Support NeoGAF

[bede-x]

Looks very pretty in the videos and kudos to the team for hitting 60fps. I hope the series keep maintaining that as its goal.

 

[Kikorin]

Awesome, I'm pretty excited to play my first Halo at 60fps. I'm not concerned about graphics, I hated frame drops in Reach and Halo 4, so I'm happy they taken the decision to go with real 60fps.

 

[Stevey]

Wasn't too sure about this, but locked 60 means I'll most likely get it day one.

 

[BananasWithGuns]

http://i.imgur.com/7rw1Qwb.webm[url...ds can express how amazingly perfect this is.

 

[CassidyIzABeast]

I'll take a solid 60 fps considering what they have to work with. Dem graphix + a solid 60fps will come next gen when the front office doesn't have eat up the budget putting kinect in the box.

 

[ISee]

With what seems to be a highly variable resolution that can dip to numbers that impact image quality in noticeable ways (based on those quotes), I wonder why the decision wasn't just to make a less graphically ambitious game and/or lock it at something less than 1080p? Still, I'm glad they're hitting their 60fps target for all those that are looking forward to this game.

Just my two cents here:

I guess they started to develop the game and didn't plan to initially hit 1080p, Instead they planed to make a visually good looking game with a lower resolution. I think they planed for 900p at best (maybe even lower, like Titanfalls XONE resolution) and 60fps.

Later the 900p vs 1080p debate started to backfire for microsoft, they did their best to to play it down with stuff like 'cloud computing' or 'the picture is shown anyway in 1080p on your TV' or 'you can't even tell the difference on a screen below x inch' and finally with 'we can do it too!'

By this time they decided to do everything to be able to write 1080p on the gamebox for Halo 5 as it is (most probably) their most important franchise and people expect it to be a graphical powerhouse.

But it was too late to change the game enough to reach 1080p/60fps in all situations so they implemented a dynamic resolution and are in a way going for a 1080PR game.

From a marketing standpoint I can understand that. As a gamer; fluctuating resolutions aren't as bad as inconsistent frame rates but it sucks anyway. I want my games to run in my TVs native resolution and 60fps.

 

[leeh]

Just my two cents here:

I guess they started to develop the game and didn't plan to initially hit 1080p, Instead they planed to make a visually good looking game with a lower resolution. I think they planed for 900p at best (maybe even lower, like Titanfalls XONE resolution) and 60fps.

Later the 900p vs 1080p debate started to backfire for microsoft, they did their best to to play it down with stuff like 'cloud computing' or 'the picture is shown anyway in 1080p on your TV' or 'you can't even tell the difference on a screen below x inch' and finally with 'we can do it too!'

By this time they decided to do everything to be able to write 1080p on the gamebox for Halo 5 as it is (most probably) their most important franchise and people expect it to be a graphical powerhouse.

But it was too late to change the game enough to reach 1080p/60fps in all situations so they implemented a dynamic resolution and are in a way going for a 1080PR game.

From a marketing standpoint I can understand that. As a gamer; fluctuating resolutions aren't as bad as inconsistent frame rates but it sucks anyway. I want my games to run in my TVs native resolution and 60fps.

Too much tinfoil going off in this post.

Their older builds (E3) were running at a much lower resolution. They will of just optimised and implemented a dynamic scaler due to it looking better. Keep in mind 343i were the first to implement horizontal scaling with H2:A.

 

[BigTnaples]

Would've loved to see what Halo 5 could've been on PS4 or better hardware.

Feels handicapped on the One. Which is unfortunate for me because Halo is literally THE reason I bought my XBOs.

Really, it's hard to tell the difference between Halo 4 MCC and Halo 5. No exaggeration.

The lighting, character models, textures, physics, etc. are all too similar. Vehicles exploding and characters getting shot just don't seem to have the "oomph" they should. Which was my largest complaint with Halo 4.



At least the sound effects are bloody amazing.


And as they said in a documentary, if they were going to go 60fps, it had to be now.

 

[JumPeRJumPzZ]

Would've loved to see what Halo 5 could've been on PS4 or better hardware.

Feels handicapped on the One. Which is unfortunate for me because Halo is literally THE reason I bought my XBOs.

