Quantcast
Should Halo Infinite drop Xbox One and go Scarlet exclusive?

Forums - Microsoft Discussion - Should Halo Infinite drop Xbox One and go Scarlet exclusive?

Tagged games:

Should it?

Yes, dump Xbone, next gen exclusive 22 34.38%
 
No, keep it cross gen with Xbone 42 65.63%
 
Total:64
Pemalite said:
trasharmdsister12 said:

For me Halo 5 was a letdown simply because the AI in the campaign was poor which made the gameplay less fun, despite a lot of work being put into the player movement. Watching many documentaries on the making of it's hard for me to discern whether this was by poor design choices, lack of time/effort put into it, a combination of the two, or just completely botching on executing their vision. All I know is that the result was that the scale of battles was larger with more enemies on the screen and more action, but each enemy being a lot simpler in its behaviours and none being all that much fun to fight. I know they wanted the Spartan teams as a feature in the game so that meant scaling up battles to fit the AI help you'd be getting. And then at that point I guess they scripted as heavily as they could given the CPU resources they had left. But if the CPU was better they could have made the routines more varied and potentially used better path finding algorithms for coop companions, etc. That's just a case study and that's my concern for Halo Infinite. I want the enemies to be fun and varied to fight and I hope that their design choices don't hamstring it in the same way Halo 5 was, especially since it has to still support OG X1, S, and X1X.

Halo 5 as a title has allot of inconsistencies in general. Although the game may output at 60fps, it's certainly not a 60fps game... It would have been better off being a 30fps title.

Even the Xbox One X enhanced version of the game doesn't fix it, there are still short draw distances for objects and shadowing, some character animations only update at 15-30fps, some texture animations are only 10fps... I could go on.

And that is before we touch on the topic of Req points wrecking the game.
I thought Halo was far more enjoyable when you actually had to employ strategy to gain and control points on a map that featured power weapons/vehicles/power ups... Or work hard to kick the enemy out of an area. - Now it's all loot-box filled and it added absolutely nothing to the gameplay.

Scripting wise I think 343i did well, could have been better if we had more CPU time of course... And Warzone might have benefited from even larger multiplayer population caps for a map.

Mr Puggsly said:

Battlefield 4 on X1 and PS4 look arguably better than both Killzone:SF and Ryse. But since its a 60 fps game, it had to pull back on polish.

Ryse was certainly limited by 7th gen technology, hence it's tiny scope, closed in levels and the ball-and-chain known as CryEngine.

Killzone: SF used an engine that wasn't hamstrung by 7th gen constraints and didn't look to bad... It was an early title in the Playstation 4's lifetime, so it didn't showcase the best use of the hardware... That didn't happen until Horizon: Zero Dawn which is an absolute stunner.

Battlefield 4 with it's Frostbite engine on the other hand... From a visual perspective comes up short in many rendering aspects when compared to what the Decima engine was showcasing, it too was hamstrung by 7th gen constraints.
Frostbite did have it's advantages being a 60fps engine though with it's insane draw distances... And games like Battlefield 1 and Battlefield 5 now that they have left the 7th gen constraints behind took a step up in the visuals department.

EA has constantly iterated Frostbite constantly, always improving and refining at a rapid pace, adding new technologies and rendering techniques and it's paid off, it's one of the best game engines out there.

It's actually interesting... The PC doesn't have the hardware leaps like consoles do, we get yearly updates... Yet it's blatantly obvious when the umbilical cord of a console generation gets cut as the baseline takes a step up and visuals, games and so on take a leap forward... So it's baffling when people try to argue that older console technology doesn't hold anything back. It certainly does... And the Xbox One is the low-end baseline for this entire generation.

trasharmdsister12 said:

But now thinking as a user, not as the company, what if they hadn't announced it for specific platforms and said it was coming 2020. Would you want it for X1/X1X as well as Scarlett or just Scarlett? Would you prefer to be able to play it on hardware you already have or prefer to have them go all out on the design and implementation of the game without the ties to 8th gen hardware?

As an owner of every Xbox platform, I would like for the Xbox One/Xbox One X cord to be cut as soon as possible, thus I have a preference for it being Scarlett exclusive from an end-user perspective... I want to be wowed.

