biggest most unsettling issue is:

animation of enemies in the distance is rendered at 30FPS while the position is still updated every frame (@60)

Watching them show us in that video a freaking slow motion enemy in your sight , it very distracting takes me out of immersion.

That's just my Opinion though, it may not be a deal breaker for Halo fans.

 

[lukeskymac]

Less than 30 duplicate frames over 30 minutes of footage?

Jesus christ 343, that's some crazy optimisation right there.

That would be impressive if the game didn't have variable resolution...

 

[Deku Tree]

Those enemies that are rendering at 30fps look like they are pretty damn close in the video. Doesn't look very far away to me. Seems like there were high prices to pay to get to rock solid 60fps like making it only "partial on screen 60fps".

 

[etta]

.

Low resolution lighting, huh.

All of those trade-offs are worth it for the 60fps.
There's a reason people lower all graphical settings in CS GO to get 200+ fps.
To be honest, I would take even lower graphical settings in Halo 5 so they can get it to a native resolution. Same for Star Wars Battlefront, developers should set that stuff to low-medium settings and do 1080/60.

 

[Dictator93]

I dont remember Battlefront or Battlefield doing it...

Look at animation at a certain distance from your FP view. It is very obvious.

In halo, probably due to the amount of moving characters and objects on screen at one time, that line where animations run at half rate is respectively closer to the player FOV.

The problem I have with this is that "optimization" is used in two fundamentally different ways:

• Delivering the same result more effectively
• Changing the result to another, which can be delivered more effectively

Generally, in CS, "optimization" means the former.

Precisely!

 

[Backfoggen]

animation of enemies in the distance is rendered at 30FPS

This is so weird, the Souls games also do this. Are there actually any performance gains from this?
It looks awful.

 

[MaGlock]

I dont remember Battlefront or Battlefield doing it...

Both of which run at 720p and drops below 60 consistently

 

[Wizman23]

Crazy optimisation:

Dynamic sub-1080p resolution
Poor texture filtering
Aggressively close LoD pops and dithered fades (even then you don't always get a high quality mesh)
Half-framerate distant enemy animation
Low-res prebaked lighting
Realtime shadows fading or popping in/out just a few feet in front of you
Low quality motion/impact blur (highly visible steps, even in motion)

And some straight up low quality textures not fit for a current-gen AAA game.

They're getting the positive clear (steady 60fps) out of the way before hitting with the clear sacrifices made to get there.

You have been saving that post for weeks haven't you? It would probably be best for you to stay off GAF next Tuesday when this game is getting praised on here to high heavens.

 

[lukeskymac]

If these are the required sacrifices devs need to make in order to achieve a game this pretty, open, and unpredictable while running at a locked 60fps, then please, let every game go this route.

No, thanks.

 

[Kabuki Waq]

I dont see how this can be considered a technical marvel going by all the concessions the team had to make with IQ.

 

[nekkid]

Watching them show us in that video a freaking slow motion enemy in your sight , it very distracting takes me out of immersion.

That's just my Opinion though, it may not be a deal breaker for Halo fans.

MCC campaign was rife with this. It is distracting.

 

[Freiya]

Both of which run at 720p and drops below 60 consistently

I dunno about xb1 version but the ps4 version of battlefront definitely looks better than halo 5.

 

[Bits N Pieces]

Both of which run at 720p and drops below 60 consistently

Shhhhhhh, this kind of chat doesn't fit the narrative.

 

[Kralamoonard]

Well done. 343.

Never seen a next gen AAA game run at 60fps with this level of graphics.

MGSV? Nevertheless, it does look like fantastic and 343 have no doubt done a great job at optimizing the game!

 

[Windom Earle]

Crazy optimisation:

Dynamic sub-1080p resolution
Poor texture filtering
Aggressively close LoD pops and dithered fades (even then you don't always get a high quality mesh)
Half-framerate distant enemy animation
Low-res prebaked lighting
Realtime shadows fading or popping in/out just a few feet in front of you
Low quality motion/impact blur (highly visible steps, even in motion)

And some straight up low quality textures not fit for a current-gen AAA game.

They're getting the positive clear (steady 60fps) out of the way before hitting with the clear sacrifices made to get there.

This is all true. Obvious sacrifices had to be made. Still, 343 did a good job considering the fps and the hardware they had to work with.

 

[JumPeRJumPzZ]

Both of which run at 720p and drops below 60 consistently

Battlefront only dropped to 50fps when a lot of shit was going on. And you would never know that if framerate analysts wouldnt have told us.

 

[LegalEagleMike]

I dunno about xb1 version but the ps4 version of battlefront definitely looks better than halo 5.

that really doesnt matter for this discussion. Xbox games should be compared to xbox games. Everyone already knows about the hardware differences by now.

