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)

Snoopy said:
Hynad said:

Yes. Because the only important gameplay aspect in any game is that it runs at 60fps. If it doesn't, the developer isn't offering any gameplay.


That's the logic you're referring to. Right?

60 fps is not the only gameplay aspect obviously, but it is one of the most imporant things to have for a shooter game and you know it. Ask all the esport players and they will tell you how crucial 60 fps is.

I'm not putting this into question. For a game aspiring to become well received among the esport community, a smooth experience is one of the key. Add a perfect balance between classes and whatnot, and you can have a winner.

I'm only questioning the agenda here. Because Sony never once tried to turn one of their games into an esport (although Gran Turismo DID end up taking a life of its own). Great graphics don't directly correlate to worse gameplay. Two games can have virtually the same gameplay aspects, level designs and whatnot, one has stellar visuals running at 30 fps, while the other looks early gen but runs at 60fps. Depending on the game type and the player, one or the other (or both) will have no concequence to how much appreciation the player gets from the game. 

The fallacy that so many people here spread about games with great graphics not getting gameplay as good as games betting on strong fps perfromance has grown old quite a long time ago. 





Around the Network
Goodnightmoon said:
Hynad said:


Is it that difficult for you to get it?

Performance in this case is closely related to the sacrifices they made to the IQ. The fact that you dismiss everything that balances the facts about the performance of the game exposes your agenda even further than the vile tone and choice of words of your thread starter. 

You should refrain yourself from making reactory threads like this. You make it way too obvious that you're only here to antagonize people. Speaking of them people, who are they? The ones you claim they wish for the game to be rushed and broken? 


Seriously, sorry if this thread was misunderstood, I have heard lot of speculations about Halo 5 being broken and rushed and just an hour ago I saw this video and I was impressed by the perfect performance of the game, so I just wanted to make clear that the game does not seem broken or rushed at all since normally when someone takes this care for something that you can only feel while playing is a pretty good sign the game is not gonna be broken/rushed. But since everybody is interested on the whole article just to find the bad side of something good I updated the content, and we can be all happy.

Why do you have my comment about pewdiepie on your sig?? lol


The people who said that reacted this way because of how MCC got a shaky release when it comes to its multiplayer. Sure enough, a lot of them don't care much about the franchise and XBox and use whatever bullets they can find to diss on what will undoubtedly be one of XBO's strongest best sellers and most played multiplayer game for the duration of the console's lifespan. That being said, whoever else had worries about a rushed/broken launch, the MCC situation was a legitimate reason for that sentiment. Now that the previews and analyses are finally coming out, and after good beta test feedback, it seems like 343i did their job and are going to deliver a game that meets and in many ways surpasses the expectations. But of course, only when the game launches will we know if their online code is up to par compared to MCC.

 

As for the quote, if I were to tell you, I'd most likely get moderated. So I'll let you remain in the dark.



H3ADShOt3 said:
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.


Except on the original Xbox. I agree with you although Halo 4 was certainly a big leap for the franchise in terms visuals for me at least. Performance aside this looks like a smaller leap from 4, then 4 was from 3.



Michelasso said:
Snoopy said:

Shhh. Thats logic and it doesn't belong here. There is a reason why Forza 6 scored better than games like drive club. They put 60fps and gameplay above graphics. There is a reason why people play COD a lot and sells a lot as well. They put 60 fps above graphics. Or another great example is Titan Fall. FPS is much more important than graphics.


Titanfall? The game running at 792p with frame rate drops to the middle 20s and tearing? Also underperforming in sales, so much that EA dropped the exclusive deal for the sequel? ? Now, let's be serious. 


Underperforming? It sold very well for a launch window game. Yes, it did have fps drops, but for the most part it was 60 fps. Also, Microsoft never owned Titan Fall. Microsoft only got titan fall 1 as an exclusive because they saved the game from being scrapped. No need to be salty.



Please try to keep this thread on topic. Feel free to discuss Halo 5, Microsoft, gameplay vs. graphics, textures, resolution, etc.

But please refrain from derailing the thread, and trolling, flaming, and entrapping each other.



