Support NeoGAF

[Nheco]

I think the game looks great even with the sacrifices to keep the 60 fps. Specially if the levels have the scale and openness of Halo 3.

 

[WordsintheWater]

Just watched the full warzone video and those animations in the distance look horrendous, looks so bad when the Spartans are running around further away. You don't notice it that much until he gets into the tank. The LOD pop-in is pretty dang bad too in this case.

https://youtu.be/3tsAajE8iNs?t=21m32s

 

[Velikost]

There's hyperbole on both ends. The people that want more graphical fidelity in their games are valid and the people who don't care about these things and prefer a higher framerate are valid as well. I mean a few people in here act as if the only thing that is sacrificed in this game is fluctuating resolution, but there are more concessions made then just that in order to keep the framerate solid.

Of course, and I'd never deny that concessions are being made, but over the past couple days I've been seeing people say the game looks like shit, or terrible. I mean c'mon.

I think it looks good, but I'm not particularly blown away. I'll just never understand the GAFers who want to needlessly shit on a game.

 

[Outrun]

Of course, and I'd never deny that concessions are being made, but over the past couple days I've been seeing people say the game looks like shit, or terrible. I mean c'mon.

I think it looks good, but I'm not particularly blown away. I'll just never understand the GAFers who want to needlessly shit on a game.

It is part of the Cold Console Warz, where things like technical discussions are used in the eternal fight between evil and evil.

DF were complimentary of the games visuals. Those that know will reserve final judgement until they are playing the game at home and can gauge how much of a distraction the issues are.

 

[Zil33184]

You guys should watch this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MrClWBkKEI&feature=youtu.be&t=262 to see how crazy the campaign can get and how it keep the smooth framerate.

The hunter's primary fire doesn't appear to be a light source, or the illumination probably only affects a very small radius. This is a lot like Halo 4's conservative approach to light sources.

It really does look like Halo 4+ with screen space effects, higher LOD and draw distance, and double the framerate. For a Halo game it makes a lot of sense to focus on performance and not spectacle. Even last gen, Halo wasn't exactly a vehicle for eye candy (with the exception of Halo 4).

 

[Dictator93]

The hunter's primary fire doesn't appear to be a light source, or the illumination probably only affects a very small radius. This is a lot like Halo 4's conservative approach to light sources.
.

If the "primary" fire is the first sec of the gif with the green ball coming toward the camera, then you can see its point light diameter and reach on the ceiling above it.

 

[Zil33184]

If the "primary" fire is the first sec of the gif with the green ball coming toward the camera, then you can see its point light diameter and reach on the ceiling above it.

I'm talking about the auto-fire, not the charged shot.

 

[DOWN]

Personally, I think Halo 4 easily had people noting how it seemed to be the last push we could expect from 360 visuals because it was so nicely done. Halo 5 doesn't look far from that at all, and that's at lowered res almost all the time. That's the price of 60fps on consoles. It's just plain underwhelming in graphical fidelity.

That said, it is one of the better looking games on Xbox One and is still good looking.

 

[johnnydrama]

It really does look like Halo 4+ with screen space effects, higher LOD and draw distance, and double the framerate. For a Halo game it makes a lot of sense to focus on performance and not spectacle. Even last gen, Halo wasn't exactly a vehicle for eye candy (with the exception of Halo 4).

New game looks like old game with more graphical features. Alright then.

 

[Insane Metal]

Just watched the full warzone video and those animations in the distance look horrendous, looks so bad when the Spartans are running around further away. You don't notice it that much until he gets into the tank. The LOD pop-in is pretty dang bad too in this case.

https://youtu.be/3tsAajE8iNs?t=21m32s

That LOD pop-in... :|

 

[le.phat]

The game looks damn fine from the footage I have seen and runs like straight butter to boot. The Swords of Sanghelios footage in particular blew me away:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=57AD5inbKAs

The game is gorgeous.

The total package looks really good in that clip, but this game is going to be shredded in pictures / gifs and comparisons, but the cut corners are really apparent.

 

[BigTnaples]

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=179998958&postcount=450

Here is your post from the last Digital Foundry thread. Surprise surprise, your comment is verbatim the same thing, and you again bring up PS4 and even bring up how superior Naughty Dog did a job with Uncharted with pictures.

You keep saying you're buying several consoles, you're buying so and so Halo, you watched this. But your posts just read over and over how Xbox one is poor, how superior PS4 is, and how PS4 games like Killzone and Uncharted do a much better job.

