mejin
Member
Nope. I think developers should be free to do what they think is right on consoles.
Horizon is 30fps and I'm happy GG didn't sacrifice all that beauty for 60fps.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Digital Foundry: Halo 5 Hands-On Tech Analysis/Frame-Rate Test
- Thread starter SmartWaffles
- Start date
- Status
Nope. I think developers should be free to do what they think is right on consoles.
Horizon is 30fps and I'm happy GG didn't sacrifice all that beauty for 60fps.
Fess
Member
This is actually a good question which seems to have gone by unnoticed. Seems like almost all big AAA games this generation are either locked 30fps or unlocked 45-60fps. What else can be compared to Halo 5 this generation? Maybe MGSV? I'm playing on PC though so I don't know how it looks on consoles.
BigTnaples said:
Uncharted 4 is half the frame rate of Halo 4, also, historically the Uncharted games had pre rendered cutscenes , which Halo 4 is not.
This argument has been had many times before, but Halo by it's very nature of being a reasonably large scale game (with 24player multiplayer] is never going to hit the level of detail that a more tightly scripted experience like uncharted will offer.
Metal Gear 5 is a good comparison, it's not a super impressive looking game compared to other titles.
Killzone 4 maybe?
That was an unsteady 45-60fps in single player at 1080p and is half the resolution in multiplayer at a more steady 60fps
OoO Speznas OoO
Neo Member
I would say metro redux
SmartWaffles
Member
MGSV is practically locked 60fps on both consoles, Xbox One being 900p non the less, but that was an entirely different genre and different engine, and the spectacle in MGSV is considerably more contained than something like Halo. KZSF is kinda unconvincing as well since it's a launch title built on unfinished SDK which can't faithfully represent hardware and development team capabilities.
...Scatter...
Banned
Killzone is a good comparison. They have different art style but both futuristic FPS's. It was dubbed the "Halo killer" after all.
Uncharted 4 comparisons are just silly by all accounts as the games have nothing in common. Keep the Uncharted 4 comparisons to Tomb Raider. That's where the real comparison is.
Melchiah
Member
I didn't notice the resolution change in WipEout HD, but that's probably due to its speed. Based on what the developers said back then, the resolution only changed during the most frantic moments, when there were explosions on the screen. Dunno if it's more noticeable in FPS or not, where you have actually time to look at the scenery.
It's not about the franchise being linked with 60fps, it's about the feature improving the game automatically. We were all fine with using dumb phones before smart phones came out, does that mean we don't need the smart features that we got used to today and could easily switch to dumb phones without our life being interrupted? No, because these pocket computers pretty much run our daily life now with their fancy OS's and tech, as well as with calendar, email, fitness apps, media apps...etc.
People love Naughty Dog, right? Do you remember when they remastered TLOU with 60fps, they kept harping how 60fps changes the whole game for the better, from animation to playability? And GAF was like "fuck yeah!", and rightfully so. And then they announced U4 which initially was planned to be at 60fps because of how good that feature was, and once again GAF was like "fuck yea!".
What about MGS V threads? People, again, were so giddy that Kojima went for 60fps and how much better off the game was for it.
There's also another factor you should consider. Why are the other developers who are making first person shooters this fall also targgeting 60fps? Star Wars, Rainbow Six? Perhaps these devs also agree that 60fps makes the game better?
Are there even any FPS games announced that aren't 60fps?
I'm actually more impressed with Halo 5 than I was with Halo 3 during its time.
Halo 3 reminded me of an original Xbox game probably because the game wasn't in HD (it was less than 720p).
Halo 5 being in a better resolution and framerate than the previous mainline Halo games makes the game a "next gen visual step up" in my opinion since it looks better and much smoother in movement. The game would definitely look better if the Xbox One was more powerful though at the same time, I'm sure that people who are saying that would also think that Halo 5 was a next gen step up if the game was set to 30 FPS. Halo 5 would (obviously) look better if it was 30 FPS.
60 fps is just superior. It plays better and the halo experience is better for it. If Destiny was 60 FPS it would be a better game. mcc has shown people 60 fps halo and their hooked, it's honestly to the point where I can't accept anything less.
LordBaztion
Member
Gameplay focus + 60fps + great art direction = sold.
Well done 343i
Well done 343i
Yeah -- after all of the praise this gen from action game remasters and sequels being 60 FPS, I do (also) find it strange how some are wishing Halo 5 was kept to 30 FPS.
