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?

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

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.

Not with that level of fidelity.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Your logic makes no sense to me. We agree the 360 was capable of larger scale games then Ryse. The discussion should end there. Ryse was simply the game it was designed to be.

Halo 5 is not a 30 fps game, but I get your logic. If it were a truly 30 fps game, there would be less stress on the GPU and ither issues could be addressed.

No, Halo 5's engine was not fine. The X1 is very capable, much more than OG Xbox and 360. Therefore it shouldnt lack features seen on older platforms like split screen. Which is why I suggested they should have started with the Halo 4 engine.

Yeah, PC has exclusives and most would work fine on a console. Because developers arent focused on cutting edge PC specs.

Halo Infinite will demonstrate what the hardware is capable of. I think it will be a very impressive game for X1. The Scarlett should still show a generational leap though. The Scarlett version should look better in virtually every way.

People still play MCC, people are even excited about the PC port. That tells nailing the gameplay is more important than raising the bar in visuals. I assume Halo Infinite will look notable for X1 but thats it.

If Halo 4 had higher quality textures in the X1 port, I think it could pass as an 8th gen game. Which is why I argue they could have started with that engine, which could have also meant more features like split screen.

Well, then don't reply and I won't quote it. You don't get to decide when I stop replying to a point, simple as that.

Halo 5 is certainly a 60fps game, but much of it's various subsystems operate at 30hz/fps... Which of course draws my ire.

The basis of Halo 5's engine was certainly fine, it just needed more development time and optimization.

Using the Halo 4 engine would have been a very bad idea, it wouldn't have leverage the Graphics Core Next architecture with it's various new nuances efficiently.

Yeah. No one actually believes that.

I have already pointed out where Halo: Infinite falls a little flat in the visual department already... And the game isn't even out yet.

Of course gameplay is important... Nintendo wouldn't have been successful with the Wii, DS, 3DS, Switch otherwise or Sony with the Playstation 1, Playstation 2.
Or the PC since forever.

Nah. Baked shadowing and lighting, low geometry assets.
It was an impressive late-7th gen Xbox 360 title, but couldn't pass as a decent 8th gen... You can clearly see where the shadow maps come up short in the Master Chief Collection for example, they stick out at a sore thumb when the output resolution is 1080P/4k but many elements in the game are at 720P or less.

I meant your logic about Ryse, it makes no sense.

Much like the Halo 5 engine needed work, the Halo 4 could have been modified while keeping features Halo 5 lacked.

We can't just focus on where MCC falls short visually when Halo 5 has jarring pop in and dips much lower resolutions. It just gives the impression there is too much compromise for what Halo 5 was attempting to do while maintaining 60 fps.

For someone who stated that the discussion should have ended, you sure like to carry it on with it.

It makes perfect sense, Ryse isn't a game that isn't showcasing the Xbox One hardware in the best light because it's engine has roots in the 7th gen platforms and thus optimizations geared towards those.

For someone who stated that the discussion should have ended, you sure like to carry it on with it.

It makes perfect sense, Ryse isn't a game that isn't showcasing the Xbox One hardware in the best light because it's engine has roots in the 7th gen platforms and thus optimizations geared towards those.

Yeah. But rendering was shifting, Halo 4's approach wouldn't have held up well.

More development time (Probably another year or so) to make Halo 5 feature complete with a solid engine foundation was what was needed.

Well. We can... Because other than Halo 2: Anniversary, those games weren't built with the Xbox One's hardware in mind, they just take advantage of the extra performance headroom to hit 1080P/4k/60fps.