Really, it's hard to tell the difference between Halo 4 MCC and Halo 5. No exaggeration.


The lighting, character models, textures, physics, etc. are all too similar. Vehicles exploding and characters getting shot just don't seem to have the "oomph" they should. Which was my largest complaint with Halo 4.



At least the sound effects are bloody amazing.


And as they said in a documentary, if they were going to go 60fps, it had to be now.

Be careful what you say, some will call you a troll.

 

[Caayn]

Too much tinfoil going off in this post.

Their older builds (E3) were running at a much lower resolution. They will of just optimised and implemented a dynamic scaler due to it looking better. Keep in mind 343i were the first to implement horizontal scaling with H2:A.

343i were not the first to implement horizontal scaling. Grand Turismo 5 Prologue did it back in 2007, 1280x1080 to 1920x1080.

Would've loved to see what Halo 5 could've been on PS4 or better hardware.

I doubt that H5 on PS4 would like significantly better. PC is another story of course.

 

[Caayn]

Whoops, double post.

 

[HTupolev]

EDIT: post went through twice D:

 

[Septic360]

Played Warzone yesterday and characters and objects at a distance looked really odd. Like low res and the animation wasn't smooth. I don't know if it has anything to do with this dynamic resolution malarkey though.

Shout out to lead playtester James though at EGX. Such a nice bloke and really accomodating and friendly.

 

[HTupolev]

Keep in mind 343i were the first to implement horizontal scaling in H2:A.

Anamorphic rendering is nothing new. H2A isn't even the first Halo game to use a compressed horizontal axis relative to vertical (that would be Reach). Also, H2A's graphics were implemented by Saber, not 343i.

 

[leeh]

Be careful what you say, some will call you a troll.

Don't get why. Halo 4 looks better than most current gen games.

Anamorphic rendering is nothing new. H2A isn't even the first Halo game to use a compressed horizontal axis relative to vertical (that would be Reach). Also, H2A's graphics were implemented by Saber, not 343i.

Fair enough. Schooled.

 

[Ozzy Onya A2Z]

No previous Halo game was a rock solid 30fps, more like 24 or 18/15 for the most part. It's a welcome change in MP with a breath of fresh air for campaign.

I'd like to play a previous Halo game with a locked 30fps and see if I still can't about 60fps for campaign or not. MCC remakes at 60fps was glorious so keep making moves 343, I'm a happy fan.

 

[AUS Karol]

Good to see a developer favoring gameplay over graphics

 

[JumPeRJumPzZ]

Good to see a developer favoring gameplay over graphics

Graphics are part of the gameplay.

 

[Twin Tails]

Great choice, game plays like butter.

 

[BeeDog]

This is something I've been wondering for some time; aside from reduced input latency and the general smoothness of aiming (in shooters), how does the gameplay actually benefit from it? My assumption has always been that if you strive to hit 60 fps at all times, you (may) need to reduce the complexity of, let's say, AI/path calculations, the amount of triggers in single-player campaign missions, etc. etc. I believe I understand why it would be very beneficial in a racing sim though, e.g. if the frequency of the physics calculations can be clearly shown on screen and thus provide immediate feedback to the player.

I might be completely off-base and would honestly like to be enlightened. What irks me is that when some people say "gameplay over graphics", it seems they disparage anyone liking 30 fps by insinuating they are "graphics whores".

 

[PnCIa]

I am disappointed that a game that looks like this cant even run at 1080/60. Oh well.
Kudos to 343 for delivering a stable 60! Good thing they did not choose the slideshow that so many developers seem to favor. They choose vaseline instead, but i suppose most players need new glasses so it shouldnt be an issue.

 

[Cuyejo]

This is something I've been wondering for some time; aside from reduced input latency and the general smoothness of aiming (in shooters), how does the gameplay actually benefit from it? My assumption has always been that if you strive to hit 60 fps at all times, you (may) need to reduce the complexity of, let's say, AI/path calculations, the amount of triggers in single-player campaign missions, etc. etc. I believe I understand why it would be very beneficial in a racing sim though, e.g. if the frequency of the physics calculations can be clearly shown on screen and thus provide immediate feedback to the player.