But that is coming from someone who will jump on Scarlett on release day... Provided certain hardware features are met.

While Halo 5 does have lower frame rates on distant enemies, its a 60 fps game because the game itself is moving at 60 fps and latency reflects that. I think the pop in bothers me more than lowered frame rate of enemies.

The imbalances in MP is just in Warzone mode. The standard PvP modes just lets you use aesthetic items.

Your complaints about Halo 5 are really design choices or maybe the engine simply wasnt able to handle choices made a long the way.

Ryse was a linear action game by design. I dont believe the Ryse planned for 7th gen had much in common with final X1 project. Also the 360 was capable of larger world games than that, such as Crysis games.

I havent played enough Horizon to really have an opinion. But it appears to me the core gameplay was feasible on 7th gen.

I agree consoles can hold game design back to a degree because developers are focused on where the money is. Ideally developers would create game solely for great PC specs, but that wont happen for obvious reasons.

Halo Infinite was built for X1 first, so the project is too far in development to suddenly become a truly amazing 9th gen experience, whatever that is per se.

MS has a bunch of studios, I would like to think some of them are creating the mind blowing 9th gen experiences we desire.



Recently Completed
Crackdown 3
for X1S/X1X (4/5) - Infinity Blade III - for iPad 4 (3/5) - Infinity Blade II - for iPad 4 (4/5) - Infinity Blade - for iPad 4 (4/5) - Wolfenstein: The Old Blood for X1 (3/5) - Assassin's Creed: Origins for X1 (3/5) - Uncharted: Lost Legacy for PS4 (4/5) - EA UFC 3 for X1 (4/5) - Doom for X1 (4/5) - Titanfall 2 for X1 (4/5) - Super Mario 3D World for Wii U (4/5) - South Park: The Stick of Truth for X1 BC (4/5) - Call of Duty: WWII for X1 (4/5) -Wolfenstein II for X1 - (4/5) - Dead or Alive: Dimensions for 3DS (4/5) - Marvel vs Capcom: Infinite for X1 (3/5) - Halo Wars 2 for X1/PC (4/5) - Halo Wars: DE for X1 (4/5) - Tekken 7 for X1 (4/5) - Injustice 2 for X1 (4/5) - Yakuza 5 for PS3 (3/5) - Battlefield 1 (Campaign) for X1 (3/5) - Assassin's Creed: Syndicate for X1 (4/5) - Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare for X1 (4/5) - Call of Duty: MW Remastered for X1 (4/5) - Donkey Kong Country Returns for 3DS (4/5) - Forza Horizon 3 for X1 (5/5)

Around the Network

I think some people here are expecting WAY too much from 9th gen.

I expect nothing more than a continued focus on 4K, ray tracing and HDR (with a little bit of 60fps here and there).

Ah! and faster loading times. That´s it.



chakkra said:

I think some people here are expecting WAY too much from 9th gen.

I expect nothing more than a continued focus on 4K, ray tracing and HDR (with a little bit of 60fps here and there).

Ah! and faster loading times. That´s it.

I'm mostly with you.

I'm sure developers will step up the visuals significantly while making 60 fps and 4K more common. If they're gonna invest in SSD then we should expect load times to improve.

People are hoping the CPU boost is leveraged to make games much more ambitious I suppose. But I think they will use it for more practical purposes like 60 fps, better physics and I can't help but think it could be used as a crutch to reduce effort previously needed for optimization.



Recently Completed
Crackdown 3
for X1S/X1X (4/5) - Infinity Blade III - for iPad 4 (3/5) - Infinity Blade II - for iPad 4 (4/5) - Infinity Blade - for iPad 4 (4/5) - Wolfenstein: The Old Blood for X1 (3/5) - Assassin's Creed: Origins for X1 (3/5) - Uncharted: Lost Legacy for PS4 (4/5) - EA UFC 3 for X1 (4/5) - Doom for X1 (4/5) - Titanfall 2 for X1 (4/5) - Super Mario 3D World for Wii U (4/5) - South Park: The Stick of Truth for X1 BC (4/5) - Call of Duty: WWII for X1 (4/5) -Wolfenstein II for X1 - (4/5) - Dead or Alive: Dimensions for 3DS (4/5) - Marvel vs Capcom: Infinite for X1 (3/5) - Halo Wars 2 for X1/PC (4/5) - Halo Wars: DE for X1 (4/5) - Tekken 7 for X1 (4/5) - Injustice 2 for X1 (4/5) - Yakuza 5 for PS3 (3/5) - Battlefield 1 (Campaign) for X1 (3/5) - Assassin's Creed: Syndicate for X1 (4/5) - Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare for X1 (4/5) - Call of Duty: MW Remastered for X1 (4/5) - Donkey Kong Country Returns for 3DS (4/5) - Forza Horizon 3 for X1 (5/5)