I don't get it. This thread has nothing to do with Sony, with Naughty Dog, with Killzone, with the power of the PS4. You highlighted two 'bullshot' pictures of cinematics and use that as the basis to say that the game doesn't look much different. In the post I highlight above, you say it doesn't look that different from MCC 1080p/60fps Halo 4.

Like I said, MCC Halo 4, is a remastered next gen title and is of course going to look much better than Halo 4 on Xbox 360. Halo 4 on Xbox 360 was 720p and 20-25 frames. So yeah, compare the actual game play and get back to me. Take a look at the Blue Team in game game play, in motion at 60fps and then go back and look at Halo 4 on Xbox 360 in motion and see how wrong you are.

If you also have to try and convince other people you're not trolling, it kind of means you know you are doing it. We get it, Xbox One is shittier hardware than PS4, that you wish Halo 5 had stronger hardware to utilize. But it doesn't. So what's the deal? A Halo 5 technical analysis isn't the place to say Gears 4 underwhelms compared to the superior Order 1886 and all the Sony exclusives you mentioned.

Surprise surprise, I did not change my opinion from post to post?

What the hell are you on about?


As I said, my problem with Halo 5's graphics exists in a vacuum, even where the PS4 does not exist. I just use the PS4 as an easy example of what could of been.

But since that seems to get you all hot and bothered, I will use another example, just for you.


All within the same franchise, Xbox Only.

Whether or not you agree with the art design choices or not, the game is at first glance CLEARLY head and shoulders above the original, all while running the original game engine underneath with instant swapping between both versions. It still has massively increased poly counts, new lighting effects, character models, textures, etc. All upgraded by a large margin from the original.

And I dunno why you are going off about cinematic screens being "bullshots". I don't think you know what a bullshot is. If anything, two real time cutscenes with a closeup of a character model in their best light is the best possible comparison when talking about poly counts, textures, and lighting....

THIS is a bullshot.

Halo 5, unlike the CEA, looks to have added less to the games graphical effects and prowess, while being a game built from the ground up, without the original game running underneath, AND while ditching splitscreen capability entirely.


This is disappointing to me, an avid Halo fan, and I will continue to express this opinion in appropriate threads, like ones about Halo 5 graphical analysis, regardless of you trying to paint me as some Sony Zealot or Troll.

Just as I have defended Halo 3 for nearly the past decade for being a graphical powerhouse, when most say it was not impressive.

*All shots taken by me in 2007.

 

[JaggedSac]

Surprise surprise, I did not change my opinion from post to post?

What the hell are you on about?


As I said, my problem with Halo 5's graphics exists in a vacuum, even where the PS4 does not exist. I just use the PS4 as an easy example of what could of been.

But since that seems to get you all hot and bothered, I will use another example, just for you.


All within the same franchise, Xbox Only.

Whether or not you agree with the art design choices or not, the game is at first glance CLEARLY head and shoulders above the original, all while running the original game engine underneath with instant swapping between both versions. It still has massively increased poly counts, new lighting effects, character models, textures, etc. All upgraded by a large margin from the original.



And I dunno why you are going off about cinematic screens being "bullshots". I don't think you know what a bullshot is. If anything, two real time cutscenes with a closeup of a character model in their best light is the best possible comparison when talking about poly counts, textures, and lighting....

THIS is a bullshot.


Halo 5, unlike the CEA, looks to have added less to the games graphical effects and prowess, while being a game built from the ground up, without the original game running underneath, AND while ditching splitscreen capability entirely.


This is disappointing to me, an avid Halo fan, and I will continue to express this opinion in appropriate threads, like ones about Halo 5 graphical analysis, regardless of you trying to paint me as some Sony Zealot or Troll.

Just as I have defended Halo 3 for nearly the past decade for being a graphical powerhouse, when most say it was not impressive.

*All shots taken by me in 2007.

Not sure I am following. Are you saying there should have been a graphical leap from Halo 4 -> Halo 5 of the same size as Halo CE -> to the 2011 remaster?

 

[JumPeRJumPzZ]

Now that you mentioned it BigTnaples. Now i wonder why so much had to be sacrificed in H5.
H2A is another good example, didnt run at full 1080p but had still a very clean looking IQ and had some IMO amazing looking places too.

I mean you can still run a game at a lower resolution and still have a good looking IQ.

