By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Microsoft Discussion - Halo 5 has a ROCK SOLID performance (Digital Foundry)

walsufnir on 28 September 2015
kurasakiichimaru said:

What this technology means for the player is a constantly changing resolution during gameplay, ranging from something in the region of 1152x810 all the way up to a full 1080p. Fortunately, based on what we've seen so far in this build, campaign mode gameplay tends to hang around 1344x1080, during which it's fair to say full HD is fleetingly attained.

The post-process anti-aliasing solution employed here works well enough at full 1080p but, as the resolution begins to dip, it can also result in a rather muddy-looking image.

 

You left this out OP in the article.

 

"What this technology means for the player is a constantly changing resolution during gameplay, ranging from something in the region of 1152x810 all the way up to a full 1080p. Fortunately, based on what we've seen so far in this build, campaign mode gameplay tends to hang around 1344x1080, during which it's fair to say full HD is fleetingly attained during big set-piece battles, such as encounters with the giant Kraken in a later mission. Interior areas inevitably hold up better in this sense, with less strain put on the engine when the level design funnels the player in one direction. The pay-off is clear though; 60fps is locked at practically all times, while image quality shifts up and down the scale to ensure this consistency. "

 

 

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2015-hands-on-with-halo-5-guardians



Around the Network
Michelasso on 28 September 2015
kurasakiichimaru said:

What this technology means for the player is a constantly changing resolution during gameplay, ranging from something in the region of 1152x810 all the way up to a full 1080p. Fortunately, based on what we've seen so far in this build, campaign mode gameplay tends to hang around 1344x1080, during which it's fair to say full HD is fleetingly attained.

The post-process anti-aliasing solution employed here works well enough at full 1080p but, as the resolution begins to dip, it can also result in a rather muddy-looking image.

 

You left this out OP in the article.


I don't know what at DF they are drinking. Are they implying that 1344x1080 is to be considered "Full HD"? 

Anyway, down to 1152x810. So much for calling Kojima "lazy".



Goodnightmoon on 28 September 2015
kurasakiichimaru said:
Texture filtering also suffers greatly from this design choice. We're still not entirely clear how much of a toll texture filtering takes on the hardware generally but clearly, it was deemed too costly for Halo 5. More than the dynamic resolution, this setting has a significant impact on image quality, leading to a lot of highly blurry textures during normal gameplay. The open areas visible in the Warzone footage can look decidedly last-gen in places with blurry, shimmering foliage and poor texture filtering recalling the African plains of Halo 3.
Alpha effects also continue to operate at a lower quality, as we discovered in previous looks at the game. Explosions and weapon effects are rendered at a reduced resolution throughout, leading to some pretty noticeable pixilation during particularly heated sequences. Shadow quality also feels a bit hit or miss with the juxtaposition between real-time shadows and shadow-maps often a little jarring. In many ways, this feels like a visual evolution of Halo 4 at 60fps.

Mess.


"While these issues are significant, this is the reality of aiming for 60fps in a game like Halo 5. Dialling up frame-rate at the expense of image quality is a brave move and one that is sure to stir up controversy bearing in mind the visual trade-offs, but arguably, this is the best choice for a shooter - it's a decision that puts the quality of the gameplay first. Microsoft is aiming to position the new Halo as a major eSports franchise, where a rock-solid 60fps is absolutely crucial in a console title"

You only read what you want.



H3ADShOt3 on 28 September 2015
teigaga said:
I should hope so, the visuals really aren't what I was expecting from next gen Halo.


Halo never looked "next gen". It was never a game to show the consoles performance in terms of graphics.



jlmurph2 on 28 September 2015

I'm not playing multiplayer to stop and look at flowers. A locked 60fps is a must for current gen fps. I'm glad MS believes the same



Around the Network
GribbleGrunger on 28 September 2015
Goodnightmoon said:


"While these issues are significant, this is the reality of aiming for 60fps in a game like Halo 5. Dialling up frame-rate at the expense of image quality is a brave move and one that is sure to stir up controversy bearing in mind the visual trade-offs, but arguably, this is the best choice for a shooter - it's a decision that puts the quality of the gameplay first. Microsoft is aiming to position the new Halo as a major eSports franchise, where a rock-solid 60fps is absolutely crucial in a console title"

You only read what you want.

Yep, the OP clearly shows that.



 

The PS5 Exists. 


kurasakiichimaru on 28 September 2015
Goodnightmoon said:
kurasakiichimaru said:
Texture filtering also suffers greatly from this design choice. We're still not entirely clear how much of a toll texture filtering takes on the hardware generally but clearly, it was deemed too costly for Halo 5. More than the dynamic resolution, this setting has a significant impact on image quality, leading to a lot of highly blurry textures during normal gameplay. The open areas visible in the Warzone footage can look decidedly last-gen in places with blurry, shimmering foliage and poor texture filtering recalling the African plains of Halo 3.
Alpha effects also continue to operate at a lower quality, as we discovered in previous looks at the game. Explosions and weapon effects are rendered at a reduced resolution throughout, leading to some pretty noticeable pixilation during particularly heated sequences. Shadow quality also feels a bit hit or miss with the juxtaposition between real-time shadows and shadow-maps often a little jarring. In many ways, this feels like a visual evolution of Halo 4 at 60fps.

Mess.


"While these issues are significant, this is the reality of aiming for 60fps in a game like Halo 5. Dialling up frame-rate at the expense of image quality is a brave move and one that is sure to stir up controversy bearing in mind the visual trade-offs, but arguably, this is the best choice for a shooter - it's a decision that puts the quality of the gameplay first. Microsoft is aiming to position the new Halo as a major eSports franchise, where a rock-solid 60fps is absolutely crucial in a console title"

You only read what you want.

You are the OP, not me and I have the right to be subjective. It just shows your bias if you don't try to put it out right there.



Goodnightmoon on 28 September 2015
GribbleGrunger said:
Goodnightmoon said:


"While these issues are significant, this is the reality of aiming for 60fps in a game like Halo 5. Dialling up frame-rate at the expense of image quality is a brave move and one that is sure to stir up controversy bearing in mind the visual trade-offs, but arguably, this is the best choice for a shooter - it's a decision that puts the quality of the gameplay first. Microsoft is aiming to position the new Halo as a major eSports franchise, where a rock-solid 60fps is absolutely crucial in a console title"

You only read what you want.

Yep, the OP clearly shows that.

The OP talks about performance not about graphic power, and there is already some subjects trying to find the bad side, of course it has to be some sacrifices when you have a rock solid 60 fps, but the overall preview of the game, graphic and performance wise, is very possitive in the article, wich is what I refelct on the OP, while some others are already calling it a mess because some obvious sacrifices that does not affect gameplay at all.



Snoopy on 28 September 2015

This game will sell millions and all the salt will flow from the you know who. Gameplay > Graphics.



kurasakiichimaru on 28 September 2015

I don't see it OP. You chose what you want us to read.