Mr Puggsly said:

While Halo 5 does have lower frame rates on distant enemies, its a 60 fps game because the game itself is moving at 60 fps and latency reflects that. I think the pop in bothers me more than lowered frame rate of enemies.

It has a 60fps output. Sure. But a ton of elements in the game most certainly do not update at 60hz... Distant enemies (Which are just 2D sprites) aren't the only things with sub-60hz updates in that game you know. - If you want I can fire up the game and do a comprehensive list?

Mr Puggsly said:

The imbalances in MP is just in Warzone mode. The standard PvP modes just lets you use aesthetic items.

Shouldn't be there at all. Let's not make excuses.

Mr Puggsly said:

Your complaints about Halo 5 are really design choices or maybe the engine simply wasnt able to handle choices made a long the way.

The engine itself just came up short. - The game seemed to have a rushed development as it released with no Forge, Split Screen, Theatre... And a ton more. - Obviously allot of that was rectified in time, but it should have been there on release with the focus on new content that players hadn't seen before.

The Engine just didn't scale upwards as well as say... Frostbite did.

Mr Puggsly said:

Ryse was a linear action game by design. I dont believe the Ryse planned for 7th gen had much in common with final X1 project. Also the 360 was capable of larger world games than that, such as Crysis games.

Not with that level of fidelity.

Mr Puggsly said:

I havent played enough Horizon to really have an opinion. But it appears to me the core gameplay was feasible on 7th gen.

Nah. The level of simulation quality just wouldn't have happened on 7th gen hardware. Shit it barely made it onto 8th gen hardware thanks to the anemic CPU's.
We are talking small micro details like ants walking up a tree trunk... That game is a technical showpiece of what the 8th gen consoles can do.

It is honestly worth picking up a Playstation 4 for just that game, you are missing out.

Mr Puggsly said:

I agree consoles can hold game design back to a degree because developers are focused on where the money is. Ideally developers would create game solely for great PC specs, but that wont happen for obvious reasons.

It does happen though... Need I mention Star Citizen?

Mr Puggsly said:

Halo Infinite was built for X1 first, so the project is too far in development to suddenly become a truly amazing 9th gen experience, whatever that is per se.

And that shows in some of the rendering effects employed in the games engine... Which isn't a good thing.
But those are just a few effects. (Particles and DoF.) The gameplay, sound and other graphics aspects need to be judged on their own merits once more details come to light... I will likely voice my views on those when the time arises.

Mr Puggsly said:

MS has a bunch of studios, I would like to think some of them are creating the mind blowing 9th gen experiences we desire.

I am hearing you there, they have some amazing franchises and studios at the moment with some fantastic talent.



Mr Puggsly said:
DonFerrari said:

Sorry but quality Sony also had MS beat hands down this gen, it isn't even a point of opinion and preference. General public acclaim and reviewers would give the edge to Sony.

We are missing your point simply because you are wrong and won't accept it. Pemalite have gone the length to explain everything to you but you dismiss as "just better graphics that are easy to implement on the better HW, not being hold down by the baseline". Devs won't develop two maximized, well polished, quite different games to have the best possible on X1 and Scarlet at the same time. They will just like this gen, make the game work on X1 and them just give a pixel bump for Scarlet.

Sure you can have a significant difference between the two versions, but the more difference the more money expended and that is something third parties don't like very much. There is a reason for all the complains of parity between versions, and although people thought it was MS bribing the devs the truth was that they made a game that worked on both HW and them just gave some small touch ups, nothing extraordinary.

The more you keep expecting X1 baseline for games and that it won't impact the port on Scarlet the more you'll be disappointed.

