Give me 900p at a solid 60fps and I'm more than satisfied.
Some people noticed this in the newest The Sprint Videos:
Peopler over Beyond3d noticed different Resolutions trough the campaign and warzone gameplay videos too.
A good or bad thing?
This is a topic about tech... so i dont know what your point is.
That's latency, not FPS.
Edit: Wait, shit, the thing next to it, AAAHHH FREAK OUT.
The first pic is less than half the res of 1080p?
Why can't developers just stick to a power budget rather than play these kinds of games so they have 1080p on a checklist?
Depends on how low the resolution drops. For Killzone Mercenary on the Vita, it is incredibly noticeable and distracting. Hopefully the lowest the resolution drops is 900p.Is resolution scaling noticeable as framerate dips? I don't think I would be able to tell if the res suddenly dropped as opposed to framerate.
Is resolution scaling noticeable as framerate dips? I don't think I would be able to tell if the res suddenly dropped as opposed to framerate.
Look at these two images:
Can you tell the difference?
Look at these two images:
Can you tell the difference?
Look at these two images:
Can you tell the difference?
To me, the top one looks more blurry than the bottom picture.
Dropping to 830p? I hope it doesn't go that low in the final build.
Also, I hope they don't advertise this as 1080/60 if it'll have dynamic resolution scaling. But they probably will...
Judging by the 1920 I guess that means the first screen means 832 pixels wide? That's under 480p.
They should have stayed at 30fps.
Agreed. I know a lot of people think otherwise, but Halo does not, and has not ever needed 60fps. It's not a twitch shooter, in fact it's focus is slightly slower paced, sandboxy, epic goodness. Those massive battles, vehicles, all out wars, crazy vista's, epic interiors etc, all would be better served by going 30fps.
In any case, if they have settled on it, a dynamic resolution to ensure it stays at a fairly consistent 60fps is welcome. Though I don't see why they can't just lock the resolution for consistencies sake. If the frame rate is wonky, not consistent at 60fps (Eg Titanfall), it'd be tragic lol. Not because I'd care much about the drops, but because it'd bother me that they didn't just go 30fps instead.
Look at these two images:
Can you tell the difference?
Would be better if it was a locked 1080/30 but sure, as long as that helps it to maintain a solid 60.
Agreed. I know a lot of people think otherwise, but Halo does not, and has not ever needed 60fps. It's not a twitch shooter, in fact it's focus is slightly slower paced, sandboxy, epic goodness. Those massive battles, vehicles, all out wars, crazy vista's, epic interiors etc, all would be better served by going 30fps.
In any case, if they have settled on it, a dynamic resolution to ensure it stays at a fairly consistent 60fps is welcome. Though I don't see why they can't just lock the resolution for consistencies sake (900p would be sufficient). If the frame rate is wonky, not consistent at 60fps (Eg Titanfall), it'd be tragic lol. Not because I'd care much about the drops, but because it'd bother me that they didn't just go 30fps instead.
This.
Look at these two images:
Can you tell the difference?
Agreed. I know a lot of people think otherwise, but Halo does not, and has not ever needed 60fps. It's not a twitch shooter, in fact it's focus is slightly slower paced, sandboxy, epic goodness. Those massive battles, vehicles, all out wars, crazy vista's, epic interiors etc, all would be better served by going 30fps.
In any case, if they have settled on it, a dynamic resolution to ensure it stays at a fairly consistent 60fps is welcome. Though I don't see why they can't just lock the resolution for consistencies sake (900p would be sufficient). If the frame rate is wonky, not consistent at 60fps (Eg Titanfall), it'd be tragic lol. Not because I'd care much about the drops, but because it'd bother me that they didn't just go 30fps instead.
Agreed. I know a lot of people think otherwise, but Halo does not, and has not ever needed 60fps. It's not a twitch shooter, in fact it's focus is slightly slower paced, sandboxy, epic goodness. Those massive battles, vehicles, all out wars, crazy vista's, epic interiors etc, all would be better served by going 30fps.
In any case, if they have settled on it, a dynamic resolution to ensure it stays at a fairly consistent 60fps is welcome. Though I don't see why they can't just lock the resolution for consistencies sake (900p would be sufficient). If the frame rate is wonky, not consistent at 60fps (Eg Titanfall), it'd be tragic lol. Not because I'd care much about the drops, but because it'd bother me that they didn't just go 30fps instead.
It is. That's because it's an image I ran through a quick 50% reduction on the horizontal and expanded it again by 200% using just a nearest neighbor.