The Baron Count
Member
Just wanna tackle this real quick, as that complaint always irked me. There was no "downgrade" to the armor. His model was exactly the same as the initial reveal, they just changed the texture for continuity purposes. They wanted the model to better reflect the previous game.
That exact same texture was used on tons of other surfaces throughout the game. Look at pretty much any UNSC location with something made of metal and you'll see it.
Performance will never be affected by a single texture anyway. The visor was very different however but it was scratched up and stuff in the final game which looked much more realistic than chief having this banged up armor with a perfect shiny visor.
It's phenomenal, really. It helps tremendously with input lag, which is crucial for the genre. If the fps were to drop in the middle of a firefight, the input lag will increase with it, and your aiming sensitivity will all of the sudden follow a curve model as opposed to a linear model. Stable fps is of critical importance for shooters where you need to aim during firefights and racers where you need to steer at high speed.
sammyCYBORG
Member
Sounds well optimised which makes it more disappointing they couldn't optimise it for split screen 30fps.
Even if it was 4:3 like in the MCC.
Even if it was 4:3 like in the MCC.
I kinda hope 343 whether partly themselves or another team, give MCC that sort of performance. Probably dreaming but if they released a mega patch they've been working on for a year that basically reimagines MCC as hoped and then some, even better UI and stuff, that would be great. Maybe it's all over for MCC though and they'll do something like Halo Collection 4K for PC and next gen, CEA art style fix please, complete 60fps animations, Halo 3 models redone, FoV, fix crap weapons. I'm getting carried away Lucas style..
Windom Earle
Banned
G-Sync/Freesync can't come soon enough to consoles so devs don't have to jump through hoops like dynamic resolution. Not gonna happen for a long time I guess. Playing a top tier game on PC at 100+ fps without tearing or input lag might just be the best thing ever.
Good one. I still can't believe that made Metro work with such a stable framerate. Much more impressive to me than Halo 5.
Good one. I still can't believe that made Metro work with such a stable framerate. Much more impressive to me than Halo 5.
Dictator93
Member
There obviously are, see the tree in this GIF:
They are only used in specific scenarios. Numerous other sections have rather low res baked shadows combined with disappearing and rather randomly placed character shadows which are "dynamic": kinda like how gears of war 1 did it..
Considering the console versions turns off all the high end features.. I think it makes quite a lot of sense that it runs the way it does on console.
Bigmac1910
Member
I guess I'm going against the norm here, but I would have preferred locked 30fps and a lot more eye candy, it looks a little bit too flat at the moment. Halo has always been 30fps, not sure why 60fps is so important all of a sudden, unless 343 want to get some COD people to switch over. I'll wait for the reviews before passing judgement, but I am not particularly impressed.
LordOfChaos
Member
There's no article to go with this video?
statham
Member
After playing MCC, I don't know if I could go back to 30.
Maybe because it was a corridor-shooter 95% of the time? And it ran on last gen consoles as well?
Television sets were fine at 480p, too, not sure why 720p was needed all of the sudden, or why 1080p or 4K is needed all of the sudden.
Glomby
Member
This comparison is horrible imho
First of all, the X1 is not unerpowered at all. The PS4 is just as bad and gets just as much destroyed by PCs. Halo 5 on PS4 would definitly not look like a generation ahead of the X1 version, it probably wouldn't need the dynamic resolution (or less downscalling), but thats it.
But your comparision is bad because facial expressions are probably the most challanging thing to improve in video games, since forever. So of course UC4 ist very impressive when it tacles this problem. But the backgrounds in those screen don't look that different.
Your Halo 4/5 shots basically show shiny armor though. How do you think shiny armor should look like on the X1? Even shinier or amorier? That is not what Halo is about. What if each level is absolutely massive compared to Halo 4 would you still say the same just because the armor doesn't look that much better?
Screenshoots are great for comparisons but they can be extremely missleading sometimes when you are comparing the wrong things.
SuperRaddy
Member
In all honesty, when things on screen get intense and the action is high (and i am presuming the scaling here will be when there is a lot of action on screen), does anyone really sit an scritinise the screen resolution ?
Bigmac1910
Member
After playing MCC the first Halo only (haven't had time to play through the rest yet), I didn't enjoy it better because of the frame rate, but the eye candy made it more immersive for me. (I am talking about the campaign here.)
I don't think you need to scrutinise the res to notice the difference.
It's taking some reaaaaaal stretching to try and downplay Halo 5's technical feat.