I wont debate who makes quality. What critics want in games is not what I or many other gamers necessarily want. The most popular games are gameplay focused, not narative driven.

I'm simply saying games can be crossgen and still offer ompressive visuals on superior machine. Hence, the Scarlett version of game can have 9th gen visuals even if a 8th gen were to exist.

Developers could use Scarlett as the lead for a game and get a 3rd party to strip down a game for 8th gen. Forza Horizon 2 on 360 for example was a very similar product using an older engine. CoD games came to Wii thanks to stripped down ports. I'm sure you could of other examples. Some games will also scale to previous gen easier.

Ultimately. Im just saying most project could function on the previous gen hardware. You're focusing on potential exceptions.

You are just being stubborn.

This gen Sony beat MS on quality, critical acclaim, sales, etc. So the only thing you can go is "fun is subjective, and I had more fun with MS". Which can't be argued and as so can't be accept as metric.

You won't accept that the baseline will affect results and that being bound by X1 doing crossgen would put more disadvantages on the Scarlet version of the 1st parties versus exclusives on PS5.

Again, you had the most experts on VGC explain to you, and you without having any technical expertise just deny and claim it isn't true.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Around the Network
Mr Puggsly said:
Pemalite said:

Halo 5 as a title has allot of inconsistencies in general. Although the game may output at 60fps, it's certainly not a 60fps game... It would have been better off being a 30fps title.

Even the Xbox One X enhanced version of the game doesn't fix it, there are still short draw distances for objects and shadowing, some character animations only update at 15-30fps, some texture animations are only 10fps... I could go on.

And that is before we touch on the topic of Req points wrecking the game.
I thought Halo was far more enjoyable when you actually had to employ strategy to gain and control points on a map that featured power weapons/vehicles/power ups... Or work hard to kick the enemy out of an area. - Now it's all loot-box filled and it added absolutely nothing to the gameplay.

Scripting wise I think 343i did well, could have been better if we had more CPU time of course... And Warzone might have benefited from even larger multiplayer population caps for a map.

Ryse was certainly limited by 7th gen technology, hence it's tiny scope, closed in levels and the ball-and-chain known as CryEngine.

Killzone: SF used an engine that wasn't hamstrung by 7th gen constraints and didn't look to bad... It was an early title in the Playstation 4's lifetime, so it didn't showcase the best use of the hardware... That didn't happen until Horizon: Zero Dawn which is an absolute stunner.

Battlefield 4 with it's Frostbite engine on the other hand... From a visual perspective comes up short in many rendering aspects when compared to what the Decima engine was showcasing, it too was hamstrung by 7th gen constraints.
Frostbite did have it's advantages being a 60fps engine though with it's insane draw distances... And games like Battlefield 1 and Battlefield 5 now that they have left the 7th gen constraints behind took a step up in the visuals department.

EA has constantly iterated Frostbite constantly, always improving and refining at a rapid pace, adding new technologies and rendering techniques and it's paid off, it's one of the best game engines out there.

It's actually interesting... The PC doesn't have the hardware leaps like consoles do, we get yearly updates... Yet it's blatantly obvious when the umbilical cord of a console generation gets cut as the baseline takes a step up and visuals, games and so on take a leap forward... So it's baffling when people try to argue that older console technology doesn't hold anything back. It certainly does... And the Xbox One is the low-end baseline for this entire generation.

As an owner of every Xbox platform, I would like for the Xbox One/Xbox One X cord to be cut as soon as possible, thus I have a preference for it being Scarlett exclusive from an end-user perspective... I want to be wowed.

But that is coming from someone who will jump on Scarlett on release day... Provided certain hardware features are met.

While Halo 5 does have lower frame rates on distant enemies, its a 60 fps game because the game itself is moving at 60 fps and latency reflects that. I think the pop in bothers me more than lowered frame rate of enemies.

The imbalances in MP is just in Warzone mode. The standard PvP modes just lets you use aesthetic items.

Your complaints about Halo 5 are really design choices or maybe the engine simply wasnt able to handle choices made a long the way.

Ryse was a linear action game by design. I dont believe the Ryse planned for 7th gen had much in common with final X1 project. Also the 360 was capable of larger world games than that, such as Crysis games.