Around the Network
GribbleGrunger said:
Goodnightmoon said:

Not at all, I was only interested on the performance, not in in how beutifull looks in the pictures in order to sell the game, and I only made this thread for that, because usually a game with a very solid performance like this one shows a lot of care about the gameplay experience, so that´s what I wanted to express, the game can hardly be broken if they put this amount of care in the gameplay experience, the fact that there are sacrifices to achieve that on the quality image is obvious, for Microsoft or for Nintendo, both sacrifice things to make their games perform better instead of look better, Splatoon had a ton of sacrifices too, but at the end the game looks nice and perform great, you don´t stop to see the little flowers on the floor while playing so some sacrifices on the image quality does not affect the game.

It depends on what you're willing to sacrifice. Imagine the next Assassin's Creed having this in the DF artricle. I'm sure no one would complain ... right?

"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."

Sounds like a Halo 4 Remaster.

User moderated -RavenXtra



teigaga said:
H3ADShOt3 said:


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


Except on the original Xbox. I agree with you although Halo 4 was certainly a big leap for the franchise in terms visuals for me at least. Performance aside this looks like a smaller leap from 4, then 4 was from 3.


Halo 6 will probably have another big leap if it's the last core halo title on the xbox one.



kurasakiichimaru said:
GribbleGrunger said:
Goodnightmoon said:

Not at all, I was only interested on the performance, not in in how beutifull looks in the pictures in order to sell the game, and I only made this thread for that, because usually a game with a very solid performance like this one shows a lot of care about the gameplay experience, so that´s what I wanted to express, the game can hardly be broken if they put this amount of care in the gameplay experience, the fact that there are sacrifices to achieve that on the quality image is obvious, for Microsoft or for Nintendo, both sacrifice things to make their games perform better instead of look better, Splatoon had a ton of sacrifices too, but at the end the game looks nice and perform great, you don´t stop to see the little flowers on the floor while playing so some sacrifices on the image quality does not affect the game.

It depends on what you're willing to sacrifice. Imagine the next Assassin's Creed having this in the DF artricle. I'm sure no one would complain ... right?

"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."

Sounds like a Halo 4 Remaster.


Then you must be def....



kurasakiichimaru said:
GribbleGrunger said:
Goodnightmoon said:

Not at all, I was only interested on the performance, not in in how beutifull looks in the pictures in order to sell the game, and I only made this thread for that, because usually a game with a very solid performance like this one shows a lot of care about the gameplay experience, so that´s what I wanted to express, the game can hardly be broken if they put this amount of care in the gameplay experience, the fact that there are sacrifices to achieve that on the quality image is obvious, for Microsoft or for Nintendo, both sacrifice things to make their games perform better instead of look better, Splatoon had a ton of sacrifices too, but at the end the game looks nice and perform great, you don´t stop to see the little flowers on the floor while playing so some sacrifices on the image quality does not affect the game.

It depends on what you're willing to sacrifice. Imagine the next Assassin's Creed having this in the DF artricle. I'm sure no one would complain ... right?

"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."

Sounds like a Halo 4 Remaster.


Now you're making yourself way too obvious.



kurasakiichimaru said:
GribbleGrunger said:
Goodnightmoon said:

Not at all, I was only interested on the performance, not in in how beutifull looks in the pictures in order to sell the game, and I only made this thread for that, because usually a game with a very solid performance like this one shows a lot of care about the gameplay experience, so that´s what I wanted to express, the game can hardly be broken if they put this amount of care in the gameplay experience, the fact that there are sacrifices to achieve that on the quality image is obvious, for Microsoft or for Nintendo, both sacrifice things to make their games perform better instead of look better, Splatoon had a ton of sacrifices too, but at the end the game looks nice and perform great, you don´t stop to see the little flowers on the floor while playing so some sacrifices on the image quality does not affect the game.

It depends on what you're willing to sacrifice. Imagine the next Assassin's Creed having this in the DF artricle. I'm sure no one would complain ... right?

"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."

Sounds like a Halo 4 Remaster.


Yep. And now try to imagine where the differences between the two games are. I mean, you are good at highlighting where they are the same and talk about it. So the rest isn't that much of a problem, I guess.