But Halo 5 struggles with that. Maybe they improved that for the final build. I mean yeah, 60fps is great and all. But we already had ~60fps games before this gen. And cmon drops from 60 to 50 arent really a big issue in my book.

Ive played BF4 for 2 years now on both new consoles. And i never had a issue with some drops here and there.

And i really dont get why they had to drop so much graphicly in Warzone. Whats so demanding in that mode?
12v12? Ive played with sich amount of players on 360 in Battlefield. I mean even the Maps in Battlefield seem to be bigger than that Warzone stuff.

To me it looks like that they need to get rid of that Halo Engine already.

I dont get that Splitscreen Cut either after seeing a lot of MP, Warzone and Campaign.

 

[Random17]

And i really dont get why they had to drop so much graphicly in Warzone. Whats so demanding in that mode?
12v12? Ive played with sich amount of players on 360 in Battlefield. I mean even the Maps in Battlefield seem to be bigger than that Warzone stuff.

To me it looks like that they need to get rid of that Halo Engine already.

I dont get that Splitscreen Cut either after seeing a lot of MP, Warzone and Campaign.

I think you should stop speculating about "getting rid of the engine entirely". I'd imagine that AI is very taxing. The last gen iterations of Battlefield were fun but pitiful compared to any next gen game graphically. Truth be told I'm surprised the mode isn't 20 v 20 or 30 v 30 but that might be a design decision; the maps are certainly large enough to accommodate 30 v 30. Most of Apex is empty, except for the centre.

 

[BigTnaples]

Not sure I am following. Are you saying there should have been a graphical leap from Halo 4 -> Halo 5 of the same size as Halo CE -> to the 2011 remaster?

Not necessarily.



Just that Halo 5 should look remarkably different than Halo 4 MCC. From what I have played of Halo 5, and what I have seen, it does not.


The lighting model is too close to Halo 5, and beside most new gen games, it looks very dated.

The texture work, at least on comparable assets, seems nigh identical, (though I am sure there are boosts to texture resolution here and there)

The physics and explosions for vehicles exploding has that same weightless lack of oomph from Halo 4, which was my biggest complaint with that game.

The skyboxes are not suddenly back to the showstoppers they once were before Halo 4.

The scale, from the gameplay demos we have seen so far, does not seem to be anything to write home about, despite it being the reason for the split screen omission.

The character models, or at least MC's character model seems largely untouched fidelity wise from Halo 4. Even side by side with Halo 4 MCC, it is difficult to tell the difference, let alone if you are viewing one separate from the other.


It would be different if Halo 4 MCC was an anniversary type deal or a remake, but it's literally the same game at 1080p 60fps. No texture or lighting enhancements like other remasters that will go unnamed as not to ruffle feathers. Yet still, Halo 5 does not differentiate it self enough graphically from that barebones remaster. In my honest opinion.

Again, I believe this is more do to underpowered hardware, than anything else. Though the 60fps is obviously a factor.

 

[VinFTW]

Guy who complains about halo in every tech thread says:

"Drops from 60 to 50 are no big deal in my book"

Lmao

 

[Hoo-doo]

Just watched the full warzone video and those animations in the distance look horrendous, looks so bad when the Spartans are running around further away. You don't notice it that much until he gets into the tank. The LOD pop-in is pretty dang bad too in this case.

https://youtu.be/3tsAajE8iNs?t=21m32s

The LOD pop-in is relentless when he's in the scorpion. sprites of grass are literally popping in a few feet away from the vehicle.

 

[JumPeRJumPzZ]

I think you should stop speculating about "getting rid of the engine entirely". I'd imagine that AI is very taxing. The last gen iterations of Battlefield were fun but pitiful compared to any next gen game graphically. Truth be told I'm surprised the mode isn't 20 v 20 or 30 v 30 but that might be a design decision; the maps are certainly large enough to accommodate 30 v 30. Most of Apex is empty, except for the centre.

Yup, when 343 teased this "large scale MP experience" before the Warzone reveal i was hoping for Battlefield style kinda battles. 32v32 with all the Halo stuff going on would have been crazy.

 

[JaggedSac]

It would be different if Halo 4 MCC was an anniversary type deal or a remake, but it's literally the same game at 1080p 60fps. Yet still, Halo 5 does not differentiate it self enough graphically from that barebones remaster. In my honest opinion.

Again, I believe this is more do to underpowered hardware, than anything else. Though the 60fps is obviously a factor.