I havent played enough Horizon to really have an opinion. But it appears to me the core gameplay was feasible on 7th gen.

I agree consoles can hold game design back to a degree because developers are focused on where the money is. Ideally developers would create game solely for great PC specs, but that wont happen for obvious reasons.

Halo Infinite was built for X1 first, so the project is too far in development to suddenly become a truly amazing 9th gen experience, whatever that is per se.

MS has a bunch of studios, I would like to think some of them are creating the mind blowing 9th gen experiences we desire.

And here you contradict yourself.

If Ryse on X1 doesn't have much in common with the 7th gen version, then there were limits crossgen would put and impact the game.

If Ryse was very late on the development on X360 (since it release on the launch of X1) and could be changed to be totally different than 7th gen, Halo Infinite could as well.

And if you think they are creating mind blowing 9th gen, not crossgen, you are accepting that being dedicated to Scarlet will have better result than being crossgen.

You have to decide if there will be impact or not making it crossgen.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Mr Puggsly said:

Your complaints about Halo 5 are really design choices or maybe the engine simply wasnt able to handle choices made a long the way.

That's why I pointed out the AI bit. Yes they were design choices, but those design choices were potentially made due to limited hardware. And that's just one example. The effects they employ, the scope of battles, the map sizes and layouts and density, all of it can be directed impacted by the technical resources available. Things like movement, combat design, campaign pacing, soundtrack, warzone economy, and more are pure design choices, but there are other things absolutely limited by the hardware at hand like the complexity of AI or scope of battles after all that other stuff has used up processing budget. Optimization often means sacrifice to balance resource usage for intended effect and that can absolutely mean cutbacks that change things for the worse. And I'm not talking about things like asset resolution or framerate.

Like I said earlier, they wanted to emphasize the squad based gameplay in the campaign so they designed levels to have more enemies to compensate for the greater offensive you'd theoretically have as a player. Now, things like cooperative AI and destruction have never been big deals in Halo so I'm not knocking Halo 5 for that. I'm knocking it for the design choice to make cooperative AI more important to the single player experience and then not improving the usefulness of that cooperative AI to a point to make the game work well with it. And that can very well be a result of not having the CPU cycles to spare after committing to a near to complete 60 FPS simulation output plus the other effects they decided to use in the game. A better CPU could drastically change the outcome of the game's simulation by improving what's possible with the team AI. 

Mr Puggsly said:

I havent played enough Horizon to really have an opinion. But it appears to me the core gameplay was feasible on 7th gen.I agree consoles can hold game design back to a degree because developers are focused on where the money is. Ideally developers would create game solely for great PC specs, but that wont happen for obvious reasons.Halo Infinite was built for X1 first, so the project is too far in development to suddenly become a truly amazing 9th gen experience, whatever that is per se.MS has a bunch of studios, I would like to think some of them are creating the mind blowing 9th gen experiences we desire.

I think RAM would have been a large limiting factor given the amount of stuff going on in the open world. It would have to have been compromised to the point of not feeling like the same experience despite controls maybe working the same way. So yeah the gameplay likely could have been emulated, but the scale of the world, the amount of wildlife to bring it to life, the dynamic weather/cloud system (again adding to immersion), the amount of debris and destruction caused to and by the robotic wildlife and their animation and behaviours would all have taken a hit. And at that point it would have just been like a Wii U Monster Hunter game. I'm not saying that's bad, I'm just saying that besides it having similar core controller inputs, I'd hardly call it the same experience.

And that's my point with Halo Infinite too. Design of things like AI may be limited due to 8th gen hardware. The game we eventually get will be designed to work cross gen. That doesn't mean 9th gen has nothing new to offer. It means the developers designed the game to work on both sets of hardware. So then what was potentially sacrificed is what you have to consider. Scope of interaction and world may be limited depending on how much other stuff they have going on and how much work 343 and MS decide to put into taking advantage of the different hardware. It could be superfluous things to the core game like improved immersion through better interaction with flora or better terrain deformation or allowing for complex pack AI for herds of animals and their awareness of what's going on around them. Or it could be better companion and enemy AI, more intense scripted sequences with more dynamic destruction, or more on screen mayhem. 

