2017 was solid year for Xbox One sales in spite of exclusvies.

[Mr Puggsly]

Pemalite said:

Mr Puggsly said:

The X1 CPU does too much for me to consider it crap.

It's crap.
Regardless of how much work you consider it does. It's still crap.
Jaguar was the shittiest CPU in AMD's entire lineup... At a time when AMD's entire lineup (Bulldozer/FX) was shit.

AMD has thankfully turned that around with Ryzen, but facts are facts. Jaguar is shit. It's crap. It's rubbish. It's garbage.
But it's also cheap, small and energy efficient, perfect for a console.

Mr Puggsly said:

 I mean it does have 60 fps content and often times the bottleneck is on GPU.

Having 60fps content is irrelevant. The SNES had games operate at 60fps.

Mr Puggsly said:

The hardware was designed to push its best visuals at 30 fps, this is GPU and CPU limitations.

Visuals could still be better. It's not using high-end hardware.

Mr Puggsly said:

I see X1X/PS4 as 4K consoles like X1/PS4 are 1080p consoles. They do those resolutions often, but not always.

They aren't true 4k consoles. Majority of games are around the 1440P-1800P resolutions rather than 4k.
Many games use image reconstruction techniques/checkerboarding to "fake" 4k.

Ergo. Not a true 4k console.

The Xbox One and Playstation 4 aren't true 1080P consoles either. - Especially in the Xbox One's case as so many games don't achieve 1080P.
They are using low-end hardware, you get what you pay for I guess.

Mr Puggsly said:

You seem surprised a console has limitations.

How did you come to such a conclusion? Do tell. I'm intrigued.

Mr Puggsly said:

Halo 5 pushing high quality effects in a virtually locked 60 fps experience exacerbates those limitations in graphics, still an impressive 60 fps 8th gen game.

It is an impressive 60fps game. But is it the best looking 60fps game on Xbox One? Frostbite has shown how well it can flex it's muscles, as has iD Tech.
But that doesn't mean we cannot take an intimate look at the visuals, how they were achieved, where they fall short and criticize those aspects.

Halo 5 is a pretty average game for a Halo game anyway... It hasn't been as highly acclaimed as prior titles for various reasons... And yet still does a ton right like 60fps and the movement system.
It's called giving criticism where criticism is due, you should really try it sometime.

Mr Puggsly said:

The only other option without making significant changes would have been make the campaign 30 fps and perhaps Warzone. That would free up a lot of overhead in GPU for visual polish. That's where you most notice the animation frame drops as well.

No. That isn't the only option.

Halo 5 relies on a ton of dynamic details, that costs processing time.
Halo 4 looked as good as it did because it didn't rely on allot of dynamic details, it used baked/pre-calculated details.
There are Pro's and Con's to each approach of course.

The jump between Halo 3 and Halo: Reach actually saw a reduction in some areas.
For instance... Halo 3 had tessellated water effects, HDR lighting, triple buffering and so on. - Halo: Reach threw all of that out the window, put the Tessellator to work improving general geometry of the landscape and models, used impostering to increase draw distances, used texture and mesh streaming for higher resolution textures and meshes, adopted bloom (Yuck) and so on.

And despite the fact it had a reduction in fidelity in a few areas, general overall visual quality improved. Games are made of dozens of different effects... All designed to give an overall presentation.

Ergo... Just because the Xbox's hardware is static, doesn't mean that Halo 5 couldn't have been better than what it was visually.

The CPU is crap, very capable, and perfect for a console all at the same time.

Well... Doom on SNES wasn't 60 fps. It was a console with limitations as well.

You keep complaining about the X1's specs, but that's what Halo 5 is working with and developers always try to push the limits with sacrifices.

The Frostbite and id Tech games are not hitting locked 60 fps like Halo 5, not even close.

I said, "The only other option without making significant changes." Hence, I'm suggesting Halo 5 keeping the dynamic effects but dropping down to 30 fps for the campaign. It would look significantly better and that would put it at the same frame rate as all the other Halo games you're mentioning.

I actually agree baked effects could have been a better route Halo 5. People often complain Forza uses baked lighting but the end product is a very polished game.