Given that there are frame drops in Halo 4 MCC, you can see the computational budget was eaten up just in the move from 30fps to 60fps and 720p to 1080p. Even if you think the scale of Halo 5 is nothing to write home about, it is certainly larger than Halo 4 in just the items we have seen thus far.

 

[BigTnaples]

Guy who complains about halo in every tech thread says:

"Drops from 60 to 50 are no big deal in my book"

Lmao

?


I also don't particularly get upset when games fluctuate in the 50-60 range.


It is barely noticeable, does not make gameplay any more difficult, and still looks great.

BF4/CoD/SW:BF etc all have similar fluctuations, its not really a big deal.

The game being directly comparable to a last gen barebones remaster, is however a big deal.

 

[leeh]

Not necessarily.



Just that Halo 5 should look remarkably different than Halo 4 MCC. From what I have played of Halo 5, and what I have seen, it does not.


The lighting model is too close to Halo 5, and beside most new gen games, it looks very dated.

The texture work, at least on comparable assets, seems nigh identical, (though I am sure there are boosts to texture resolution here and there)

The physics and explosions for vehicles exploding has that same weightless lack of oomph from Halo 4, which was my biggest complaint with that game.

The skyboxes are not suddenly back to the showstoppers they once were before Halo 4.

The scale, from the gameplay demos we have seen so far, does not seem to be anything to write home about, despite it being the reason for the split screen omission.

The character models, or at least MC's character model seems largely untouched fidelity wise from Halo 4. Even side by side with Halo 4 MCC, it is difficult to tell the difference, let alone if you are viewing one separate from the other.


It would be different if Halo 4 MCC was an anniversary type deal or a remake, but it's literally the same game at 1080p 60fps. No texture or lighting enhancements like other remasters that will go unnamed as not to ruffle feathers. Yet still, Halo 5 does not differentiate it self enough graphically from that barebones remaster. In my honest opinion.

Again, I believe this is more do to underpowered hardware, than anything else. Though the 60fps is obviously a factor.

You do realise they improved all the points you talked about there in the MCC version of Halo 4 from the original (bar the physics), right?

 

[Wizman23]

Guy who complains about halo in every tech thread says:

"Drops from 60 to 50 are no big deal in my book"

Lmao

LMAO indeed. Considering who said it, I'm 100% not surprised. He just really, REALLY hates when people actually like Halo 5. I pity his soul on 10/27 when people are gushing about the game on here.

 

[nekkid]

So is this thread about Halo, yet?

 

[JaggedSac]

LMAO indeed. Considering who said it, I'm 100% not surprised. He just really, REALLY hates when people actually like Halo 5. I pity his soul on 10/27 when people are gushing about the game on here.

Not likely. There will be threads full of microtransaction talk, disappointing graphics talk, network failures, matchmaking issues, etc. Should be a good time.

 

[JumPeRJumPzZ]

?


I also don't particularly get upset when games fluctuate in the 50-60 range.


It is barely noticeable, does not make gameplay any more difficult, and still looks great.

BF4/CoD/SW:BF etc all have similar fluctuations, its not really a big deal.

The game being directly comparable to a last gen barebones remaster, is however a big deal.

Good that i have him on ignore. Its funny. He probably never played so much Battlefield as i am. So i dont get why its funny for him when i say that a drop of 10fps isnt a issue for me.

Yes i agree that 60fps for a Shooter is great, i never said it sucks etc.

But besides CoD last generation, i never felt like, yeah i need 60fps in Halo or Battlefield.

New gen comes around and we get that. Yeah cool etc. But we are two years in this new Gen and already have to downgrade/cut so many things to get that 60fps. And in the case of Halo we get a new one "build from the ground up" for XboxOne that doesnt show a big leap besides more frames.

And please no need to call me a troll or whatever.

Im buying the game (even twice).
So its not like that i dont have any interest in it.

I liked the Multiplayer Beta last year its a fun game. Campaign looks very interesting and to me looks like a big step up from Halo 4.

But the technical part of the game is very disappointing to me.

LMAO indeed. Considering who said it, I'm 100% not surprised. He just really, REALLY hates when people actually like Halo 5. I pity his soul on 10/27 when people are gushing about the game on here.

Man you really cant stop huh? I would like to know why are you trying so hard claiming this nonsense i never said.
I never said that and its not a problem to me when people like H5. I like H5 too.

You know this is a TECH thread, but both of you only come into this thread to do some drive by offtopic shit and thats it. Whats your problem seriously?