Whatever they end up with, I'm looking forward to seeing more and eventually playing it. I want Halo to be as good as possible again as I've been a pretty disenfranchised fan since Reach. Halo Wars 2 took steps in the right direction for me personally and so far Infinite's "feel" through its focus on built up story telling put to good use of music vs grandeur and epic explosions music makes me hopeful. There's still a lot to be uncovered like what the game will actually play like and what multiplayer modes are available and the inevitable economy of the game... But so far, so good. 



DonFerrari said:
Mr Puggsly said:

While Halo 5 does have lower frame rates on distant enemies, its a 60 fps game because the game itself is moving at 60 fps and latency reflects that. I think the pop in bothers me more than lowered frame rate of enemies.

The imbalances in MP is just in Warzone mode. The standard PvP modes just lets you use aesthetic items.

Your complaints about Halo 5 are really design choices or maybe the engine simply wasnt able to handle choices made a long the way.

Ryse was a linear action game by design. I dont believe the Ryse planned for 7th gen had much in common with final X1 project. Also the 360 was capable of larger world games than that, such as Crysis games.

I havent played enough Horizon to really have an opinion. But it appears to me the core gameplay was feasible on 7th gen.

I agree consoles can hold game design back to a degree because developers are focused on where the money is. Ideally developers would create game solely for great PC specs, but that wont happen for obvious reasons.

Halo Infinite was built for X1 first, so the project is too far in development to suddenly become a truly amazing 9th gen experience, whatever that is per se.

MS has a bunch of studios, I would like to think some of them are creating the mind blowing 9th gen experiences we desire.

And here you contradict yourself.

If Ryse on X1 doesn't have much in common with the 7th gen version, then there were limits crossgen would put and impact the game.

If Ryse was very late on the development on X360 (since it release on the launch of X1) and could be changed to be totally different than 7th gen, Halo Infinite could as well.

And if you think they are creating mind blowing 9th gen, not crossgen, you are accepting that being dedicated to Scarlet will have better result than being crossgen.

You have to decide if there will be impact or not making it crossgen.

I didnt contradict myself. The Ryse planned for 360 was a Kinect game and the little shown didnt resemble what we got on X1. Also, I said the 360 demonstrated much larger scale games from Crytek like Crysis.

We dont know how far Ryse actually got on 360. The game went from 1st person to 3rd person. If much of what we saw was planned for 360, its worth noting the developers were able to change the graphics into a visually impressive 8th gen game in spite of 7th gen roots.

Either way we know the 360 is capable of much larger scale games and Crytek has done that themselves. But even if the X1's version of Ryse was being built for 360, the visuals still showed a generational leap.

I still think a game can be built for 9th gen and still be scaled or reworked for 8th gen. Maybe a 3rd party could come in and rework it to function on limited specs. We have seen that many times.



Recently Completed
Crackdown 3
for X1S/X1X (4/5) - Infinity Blade III - for iPad 4 (3/5) - Infinity Blade II - for iPad 4 (4/5) - Infinity Blade - for iPad 4 (4/5) - Wolfenstein: The Old Blood for X1 (3/5) - Assassin's Creed: Origins for X1 (3/5) - Uncharted: Lost Legacy for PS4 (4/5) - EA UFC 3 for X1 (4/5) - Doom for X1 (4/5) - Titanfall 2 for X1 (4/5) - Super Mario 3D World for Wii U (4/5) - South Park: The Stick of Truth for X1 BC (4/5) - Call of Duty: WWII for X1 (4/5) -Wolfenstein II for X1 - (4/5) - Dead or Alive: Dimensions for 3DS (4/5) - Marvel vs Capcom: Infinite for X1 (3/5) - Halo Wars 2 for X1/PC (4/5) - Halo Wars: DE for X1 (4/5) - Tekken 7 for X1 (4/5) - Injustice 2 for X1 (4/5) - Yakuza 5 for PS3 (3/5) - Battlefield 1 (Campaign) for X1 (3/5) - Assassin's Creed: Syndicate for X1 (4/5) - Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare for X1 (4/5) - Call of Duty: MW Remastered for X1 (4/5) - Donkey Kong Country Returns for 3DS (4/5) - Forza Horizon 3 for X1 (5/5)

Pemalite said:
Mr Puggsly said:

While Halo 5 does have lower frame rates on distant enemies, its a 60 fps game because the game itself is moving at 60 fps and latency reflects that. I think the pop in bothers me more than lowered frame rate of enemies.

