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.