 

[BigTnaples]

You do realise they improved all the points you talked about there in the MCC version of Halo 4 from the original (bar the physics), right?

Care to highlight the amazing skyboxes? The differences in the shaders on MC's armor, or polys? Or differences in the scale of the level design in comparison to any other Halo? Or the enhanced LoD?


I would absolutely love to see these improvement first hand. But from pouring over hours of footage, and actually playing the game, along side hours of Halo 4 MCC, I am not seeing the leap.

And I am a graphics whore through and through. I literally bought a second 970 FTW for my PC for the sole purpose of activating Hairworks while still keeping 4K resolution. That is ONE graphical effect that I took into account. So it's not as if I am one of those people who can't tell where graphical effects have enhanced a game.

Also, for perspective, me saying "Too close" does not mean "the same".

Halo 5 improves over Halo 4 graphically. No questions. I take issue with by what margin it improves.

Just watched the full warzone video and those animations in the distance look horrendous, looks so bad when the Spartans are running around further away. You don't notice it that much until he gets into the tank. The LOD pop-in is pretty dang bad too in this case.

https://youtu.be/3tsAajE8iNs?t=21m32s

I missed this. (Admittedly have been more focused on SP content since the alpha.)

That is downright terrible(relative to the competition). The LoD is distracting. That grass pop in...

 

[tuna_love]

Man if I had a dollar everytime I read 970ftw and curved 65 inch

 

[JaggedSac]

And I am a graphics whore through and through. I literally bought a second 970 FTW for my PC for the sole purpose of activating Hairworks while still keeping 4K resolution. That is ONE graphical effect that I took into account. So it's not as if I am one of those people who can't tell where graphical effects have enhanced a game.

You should wait for the Win10 version then. Waiting for that will work well with your insanity. I hear they will use Hairworks on Cortana, especially since 1 year after rampancy AIs grow pubic hair.

 

[BigTnaples]

Man if I had a dollar everytime I read 970ftw and curved 65 inch

Haha. Touche.

You should wait for the Win10 version then. Waiting for that will work well with your insanity. I hear they will use Hairworks on Cortana, especially since 1 year after rampancy AIs grow pubic hair.

 

[leeh]

Care to highlight the amazing skyboxes? The differences in the shaders on MC's armor, or polys? Or differences in the scale of the level design in comparison to any other Halo? Or the enhanced LoD?


I would absolutely love to see these improvement first hand. But from pouring over hours of footage, and actually playing the game, along side hours of Halo 4 MCC, I am not seeing the leap.

And I am a graphics whore through and through. I literally bought a second 970 FTW for my PC for the sole purpose of activating Hairworks while still keeping 4K resolution. That is ONE graphical effect that I took into account. So it's not as if I am one of those people who can't tell where graphical effects have enhanced a game.

Also, for perspective, me saying "Too close" does not mean "the same".

Halo 5 improves over Halo 4 graphically. No questions. I take issue with by what margin it improves.

That's what I'm saying, they improved shaders, lighting, textures all in Halo 4 MCC. It's no surprise with it running at 1080/60 with those improvements your not seeing as much of an improvement.

I'm dissapointed around some certain points with H5, AF mainly, but I'm not surprised it's not that much of a jump from Halo 4 MCC.

 

[BigTnaples]

That's what I'm saying, they improved shaders, lighting, textures all in Halo 4 MCC. It's no surprise with it running at 1080/60 with those improvements your not seeing as much of an improvement.

I'm dissapointed around some certain points with H5, AF mainly, but I'm not surprised it's not that much of a jump from Halo 4 MCC.

Huh?

Halo 4 360/Halo 5 MCC are nigh identical besides 1080p/60ish fps.

According to Digital Foundry themselves.

Halo 4

Halo 4 stands as perhaps the single most impressive technical showpiece on the Xbox 360. Halo 4 is an interesting piece of the collection as it represents an attempt at porting one of the most technically advanced 360 titles to a new console - not unlike Naughty Dog's attempts with The Last of Us Remastered. Unfortunately, Ruffian wasn't quite as successful as the Dogs, and Halo 4 on Xbox One suffers from a few problems.

What works:

Image quality: Halo 4 already featured excellent image quality on the 360 and the bump up to full 1080p elevates it further. This improvement really helps reveal how impressively detailed the game's assets originally were. Visual quality was high enough that the Halo 4 engine actually served as the basis on which the Halo 2 Anniversary multiplayer maps were built. One cutback sees the water animation completely absent - a shame, especially bearing in mind that this was already pared back in the original Xbox 360 title compared to Halo 3.