 

[Shin-Ra]

You have been saving that post for weeks haven't you? It would probably be best for you to stay off GAF next Tuesday when this game is getting praised on here to high heavens.

Gamersyde uploaded high quality (approx 35mbps) video from the shipping game just a few days ago.

I don't have a problem with people praising the story, sound or mechanics, just the graphics.

 

[Papacheeks]

MCC campaign was rife with this. It is distracting.

Which one specifically? Or was it all of them? I didn't play MCC. I'v only played some of Halo 2 in MCC, and Halo:CE anniversary on 360.

 

[mcrommert]

Battlefront only dropped to 50fps when a lot of shit was going on. And you would never know that if framerate analysts wouldnt have told us.

Battlefield beta had atrocious drops...though i don't think it will for final its the in the mode of cod...60 frames is more of a suggestion...this is more like metal gear solid V which is heavily locked 60...bravo i say

 

[etta]

You have been saving that post for weeks haven't you? It would probably be best for you to stay off GAF next Tuesday when this game is getting praised on here to high heavens.

It will be glorious. It has already started in another thread, with a poster making bribery accusations for review scores.

Battlefront only dropped to 50fps when a lot of shit was going on. And you would never know that if framerate analysts wouldnt have told us.

You can't be serious. The controller input delta is immediately noticeable.

Gamersyde uploaded high quality (approx 35mbps) video from the shipping game just a few days ago.

I don't have a problem with people praising the story, sound or mechanics, just the graphics.

You have a problem with people praising its graphics?

 

[SamastahSukhino]

Low resolution lighting, huh.

All of those trade-offs are worth it for the 60fps.
There's a reason people lower all graphical settings in CS GO to get 200+ fps.
To be honest, I would take even lower graphical settings in Halo 5 so they can get it to a native resolution. Same for Star Wars Battlefront, developers should set that stuff to low-medium settings and do 1080/60.

Me too. But they won't because people will complain that the dirt particles don't look 3D when you take a screenshot. I will give credit that 343 went for 60, and it's the right choice cause I said so. If I wanted to play a shooter in 30fps I would buy black ops 3 on a 360.

 

[Bits N Pieces]

I dunno about xb1 version but the ps4 version of battlefront definitely looks better than halo 5.

And that means what exactly?

lol, we know the PS4 is more powerful than the Xbox and can deal better with more demanding games but why are you comparing Battlefront on PS4 to Halo 5 on the Xbox?

 

[AllIsOneIsNone]

Battlefront only dropped to 50fps when a lot of shit was going on. And you would never know that if framerate analysts wouldnt have told us.

I could say the same thing about not noticing the resolution drops for Halo 5. If you told people it was a solid 900p game, most people probably wouldn't think twice. Texture filtering is pretty noticeable though.

 

[AP90]

Well after playing through the campaigns and multiplayer in the MCC (which isnt anywhere near a locked 60fps) this is just brilliant news.

Halo 5 is going to be more smooth than Tom from Parks and Rec

Great work 343i !!

Also, what movie/show is the GIF above from?? Thanks!

 

[Papacheeks]

Anyone know what Sunset Overdrive was frame rate wise for campaign and co-op and what resolution?

I feel that's a game with a lot going on action wise, I feel that would be a good comparison.

 

[Pseudo_Sam]

Game looks great, yo. If you're gonna nitpick outlier textures and dithered shadows then you shouldn't be playing console games in the first place. 60 fps > all for shooters.

 

[JumPeRJumPzZ]

Battlefield beta had atrocious drops...though i don't think it will for final its the in the mode of cod...60 frames is more of a suggestion...this is more like metal gear solid V which is heavily locked 60...bravo i say

Battlefield beta? Not sure what beta you played but Battlefront ran veeery smooth for me on PS4. On XboxOne from time to time too but NXOE produced issues with the performance.

I dunno about xb1 version but the ps4 version of battlefront definitely looks better than halo 5.

Both Xbone and PS4 version looks better than H5 IMO.

Yes even that 720p on Xbone. Battlefront pushes for way more eyecandy and still holds a really amooth framerate.

Adaptive Tessellation and POM is very impressive for a game that is running 60fps 90% of the time.

 

[3rdamention]

Those enemies that are rendering at 30fps look like they are pretty damn close in the video. Doesn't look very far away to me. Seems like there were high prices to pay to get to rock solid 60fps like making it only "partial on screen 60fps".

The way they describe it, enemies in the distant animating at half the frames, I assumed it would be rather far in the distance. That creature animation they showed was right in front of you, well within shooting range, and looked like it was running in slow motion (the animation looked slow motion, not the speed). It does look very weird,especially that close to the player.

 

[statham]

Anyone know what Sunset Overdrive was frame rate wise for campaign and co-op and what resolution?

I feel that's a game with a lot going on action wise, I feel that would be a good comparison.

900/30 all modes IIRC.