I might be completely off-base and would honestly like to be enlightened. What irks me is that when some people say "gameplay over graphics", it seems they disparage anyone liking 30 fps by insinuating they are "graphics whores".

It's because people like to parrot stuff without even knowing what the hell they are saying.

 

[alexandros]

Locked 60fps will trump graphics every time.

Bravo.

I'm so very happy to hear people say that. Recently it seems like more and more console gamers have developed an appreciation for the smoothness that 60 fps can provide and it's great that they are praising the developers for prioritizing framerate over resolution or graphical effects. This is the way it should be in my opinion.

 

[Random17]

This is something I've been wondering for some time; aside from reduced input latency and the general smoothness of aiming (in shooters), how does the gameplay actually benefit from it?

This alone is beneficial to a very large degree.

My assumption has always been that if you strive to hit 60 fps at all times, you (may) need to reduce the complexity of, let's say, AI/path calculations, the amount of triggers in single-player campaign missions, etc. etc. I believe I understand why it would be very beneficial in a racing sim though, e.g. if the frequency of the physics calculations can be clearly shown on screen and thus provide immediate feedback to the player.

Not necessarily, IIRC Frankie said the game is being built from the ground up for 60FPS.

The real sacrifice appears to have been in IQ, such as alpha effects, shadows, AA and resolution. It appears the AI is fine in Warzone, the most taxing mode. It appears as if physics and the AI have not suffered and therefore the benefit of 60FPS is realized.

 

[ISee]

Too much tinfoil going off in this post.

Their older builds (E3) were running at a much lower resolution. They will of just optimised and implemented a dynamic scaler due to it looking better. Keep in mind 343i were the first to implement horizontal scaling with H2:A.

They implemented a dynamic and fluctuating resolution solution because it looks better. This had for sure nothing to do with marketing being able to call the next huge halo release a 1080p60fps game to prove that their own console is a power house.

Too much tinfoil thinking on my side. Ok then.

 

[Random17]

They implemented a dynamic and fluctuating resolution solution because it looks better. This had for sure nothing to do with marketing being able to call the next huge halo release a 1080p60fps game to prove that their own console is a power house.

Too much tinfoil thinking on my side. Ok then.

Last time I checked the game was referred to as 60FPS 9 times out of 10 and not 1080p 60FPS in official marketing videos.

Maybe a little too much tinfoil, yeah.

 

[Omni]

Well personally I don't agree with the trade off. Locked 30fps has been fine for ever a decade and would have continued being fine. Hell, look at Destiny. Released in 2014 with a stable 30fps and has been constantly praised for its game play, if nothing else.

I'm not saying 60fps is bad. Ideally it would be the norm. But the sacrifices needed to maintain it on an underpowered console just aren't worth it.

 

[ElTorro]

This is something I've been wondering for some time; aside from reduced input latency and the general smoothness of aiming (in shooters), how does the gameplay actually benefit from it? My assumption has always been that if you strive to hit 60 fps at all times, you (may) need to reduce the complexity of, let's say, AI/path calculations, the amount of triggers in single-player campaign missions, etc. etc. I believe I understand why it would be very beneficial in a racing sim though, e.g. if the frequency of the physics calculations can be clearly shown on screen and thus provide immediate feedback to the player.

The frame rate of graphics and world simulation does not have to be the same. You can run the graphics at 30fps while updating controls and simulation at higher frame rates. Similarly, you can run the graphics at 60fps and run certain aspects of the simulation slower and completely asynchronous, like AI for instance.

 

[Dictator93]

Played Warzone yesterday and characters and objects at a distance looked really odd. Like low res and the animation wasn't smooth. I don't know if it has anything to do with this dynamic resolution malarkey though.

Shout out to lead playtester James though at EGX. Such a nice bloke and really accomodating and friendly.

Distant objects in this game, characters, physics, etc... all animate @ half frame rate I think.

 

[Bitch Pudding]

Locked 60fps will trump graphics every time.

Bravo.

I agree, but have to say I prefer having both.

 

[Madness]

Sounds like most of the time it is at 1300x1080 - not far off 1280x1080 or 2/3 1080p full HD.that sounds like a lot of compromise to hit 60fps. Depending how often it drops to really low resolutions, i'd say it may have been a better option to reduce detail levels to bump that up. Both cases would still stick with 60fps.

