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 on 28 September 2015
Hynad 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. 

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.



Around the Network
SvennoJ on 28 September 2015
Goodnightmoon said:

The OP talks about performance not about graphic power, and there is already some subjects trying to find the bad side, of course it has to be some sacrifices when you have a rock solid 60 fps, but the overall preview of the game, graphic and performance wise, is very possitive in the article, wich is what I refelct on the OP, while some others are already calling it a mess because some obvious sacrifices that does not affect gameplay at all.

Did you miss the part about visibility at range being compromised?

It's in this map that we see Halo 5's dynamic resolution hitting the lowest value mentioned above, giving a noticeably muddier image when compared to the game's other modes. In a sense this is unfortunate, given visibility over long stretches of terrain does takes a hit - particularly across foliage elements - though the vibrant colour palette of both squads helps to track the opponent at range.

Maybe they should have been even braver and gone for the full last-gen look and lock it at solid full HD 60fps with good texture filtering and AA. Halo 4 looked gorgeous to me, that level of graphics was fine.



Luke888 on 28 September 2015

I hope it's true for Microsoft fans :D



Goodnightmoon on 28 September 2015
Hynad said:
Goodnightmoon said:
Hilarious, you make a thread about performance and people shits on you because the OP talks only about performance.

And i have been called biased when I did not had a xbox console in my whole life LMFO

There you have all the information updated so haters are able to chose what they want to hear.


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



GribbleGrunger on 28 September 2015
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."



 

The PS5 Exists. 


Around the Network
LudicrousSpeed on 28 September 2015

Don't let the negative nancy's get you down. Thanks for the video and the info on performance. Haven't been looking forward to a Halo title since Halo 2. Can't wait to play Warzone in this one. And I'm glad they're pushing for frame rate and gameplay over graphics.



Michelasso on 28 September 2015
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. 



Goodnightmoon on 28 September 2015
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."

If we had an ASS Creed where 60fps are flawless, that would mean that the armaggeddon is coming and no, anybody would be looking on that, since performance is way more important and what killed Unity outside the famous bugs,was the performance (24fps average), people would have easily forget about the sacrifices for that performance if the game was running at flawless 60fps with some outdated corners here and there, because that means the game is way more fun to play and the company is worry about your experience instead of making the picture looks prettier.



walsufnir on 28 September 2015
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."

"In many ways, this feels like a visual evolution of Halo 4 at 60fps." This should be enough for Halo fans



LudicrousSpeed on 28 September 2015
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. 

The exclusive deal was always just for the first game. And you can blame the PS3 for performance problems, it's the reason they chose to go with an old engine. To be honest, I haven't experience frame rate issues in the game (which was only ever on the map Lagoon anyway) since they fixed it a very long time ago.

Game seems to have sold just fine. I know Chartz was expecting a billion in sales but that doesn't really mesh with reality.