Potentially the best candidate for remastering onto Xbox One, Halo 4 shows enormous promise in terms of its visual presentation, but the frame-rate issues are just too intrusive overall for our tastes.

What doesn't:

Frame-rate: Halo 4 aims for 60fps, as with the rest of the package, but fails to deliver a consistent experience. The game appears to struggle in two different areas - decompressing data while entering a new area and simply handling the load of heavy combat. Nearly any time the player walks into a new, large arena, the game engine seems to buckle under load, resulting in substantial frame-rate dips all the way to the 30s. These drops can persist for upwards of 20-30 seconds and definitely impact the initial moments of many battles. Even once that has settled, the performance often struggles to maintain a stable 60fps, producing frame-rates in the 50s pretty regularly. There are times when the game feels just perfect, of course, but these dips occur far too regularly for our liking, and there's the feeling that what could have been a stunning Xbox One conversion just feels a touch too unpolished.

Obtrusive HUD and font scaling: Similar to Halo 3, Ruffian Games hasn't updated the HUD or font elements for Halo 4 resulting in unattractive scaling. The HUD itself is also overly distracting, especially when played back-to-back with earlier Halo games. Superimposing Master Chief's helmet lining along the edges of the screen doesn't really add anything to the experience and ultimately just gets in the way. Coupled with the HUD scaling issue, the results aren't great.

Split-screen performance: We're saving the worst for last here. The frame-rate in Halo 4 split-screen is bad to the point that we'd argue that it's not really playable. Moments where dips occurred in single-player are much worse here, but even those sections that were reasonably smooth fail to come close to reaching a solid 60fps. The most jarring issue here, however, is the insanely aggressive LOD system. Assets are drawn in as the player moves through the world but sometimes that leaves huge sections of the map without any texture detail at all - remarkably, there are times where you'll wind up fighting the Covenant against a backdrop of flat-shaded polygons. This is certainly a legacy issue related to the 360 version, though performance is bad enough in this mode that one has to wonder how it would have run without the aggressive LOD system.



However, what's clear is that there's not quite the same revelatory boost to the quality of the visual presentation that there is with Halo 3. The original Halo 4 ran at 720p, not the sub-HD compromise of its predecessor, while anti-aliasing was taken care of fairly well with a post-process solution. Halo 3 had no anti-aliasing technology in place at all, and even before boosting frame-rate, Ruffian had plenty of scope for image quality improvements.

Our first impressions of Halo 4 are of refinement - everything is sharper and smoother - but the reality is that there were fewer issues hanging over from the last generation in need of redressing. In its new 1080p60 guise, Halo 4 is both a celebration of 343's accomplishments (we'd almost forgotten how good the performance capture and facial rendering was) but also an example of the remastering uncanny valley we also saw in The Last of Us on PS4. When it looks good, it's simply stunning, but lower quality assets - mostly ground textures in the Infinity stage - do stand out as incongruous, particularly when texture filtering doesn't show quite the improvement we would hope for.

They did not go back and improve the textures/shaders/skyboxes/polycounts/lighting or any of that in Halo 4. There was some talk pre launch of increased shadow resolution, but I don't think that panned out.

 

[JaggedSac]

Huh?

Halo 4 360/Halo 5 MCC are nigh identical besides 1080p/60ish fps.

According to Digital Foundry themselves.



They did not go back and improve the textures/shaders/skyboxes/polycounts/lighting or any of that in Halo 4. There was some talk pre launch of increased shadow resolution, but I don't think that panned out.

They improved on the most important aspect over Halo 4 MCC...it doesn't buckle under load.

 

[Dictator93]

That's what I'm saying, they improved shaders, lighting, textures all in Halo 4 MCC. It's no surprise with it running at 1080/60 with those improvements your not seeing as much of an improvement.

I am pretty sure Halo 4 MCC does not have better shading, lighting, or even textures over the OG Halo 4. That is, unless I am misreading what you typed.

 

[leeh]

They did not go back and improve the textures/shaders/skyboxes/polycounts/lighting or any of that in Halo 4. There was some talk pre launch of increased shadow resolution, but I don't think that panned out.

