| Mr Puggsly said: All games this gen look like they were made for base consoles because they essentially were. The mid gen upgrades just provide increased resolution, maybe tweaks to some other settings. X1X for the most part just shrinks the gap between the visual fidelity of a standard X1 with a higher end gaming PC. |
Yeah I get that. The Xbox One X though is more like on par with a mid-range PC in terms of fidelity. (I.E. Radeon RX 580/Geforce 1060.)
But what I personally find frustrating is that many games will try and chase the 4k dream... Rather than settle for something like 1440P and dial up the visual effects.
| Mr Puggsly said: Now its worth considering Halo 5 looks pretty good for a locked 60 fps game, but it never had the most impressive visuals. I mean Star Wars BF2 and Battlefield games look better. So frankly, the problem isn't the game was built for X1, it just wasn't a great looking game to begin with. |
Halo 5 has strong art direction, arguably I don't think it is artistically as refined as Halo 4 though.
But you can certainly see where the game comes up short on the visuals even on the Xbox One X... I.E. The campaign mode the rock and shadow details still have extremely short rendering distances.
And in Multiplayer you can see the 10-15fps animations of various textures and Spartans in the distances, which just looks... Off.
That could have been resolved... I wouldn't have been against higher resolution texturing either.
Frostbite though is the 60fps engine to beat this generation, which is why I have high hopes for Slipspace... But what I would love for Microsoft to do going forward is to take a page out of EA... And that is to have one large engine development team constantly working on Slipspace... But open that engines use for all of Microsoft's studios, rather than spending money on licensing say... Unreal Engine, that would then allow for more resources to be spent refining that Engine to get the most out of Xbox.
| Mr Puggsly said: A new Halo game doesn't necessarily have to be built for the X1X first to look better, they just need to make a better looking game. There is a huge visual disparity between Halo 3, Reach and Halo 4 in the same generation. |
Interesting you bring up Halo 3, Reach and 4 though.
Whilst there is certainly an overall increase in visuals in each succession... They did so by cutting away expensive rendering techniques and using cheaper ones so that they can bolster image quality elsewhere... Which is smart hardware utilization.
I just want a game that will leverage the Xbox One X to it's fullest, Otherwise I feel the hardware feels wasted... And I think Halo is a good opportunity for that.
| Mr Puggsly said: Its also worth noting X1X games could have better graphics settings at the cost of resolution. Rise of the Tomb Raider for example has an option for improved settings over resolution. They should have offered that on Halo 5 for X1X, even better shadows, draw distance and LOD at the cost of resolution. |
Indeed.
I would opt for 1440P over 4k in every instance if visual settings were dialed up... But I have 1440P displays.
| Ganoncrotch said: Imagine if the game is created to make use of the next gen xbox though, porting it back to the X will mean that the most powerful console™ only ever got an up ressed version of Halo 5 from the base model and a downgraded version of Infinite from next gens machine, also.... think about the downgrading that would be required not just for the game to run on the X1X... but then the X1S and the original base system which had very few of its own titles reaching 1080/60 nevermind getting a title from effectively 3 series of devices up, it would be the difference in power and graphical fidelity that you would see from a game running on a 1080TI in comparison to a 1050 it's certainly possible but those base X1 owners version of the game isn't going to look anything like in the adverts for it. |
If the 1050 was running DDR4 of course. :P
--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--