It's more pixels than 900p when it's 1344x1080. This resolution also means it's 1080 vertical lines which allows for a better picture, all while locked at 60fps. Now of course the image also drops to slightly better than 720p when it hits that 1152x810 resolution, but it also hits full HD 1920x1080p all while locked at 60fps.

How many shooters on Xbox One, key word Xbox One, stay locked at 60fps? Even Call of Duty suffers dips to 50 or below, and often the image is only 900p, 720p or dynamic 1080pr for most shooters. I think this is a great compromise. Anyone saying keep campaign 30fps, multiplayer 60fps, just go and play Gears Ultimate Edition and see how jarring it is. 60fps is so smooth.

Do I miss the fact that Halo won't be the eye candy it could be if it was 1080p/30fps or below? Sure. But I don't want to play 20-25fps Halo anymore. I'm willing to stick with muddy textures, lower resolution if it means I can go balls to the wall with rocket launchers, banshee bombs, all while keeping it at 60fps. I can't wait to see how Warzone or when BTB comes, heavies variants, hold up to the 60fps standard.

 

[Boomshaw]

Used to be a huge fan of Halo and then MCC happened. This looks amazing! But but this time I'm waiting to see how multiplayer works on launch...sorry 343.

But props for making a damn good looking games and locked 60fps! (Pretty much)

 

[Gurish]

I'd much prefer a locked 30 and a nice eye candy, for me it would be pretty disappointing if U4 looked like the remasters, I want a big next gen leap, the trade off is not worth it in such case as I find 30 fps perfectly playable, but to each his own.

 

[N30RYU]

I hate when distant characters are animated half the frames... like in DC Universe online.




I would like to see some captures of H5 in it's dynamic lowest resolution to side with the 60f.


offtopic. I couldn't log in for about 4 minutes and I though to myself wtf I got myself banned again? I didn't flame any console war?

 

[Madness]

Would've loved to see what Halo 5 could've been on PS4 or better hardware.

Feels handicapped on the One. Which is unfortunate for me because Halo is literally THE reason I bought my XBOs.

Really, it's hard to tell the difference between Halo 4 MCC and Halo 5. No exaggeration.

The lighting, character models, textures, physics, etc. are all too similar. Vehicles exploding and characters getting shot just don't seem to have the "oomph" they should. Which was my largest complaint with Halo 4.



At least the sound effects are bloody amazing.


And as they said in a documentary, if they were going to go 60fps, it had to be now.

You're comparing two bullshots of cinematics to say they look the same. One look at the actual game in action compared to Halo 4 on Xbox 360 will make you see what a huge difference it is. I think people are also forgetting that a lot of their Halo 4 image quality has been rose-tinted by the phenomenal graphics it has as part of MCC at 1920x1080p/60fps which is essentially a remaster. Not meaning you, but a lot have forgotten how blurry and poor Halo 4 now looks when running on Xbox 360, instead using the remaster as an example of comparing the game.

I do agree that the hardware is definitely a hindrance to Halo 5. But they've made do with what they have and we have a Halo experience that will be better than before.

 

[KainXVIII]

Strange, people were fine with all previous Halo's were in 30 fps, what change their minds?

 

[ISee]

Last time I checked the game was referred to as 60FPS 9 times out of 10 and not 1080p 60FPS in official marketing videos.

Maybe a little too much tinfoil, yeah.

Then I don't know why they choose a dynamic resolution in the first place. Granted inconsistent FPS are much more worse but a changing resolution doesn't help either. I prefer consistent IQ and performance and see no gain in dynamic solutions.

 

[tuna_love]

Strange, people were fine with all previous Halo's were in 30 fps, what change their minds?

And people were fine with it being less than 720 for the most part. What changed their minds?

 

[Random17]

Then I don't know why they choose a dynamic resolution in the first place. Granted inconsistent FPS are much more worse but a changing resolution doesn't help either. I prefer consistent IQ and performance and see no gain in dynamic solutions.

Because "1080pr" has benefits over 900p that Madness outlined above. We saw some of these benefits with advanced warfare, too. I'd imagine that once you nail the dynamic resolution technology it probably makes stabilizing the framerate easier.