It was a simple google away:

We've made a lot of improvements to the lighting system and to the shaders and the difference is actually quite dramatic.

http://www.polygon.com/2014/8/16/60...-chief-collection-is-improving-on-more-recent

I do also remember them saying they've upped the textures. Either I was dreaming that bit, or I'm having a hard time finding it with the web filter here. There is wavey dumb comments around everything looking crisper.

 

[nekkid]

I can't take the Halo 4 MCC comparisons in this thread seriously.

Even if the assets were identical, you're talking about a game with runs at a solid 60fps (which H4 MCC does not), with 3 persistent friendly AI (which H4 MCC does not have), and from what we have seen, larger maps and more enemies.

You can't put a static picture of Halo 4 MCC side by side with Halo 5 and suggest they look the same. It's like looking at the bonnet of a red Ferrari and a red Corsa through a toilet roll and saying they look similar.

Spoiler

CAR METAPHOR, BITCHES

 

[BigEvilTurtle]

It isn't a graphical powerhouse and it certainly has its faults, but the stable 60 FPS really sells it for me. I just wish it looked a little less like Halo 4 in terms of lighting, architecture and armor design.

 

[JumPeRJumPzZ]

I can't take the Halo 4 MCC comparisons in this thread seriously.

Even if the assets were identical, you're talking about a game with runs at a solid 60fps (which H4 MCC does not), with 3 persistent friendly AI (which H4 MCC does not have), and from what we have seen, larger maps and more enemies.

You can't put a static picture of Halo 4 MCC side by side with Halo 5 and suggest they look the same. It's like looking at the bonnet of a red Ferrari and a red Corsa through a toilet roll and saying they look similar.

Sry but having friendly AI around you isnt new...
Larger Maps or not doesnt change that both still share the same style and for some parts even the same tech.

And from what i know they improved some of the Halo 4 MCC Performance with later patches.

Someone has to do a screenshot comparison when the final game comes out.

 

[watership]

Not likely. There will be threads full of microtransaction talk, disappointing graphics talk, network failures, matchmaking issues, etc. Should be a good time.

I think when all is said and done, this game is going to be better than Halo 4 on every front. That won't stop it from getting worst reviews than Halo 4, imo. Sound crazy? A feature that few games actually have, and most of the previous Halo population has stopped using, local co-op, will have critics and fan stomping on this game. If it doesn't happen, I'll be shocked.

 

[JaggedSac]

I think when all is said and done, this game is going to be better than Halo 4 on every front. That won't stop it from getting worst reviews than Halo 4, imo. Sound crazy? A feature that few games actually have, and most of the previous Halo population has stopped using, local co-op, will have critics and fan stomping on this game. If it doesn't happen, I'll be shocked.

Without a shadow of a doubt to the bolded.

Most likely to the rest.

 

[Tatsumi Oga]

I have to say the framedrops in Halo 4 from TMCC never bothered me, i can't even recall any bad ones, not saying they are not there. But i can see why some people would be disappointed, i am as well in some ways. Graphically it looks very very similar to Halo 4 and while a locked 60fps is delicious, i could have done with 30fps in the campaign and 60fps online. Sorry to be mentioning a PS4 game now, but ever since Shadow Fall came out, i have been hoping that Halo 5 would look similar, visually.

What we however do have to take into account is that the environments this time seem to be a lot bigger than Halo 4, even though that game had some pretty big spaces at times too. And maybe we are not giving Halo 5 enough credit, it'll probably take a good side by side comparison to see improvements. I mean...surely the lighting has been improved?

With that said, hopefully Halo 6 is going to blow us off our chairs. I remember i was floored when i saw Halo 4 for the first time on 360 during that E3, Halo 5 simply is not doing that for me, not at all. If this is all due to 60fps...well damn. Personally i hope Gears 4 won't go this route, let that campaign be 30fps and MP 60fps. Give us that UE4 goodness please.

 

[VinFTW]

I've put about 300 hours into bf4, to say the fps drops don't bother you or are non existent Is just blatant lying.

How anyone can say a 720p game with an inconsistent frametate is enjoyable but a locked 60fps is bad is hilarious.

Holy hell lol

 

[Dictator93]

It was a simple google away:

http://www.polygon.com/2014/8/16/60...-chief-collection-is-improving-on-more-recent

I do also remember them saying they've upped the textures. Either I was dreaming that bit, or I'm having a hard time finding it with the web filter here. There is wavey dumb comments around everything looking crisper.