It has a 60fps output. Sure. But a ton of elements in the game most certainly do not update at 60hz... Distant enemies (Which are just 2D sprites) aren't the only things with sub-60hz updates in that game you know. - If you want I can fire up the game and do a comprehensive list?

Mr Puggsly said:

The imbalances in MP is just in Warzone mode. The standard PvP modes just lets you use aesthetic items.

Shouldn't be there at all. Let's not make excuses.

Mr Puggsly said:

Your complaints about Halo 5 are really design choices or maybe the engine simply wasnt able to handle choices made a long the way.

The engine itself just came up short. - The game seemed to have a rushed development as it released with no Forge, Split Screen, Theatre... And a ton more. - Obviously allot of that was rectified in time, but it should have been there on release with the focus on new content that players hadn't seen before.

The Engine just didn't scale upwards as well as say... Frostbite did.

Mr Puggsly said:

Ryse was a linear action game by design. I dont believe the Ryse planned for 7th gen had much in common with final X1 project. Also the 360 was capable of larger world games than that, such as Crysis games.

Not with that level of fidelity.

Mr Puggsly said:

I havent played enough Horizon to really have an opinion. But it appears to me the core gameplay was feasible on 7th gen.

Nah. The level of simulation quality just wouldn't have happened on 7th gen hardware. Shit it barely made it onto 8th gen hardware thanks to the anemic CPU's.
We are talking small micro details like ants walking up a tree trunk... That game is a technical showpiece of what the 8th gen consoles can do.

It is honestly worth picking up a Playstation 4 for just that game, you are missing out.

Mr Puggsly said:

I agree consoles can hold game design back to a degree because developers are focused on where the money is. Ideally developers would create game solely for great PC specs, but that wont happen for obvious reasons.

It does happen though... Need I mention Star Citizen?

Mr Puggsly said:

Halo Infinite was built for X1 first, so the project is too far in development to suddenly become a truly amazing 9th gen experience, whatever that is per se.

And that shows in some of the rendering effects employed in the games engine... Which isn't a good thing.
But those are just a few effects. (Particles and DoF.) The gameplay, sound and other graphics aspects need to be judged on their own merits once more details come to light... I will likely voice my views on those when the time arises.

Mr Puggsly said:

MS has a bunch of studios, I would like to think some of them are creating the mind blowing 9th gen experiences we desire.

I am hearing you there, they have some amazing franchises and studios at the moment with some fantastic talent.

Yes, I want the comprehensive list of anything not 60 fps in Halo 5. Even though we funamentally agree 30 fps for the campaign may have been better. I also argue they should have used lighting effects less taxing on the GPU.

I'm not making excuses, just clarifying Warzone is not reflective of other PvP modes.

If an engine cant handle seemingly simple things previous engines did, it might just be a bad engine. Halo 5 should have just used a modified Halo 4 engine.

Well obviously visual fidelity can be effected by the scale of the game. Is that what this discussion is turning into?

I have Horizon, only spent a couple hours with it. Again, I can only say core gameplay didnt seem spectacular but I cant really judge it.

I wasnt looking for a few exceptions like Star Citizen or whatever other few titles. I mean generally.

Halo Infinite is atleast being built with assets and effect quality intended for specs beyond a base X1. I'm not expecting cutting edge but instead a very polished game on Scarlett. That still demonstrates a technical leap. It may also be the first gen we can get a locked 60 fps in split screen Halo.