I find it hard to believe there will be anything better looking at a locked 60FPS on a machine this weak anytime soon.
Games gorgeous and is a proper generational leap from Halo 4 in every way. Need to be reminded? Load up Ragnarok.
I find it hard to believe there will be anything better looking at a locked 60FPS on a machine this weak anytime soon.
Games gorgeous and is a proper generational leap from Halo 4 in every way. Need to be reminded? Load up Ragnarok.
Bigmac1910
Member
60fps you can feel but only see to a certain degree, 4K I can see all the time and it's beautiful.
It's funny you should say that, seeing how resolution has diminising returns. It's quite hilarious, really.
Pretty much. Was there this much downplaying with Battlefield? Killzone? Rainbow Six?
Dictator93
Member
I wondered the same thing myself: it is like... jittering? It looks like PS1 polygon jitter...
Bigmac1910
Member
I guess you haven't seen true 4K footage yet then, unless you have really poor eye sight and no glasses, you can see it.
Normally DF would blast a game that had poor AF. So all of a sudden 800p is acceptable... And did he just say AF is intensive enough to drop frames? He also started the Framerate count right after a drop occurred. Hmmm. He seems overly lenient in this preview explaining how it's in beta when they are known to preview videos off of conference screen. And I'm not sure I like the narrative of forcing developers to run their games at 60 when it's not a requirement or a need. It should be up to them.
On another note, I really like the aesthetics of the game. Things feel tangible.
On another note, I really like the aesthetics of the game. Things feel tangible.
...Scatter...
Banned
Killzone's graphics were praised. The game got crushed though after people played it and found it dull.
Battlefield 4's graphics were criticized heavily on console but gameplay was strong.
Rainbow Six isn't out yet, but looks promising.
Windom Earle
Banned
Even without the ridiculous stuff Metro is quite pretty!
After "corridor racer" became a meme, hearing "corridor shooter" is quite comical to me. You're right, but it's also multiplatform game from a small team that was released quite early into the gen. Very impressive to me! Halo 5 looking very similar to Halo 4 is certainly true.
LukasTaves
Member
Indeed, it definitely feels like it's the downscaling doing its trick here.
Dunno how old the build is, here's hoping they can get closer to 1080p all the time during the final version.
Well, to match U4 leap they would have to do like ND and drop their 60fps target. Also keep in mind that the only way Halo 4 can get close to H5 is on MCC where they run at twice the resolution and twice the framerate compared to how they ran on 360.
Killzone ever goes above 30 in the campaign? Didn't feel like it, but if it was unsteady could be the variation that made it look less smooth.
A good candidate would be Metro Redux which was pointed by someone else. I didn't played the remake yet, but it might be a good comparison point on how 343i efforts go.
So you're saying 30->60fps is not noticeable enough, but 1080p>2160p is. How can you be so inconsistent? (which was my original point)
Oh wow, hadn't recognized you without your avatar. Now it makes sense.
This is so futile. Why did it take me this long to realize. 31 more days until the OT and hopefully no more of this shit.
60fps automatically improves things, if all else remains the same, but that is never the case. 60fps usually comes at a hefty cost, and the additional things a lower frame rate enables can just as easily improve gameplay. Eg, better resolution, physics, larger levels, more NPC's, grander scale, better graphics etc.
If you know me on these forums, you'll know that I'm usually one of those who prefers a locked 30fps with more bells and whistles etc, over 60fps, in most genres besides stuff like fighters, sim racers, twitch shooters etc. I've been consistent in that opinion, and was actually very disappointed when ND first announced UC4 might be 60fps (I made many posts complaining about this decision). I felt and said exactly the same for Halo 5, which imo is not the kind of shooter that needs or has ever needed 60fps, but is the kind of shooter that would greater benefit from a beautiful presentation, and massive sandboxy level design, physics, scale etc. That's not to say Halo 5 might not still feature these things, but obviously at 30fps they could have pushed more. I won't know how sandboxy Halo 5 is till I complete it.
That said, I'm not too fussed either way. I really enjoyed Halo 4, even though it was more linear than past games in the franchise, and even though many disliked it. I also very much enjoyed the Halo's before it (the original still being my favourite, and in my all time top 10). In all honesty it doesn't matter what the frame rate it is, or what resolution etc, so long as it plays well, and looks decent (which it looks like it does). Those are ultimately the fundamentals, everything else is just preferences, being particular and/or demanding.
Right?! Talk about having someone in your back pocket...
SaganIsGOAT
Junior Member
- Status