If you don't pick it up quickly you probably won't notice a difference. If you're sensitive to aliasing artifacts obviously you'll notice if an edge starts shimmering in a few frames or something.
Microsoft can't win at graphics department so they need to go on the smoother one.
Even if I'm ok with that, Microsoft really needs to make their IP a little more "shiny", the console is more powerful than the 360 but we're still waiting for the Killzone/Infamous/The order type of graphics from a Microsoft first party exclusive.
Halo never was a looker before HALO 4 so it won't bother people if the game is smooth as hell as it should because 60FPS for a shooter is really important, I really hope Gears 4 will be 60FPS too, especially after playing GoW UE beta for days now.
I can, but a game isn't a still image, I think the person you were replying to still has a point. If I'm in the midst of heated combat, a framerate dip is going to annoy the crap out of me, the resolution fluctuating, not so much. And it would also depend on how long it dipped that low, if it hits 830p for a second before scaling up after an effect is gone, would I notice the slight extra blur in that time.
Yeah, no. Sorry. I care less about Halo 5 looking PHWOAR EYEBURN and more about that fresh 60fps feeling.
Not enough words to express how wrong this is.
Halo was always a looker, except maybe ODST when it came out. 3 had a jaggy problem but the scale and lighting were insane. Reach was a massive jump in fidelity without much sacrifice in scale (if any) and imo remains the graphical king of Halo games on 360.
When you can show me Gears of War or CoD from those years doing the massive battles that Halo 3 did, such as the famous double scarab one, then I might concede my point.Halo 3 ( 2007 ) so One Year after Gears of War and the same year as COD 4 Modern warfare :
Halo was always a looker, except maybe ODST when it came out. 3 had a jaggy problem but the scale and lighting were insane. Reach was a massive jump in fidelity without much sacrifice in scale (if any) and imo remains the graphical king of Halo games on 360.
Isn't this with no upscale process?
Out of curiosity, why is the notion so inconceivable? And on what precedent? All the other Halo's have all been 30fps, some of the best shooters ever made, so I don't see why suddenly it's so different with Halo 5? I feel they've already sacrificed graphical fidelity for the added smoothness, but if they've sacrificed some of the scale and sandboxy, epic, grandiose levels and battles popular with the franchise, in order to reach 60fps, that would be even worse. The E3 debut campaign demo had none of the scale or sense of scope that I expect of the franchise, and I seriously hope the next campaign gameplay demo shows off a level that's more fitting in that sense, especially as they've talked that side of things up.
Contrary to the opinions of many, I actually really enjoyed Halo 4 (mostly for its story implications and character focus with Cortana and Chief), but even that I felt was less grand overall, and slightly more linear than other Halo's. Hopefully that isn't extended with Halo 5.
Agreed. I know a lot of people think otherwise, but Halo does not, and has not ever needed 60fps. It's not a twitch shooter, in fact it's focus is slightly slower paced, sandboxy, epic goodness. Those massive battles, vehicles, all out wars, crazy vista's, epic interiors etc, all would be better served by going 30fps.
In any case, if they have settled on it, a dynamic resolution to ensure it stays at a fairly consistent 60fps is welcome. Though I don't see why they can't just lock the resolution for consistencies sake (900p would be sufficient). If the frame rate is wonky, not consistent at 60fps (Eg Titanfall), it'd be tragic lol. Not because I'd care much about the drops, but because it'd bother me that they didn't just go 30fps instead.
That is your opinion. Do you even own the MCC? 60fps is the best thing that happened to Halo EVER!Agreed. I know a lot of people think otherwise, but Halo does not, and has not ever needed 60fps. It's not a twitch shooter, in fact it's focus is slightly slower paced, sandboxy, epic goodness. Those massive battles, vehicles, all out wars, crazy vista's, epic interiors etc, all would be better served by going 30fps.
In any case, if they have settled on it, a dynamic resolution to ensure it stays at a fairly consistent 60fps is welcome. Though I don't see why they can't just lock the resolution for consistencies sake (900p would be sufficient). If the frame rate is wonky, not consistent at 60fps (Eg Titanfall), it'd be tragic lol. Not because I'd care much about the drops, but because it'd bother me that they didn't just go 30fps instead.
Is resolution scaling noticeable as framerate dips? I don't think I would be able to tell if the res suddenly dropped as opposed to framerate.
Digital Foundry said:the Xbox One this can drop to an extreme of 960x1080 in some scenes. This is usually identifiable by an increase in the amount of jaggies on screen, along with a slightly fuzzier appearance to the already gritty aesthetic that Machine Games employs throughout the game.