Recently Completed
Crackdown 3
for X1S/X1X (4/5) - Infinity Blade III - for iPad 4 (3/5) - Infinity Blade II - for iPad 4 (4/5) - Infinity Blade - for iPad 4 (4/5) - Wolfenstein: The Old Blood for X1 (3/5) - Assassin's Creed: Origins for X1 (3/5) - Uncharted: Lost Legacy for PS4 (4/5) - EA UFC 3 for X1 (4/5) - Doom for X1 (4/5) - Titanfall 2 for X1 (4/5) - Super Mario 3D World for Wii U (4/5) - South Park: The Stick of Truth for X1 BC (4/5) - Call of Duty: WWII for X1 (4/5) -Wolfenstein II for X1 - (4/5) - Dead or Alive: Dimensions for 3DS (4/5) - Marvel vs Capcom: Infinite for X1 (3/5) - Halo Wars 2 for X1/PC (4/5) - Halo Wars: DE for X1 (4/5) - Tekken 7 for X1 (4/5) - Injustice 2 for X1 (4/5) - Yakuza 5 for PS3 (3/5) - Battlefield 1 (Campaign) for X1 (3/5) - Assassin's Creed: Syndicate for X1 (4/5) - Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare for X1 (4/5) - Call of Duty: MW Remastered for X1 (4/5) - Donkey Kong Country Returns for 3DS (4/5) - Forza Horizon 3 for X1 (5/5)

Mr Puggsly said:

I didnt contradict myself. The Ryse planned for 360 was a Kinect game and the little shown didnt resemble what we got on X1. Also, I said the 360 demonstrated much larger scale games from Crytek like Crysis.

We dont know how far Ryse actually got on 360. The game went from 1st person to 3rd person. If much of what we saw was planned for 360, its worth noting the developers were able to change the graphics into a visually impressive 8th gen game in spite of 7th gen roots.

Either way we know the 360 is capable of much larger scale games and Crytek has done that themselves. But even if the X1's version of Ryse was being built for 360, the visuals still showed a generational leap.

I still think a game can be built for 9th gen and still be scaled or reworked for 8th gen. Maybe a 3rd party could come in and rework it to function on limited specs. We have seen that many times.

You are missing the point.
Ryse could have been a much better game if it wasn't shackled down by 7th gen console restraints.

The fact that games like Crysis offer bigger worlds is exactly the point, those games were built from the ground up (Engine and all) to take advantage of 7th gen hardware.
You kind of start to throw away "Console Optimization" entirely when you are designing for more than one hardware base.

Mr Puggsly said:

Yes, I want the comprehensive list of anything not 60 fps in Halo 5. Even though we funamentally agree 30 fps for the campaign may have been better. I also argue they should have used lighting effects less taxing on the GPU.

Either 30fps to match the polling rates or if the Xbox One launched with hardware that wasn't low-end where cutbacks had to be made.

* 30hz LOD player sprites.
* 30hz Cutscenes.
* 15hz Texture Animations. (I.E. Like the launcher pad, shield barriers etc'.)
* Screen Space Reflection animations.
* Server tick rate?

Things like Dynamic shadows (Not used often), water, fire alpha effects all seem to update at 60hz. Yay progress.

Halo 5 is in large parts a 30fps game.

Mr Puggsly said:

If an engine cant handle seemingly simple things previous engines did, it might just be a bad engine. Halo 5 should have just used a modified Halo 4 engine.

Rushed development. The engine is fine, it just needed more development time to iron out some aspects.
Better Xbox hardware wouldn't have hurt either.

Mr Puggsly said:

I wasnt looking for a few exceptions like Star Citizen or whatever other few titles. I mean generally.

You were asserting something as if it didn't have exceptions. Clearly that was incorrect.

And it happens more often than you think, the PC has exclusives. - Need I mention Civilization? Or hows about Ashes of the Singularity? PC has more platform exclusives than the Xbox One.

Mr Puggsly said:

Halo Infinite is atleast being built with assets and effect quality intended for specs beyond a base X1. I'm not expecting cutting edge but instead a very polished game on Scarlett. That still demonstrates a technical leap. It may also be the first gen we can get a locked 60 fps in split screen Halo.

It should be cutting edge, it is meant to showcase what a platform is potentially capable of, that is one of the main points of an exclusive.

Halo used to "wow" the entire industry on the visuals front... Halo: Combat Evolved with it's Pixel Shader and Bump mapping effects, Halo 2 with it's draw distances and texture work, Halo 3 with it's impressive HDR Lighting and Tessellated water effects, Halo 4 with it's baked shadowing and lighting effects, Halo: Reach for it's insane draw distances...

Every time there was a Halo game we saw visuals pushed forwards and it was generally the best example of what the platform could do at the time. - Halo 4 for example is probably the most visually impressive game on Xbox 360, heck almost that entire console generation with the exception of a few Playstation 3 and PC titles.