Compulsion has already added a lot of people since being acquired, will move into a new studio this year and plan to add about 50% more people than they already have. They aren’t a tiny studio anymore. 

Obsidian can make multiple games at once. They just did. Ninja Theory has Hellblade 2 and Dreadnought, which will produce multiple games like Project Mara. But feel free to continue moving the goal posts.

Ok let me amend, cutting edge graphics was never mandatory. Halo 3 lacked in areas, character models especially, but people largely overlooked it for the whole package being solid. Same goes for ODST and Reach. Halo 4 was cutting edge for the hardware but was criticized due to AI taking a back seat to allow for visual fidelity. Halo 5 had bad pop in and textures. Sorry but graphics in the last decade is simply not the top priority for Halo gamers. 

Still tiny. To make a AAA game in 4-5 years you need 200-300 employees. Compulsion is not close to this. Initiative is not close to this. Only NT and Obsidian and they are both only working on one game as a result.

Dreadnought is not a game and neither is Project Mara atm.

Obsidian is actually working on 3-4 titles; Grounded with ~15 developers, Josh Sawyer IP with ~10, The Outer Worlds team is around 70-80 and that leaves the other 100+ on Avowed which has been in development for around 2 years now and listed as an AAA title.

Core studio sizes don't paint the full picture either, The Initiative may be small but they are very much working on an AAA IP. The industry as a whole nowadays relies heavily on outsourcing, Witcher 3 for example, while being such a massive title, only had 250 in house employees, the other 1,250 employees were outsourced, it's simply not accurate nowadays to look at a studios size and only use that to determine how big their games will be.

Project Mara is a game, FWIW Ninja Theory has 100+ employees and only 40 are working on Hellblade II, the previous title having been only created with 20 employees so that leaves ~45 unannounced for (Took away 15 cause of Bleeding Edge's team).

Okay, not mandatory is a fair call, and Halo 3/ODST/5 were indeed not top of the line graphically.

I still wouldn't say the last decade though as Halo 4, released 8 years ago, is widely considered the best looking game on 360.

With Infinite I think because it's a launch title for a new generation like the original, that comes with certain expectations of it showing what that new hardware can do.

Personally, I don't have a problem with how it looks. I'm fine with Switch graphics, and I quite liked what they showed and look forward to playing it someday.

It also comes with the expectations of what they originally showed as in-engine footage.

Halo Infinite should be the first game on Xbox to show us what next-gen can look like. Even if it's just a marginal improvement over current-gen games, it needs to be an improvement.

It also comes with the expectations of what they originally showed as in-engine footage.

Halo Infinite should be the first game on Xbox to show us what next-gen can look like. Even if it's just a marginal improvement over current-gen games, it needs to be an improvement.

Yeah it's weird cause the more framerate the more natural you see things.

This is a nice quote:

''Myelinated nerves can fire between 300 to 1000 times per second in the human body and transmit information at 200 miles per hour. What matters here is how frequently these nerves can fire (or "send messages").

The nerves in your eye are not exempt from this limit. Your eyes can physiologically transmit data that quickly and your eyes/brain working together can interpret up to 1000 frames per second.

However, we know from experimenting (as well as simple anecdotal experience) that there is a diminishing return in what frames per second people are able to identify. Although the human eye and brain can interpret up to 1000 frames per second, someone sitting in a chair and actively guessing at how high a framerate is can, on average, interpet up to about 150 frames per second.

The point: 60 fps is not a 'waste'. 120 fps is not a 'waste' (provided you have a 120hz monitor capable of such display). There IS a very noticable difference between 15 fps and 60 fps. Many will say there IS a noticeable difference between 40 and 60 fps. Lastly, the limit of the human eye is NOT as low as 30-60 fps. It's just not.

The origin of the myth: The origin of the myth probably has to do with limitations of television and movies. Movies, when they were recorded on film reel, limited themselves to 24 frames per second for practical purposes. If there is a diminishing return in how many frames people can claim to actually notice, then the visual difference between 24 fps and 60 fps could not justify DOUBLING the amount of film reel required to film a movie.

With the advent of easy digital storage, these limitations are mostly arbitrary anymore.

The numbers often cited as the mythological "maximum" the eye can see are 30 fps, 40 fps, and 60 fps.

I would guess the 60 fps "eye-seeing" limit comes from the fact that most PC monitors (and indeed many televisions now) have a maximum refresh rate of 60hz (or 60 frames per second). If a monitor has that 60 fps limit, the monitor is physically incapable of displaying more than 60 fps. This is one of the purposes of frame limiting, Vsync and adjusting refresh rate in video games.

tl;dr: The human eye can physiologically detect up to 1000 frames per second. The average human, tasked with detecting what framerate he/she is looking at, can accurately guess up to around 150 fps. That is, they can see the difference in framerates all the way to 150 fps.''

''The USAF, in testing their pilots for visual response time, used a simple test to see if the pilots could distinguish small changes in light. In their experiment a picture of an aircraft was flashed on a screen in a dark room at 1/220th of a second. Pilots were consistently able to "see" the afterimage as well as identify the aircraft. This simple and specific situation not only proves the ability to percieve 1 image within 1/220 of a second, but the ability to interpret higher FPS.''