The DF investigation images do not point to any shaders being any more physically accurate or even at all different, nor the models. Sometimes PR people say things that are not true, and sometimes non-tech minded journalists have no idea what they are talking about.

 

[Outrun]

I would say that a 10 FPS drop is jarring.

I will also say that some of these comments on here border on the absurd.

343i decided to make 60FPS a major requirement in the development of this game. We can argue how we expected more graphically from Halo 5. However, technically-speaking 343i has done a good job.

One poster mentioned something that I want to riff on: What Halo 4 graphically achieves through smoke and mirrors, Halo 5 actually does. I will use the 50 foot ground pound as an example of the technical innovation at work here.

I can understand the disappointment amongst some posters concerning the graphics. But I cannot understand the casual dismissal of the technical feat of locking in 60FPS, expanded level design, larger player count, etc... that represents a significant improvement over Halo 4.

Also, ND and the PS4 has nothing to do with this thread.

 

[Majanew]

I've put about 300 hours into bf4, to say the fps drops don't bother you or are non existent Is just blatant lying.

How anyone can say a 720p game with an inconsistent frametate is enjoyable but a locked 60fps is bad is hilarious.

Holy hell lol

Wait, so the frame drops bothered you, but you managed to put in 300 hours? I guess it didn't bother you too much, huh?

I've put probably about 100-200 hours (haven't checked in a while) in BF4 on PS4 and the frame-rate drops don't bother me. It's when events like the skyscraper falling in Shanghai during 64-player Conquest that the frame-rate tanks, but it smooths back out once it's down.

 

[VinFTW]

Wait, so the frame drops bothered you, but you managed to put in 300 hours? I guess it didn't bother you too much, huh?

I've put probably about 100-200 hours (haven't checked in a while) in BF4 on PS4 and the frame-rate drops don't bother me. It's when events like the skyscraper falling in Shanghai during 64-player Conquest that the frame-rate tanks, but it smooths back out once it's down.

Mass effect 1 is my all time favorite game, but to say the frametate problems and technical issues didn't sour the experience a little and get annoying would be lying.

There's no twisting logic here, you can't say a locked 60fps game that looks as good as halo is worse off than bf4 on Xbox one lol

 

[BigTnaples]

It was a simple google away:

http://www.polygon.com/2014/8/16/60...-chief-collection-is-improving-on-more-recent

I do also remember them saying they've upped the textures. Either I was dreaming that bit, or I'm having a hard time finding it with the web filter here. There is wavey dumb comments around everything looking crisper.

Yeah, I mean, a pre-release quote is one thing, but the game is in the hands of millions of gamers now, and has been thoroughly analyzed by professionals who found no such improvements. Leading me to believe that either the improvements are non existant, or so imperceivable as to have been missed by millions of keen eyes.

I've put about 300 hours into bf4, to say the fps drops don't bother you or are non existent Is just blatant lying.

How anyone can say a 720p game with an inconsistent frametate is enjoyable but a locked 60fps is bad is hilarious.

Holy hell lol

No one said that. Drops not bothering someone and being non existent are two completely different things. Although I only have a measly 193 hours in BF4. Also, BF4 was 900p+ for those who did it right.

 

[JaggedSac]

Mass effect 1 is my all time favorite game, but to say the frametate problems and technical issues didn't sour the experience a little and get annoying would be lying.

There's no twisting logic here, you can't say a locked 60fps game that looks as good as halo is worse off than bf4 on Xbox one lol

Yeah, I was going to use Mass Effect as an example of shit I have put up with. But I will use Fallout 3 and NV instead, lol.

 

[Majanew]

Mass effect 1 is my all time favorite game, but to say the frametate problems and technical issues didn't sour the experience a little and get annoying would be lying.

There's no twisting logic here, you can't say a locked 60fps game that looks as good as halo is worse off than bf4 on Xbox one lol

Did I say that somewhere?

And Mass Effect dropped below 30. That's nastiness. I won't know if Halo 5's frame-rate holds up all the way through till I play it. I noticed drops during my playtime with MCC. The one spot in Halo 3 is choppy.

 

[10k]

Yeah. I like the "nintendo-esque" approach of delivering rock-solid performance and letting your visuals depend on a well-directed art style.

You get used to most graphical artifacts, but shitty performance remains distracting.

This.

Nintendo gets away with 720p60 for their games because of their colourful art styles. And halo always had a nice art style. I'm loving the MCC campaigns and didn't even notice Halo 2 was 1380x1080p.