And frankly, playing the smaller encounters at 1080p and larger encounters at 810p for instance is preferable to 900p throughout; especially because the more chaotic encounters will mean you will be focusing on graphics less anyway.

 

[Madness]

Then I don't know why they choose a dynamic resolution in the first place. Granted inconsistent FPS are much more worse but a changing resolution doesn't help either. I prefer consistent IQ and performance and see no gain in dynamic solutions.

Because 1344x1080 gives you more pixels than 900p does, as well as maintaining 1080 lines vertically, giving you a slightly better image than 1600x900 would on your 1080P television that you say you want to play at your native resolution.

Dynamic scaling is a great option, especially when you're trying to maintain a target frame rate, in this case, 60fps. Remember, it's not just that it hits 60fps, it's that it rarely to never drops below 60fps. Many games like CoD claim 60fps, but fall into the 50's or even high 40's at times.

Also, dynamic resolution means there will be times when the game will also give you 1920x1080p gameplay as well, all while maintaining 60fps. I fail to see how wanting a static 1600x900, 1280x720p resolution is the better option here?

 

[c0de]

You're comparing two bullshots of cinematics to say they look the same. One look at the actual game in action compared to Halo 4 on Xbox 360 will make you see what a huge difference it is. I think people are also forgetting that a lot of their Halo 4 image quality has been rose-tinted by the phenomenal graphics it has as part of MCC at 1920x1080p/60fps which is essentially a remaster. Not meaning you, but a lot have forgotten how blurry and poor Halo 4 now looks when running on Xbox 360, instead using the remaster as an example of comparing the game.

I do agree that the hardware is definitely a hindrance to Halo 5. But they've made do with what they have and we have a Halo experience that will be better than before.

The comparison is off, sure. Halo 5 does obviously a lot more than Halo 4 in terms of graphic, scale, resolution, ai and frame-rate. Picking screens to negate that seems effective, though.

 

[dragonelite]

Strange, people were fine with all previous Halo's were in 30 fps, what change their minds?

The 60fps beta was nice even on 720p.

 

[Gurish]

Don't get why. Halo 4 looks better than most current gen games..

No it's not, far from it.

 

[nekkid]

And people were fine with it being less than 720 for the most part. What changed their minds?

Give me 640x480 or death.

 

[ISee]

Because "1080pr" has benefits over 900p that Madness outlined above. We saw some of these benefits with advanced warfare, too. I'd imagine that once you nail the dynamic resolution technology it probably makes stabilizing the framerate easier.

And frankly, playing the smaller encounters at 1080p and larger encounters at 810p for instance is preferable to 900p throughout; especially because the more chaotic encounters will mean you will be focusing on graphics less anyway.

If the resolution is changing from time to time I might stop complaining. But the 'tinfoil wearing madman' in me was already burned to often by PR this generation. I assume the worst: like the game staying below 1080p nearly all the time in the late game. But you could argue I at least do not think they lie about 60 fps.

 

[FunkyDealer]

The only thing that bothers me is the poor AF. I really thought this generation would be the end of muddy textures. It really has a massive negative effect on resolution, and I'm not talking about pixels.

 

[Human_me]

The only thing that bothers me is the poor AF. I really thought this generation would be the end of muddy textures. It really has a massive negative effect on resolution, and I'm not talking about pixels.

Indeed.
This aspect is the most disappointing thing about this generation.

 

[Zeta Oni]

For the best I believe.

It would be one thing if MCC didn't exist, but I've been playing through all the halos at 60 fps for almost a year now, and everytime I pop in reach the difference is very noticable.

I don't agree that 30 fps is unplayable though, some of my favorite games didn't even manage a steady 30 lol.

I expect Gears 4 will be a better graphical showcase for the One when it releases next year.

 

[snake_eater_raiden]

Well, the other thread was for the first video which did not have an article to go with it. The embargo for multiplayer content ended today so the full thing is up. That's all.

Although I appreciate the work you are doing, I can't help but feel that Digital Foundry is simply rehashing the same thing again and again. You already have like 3 articles on Uncharted Collection, several articles on Halo 5...I guess those fan boy hits are really important.

 

[SmartWaffles]

Graphics are part of the gameplay.

You are so desperate.