I dont expect a answer form 343 now because I understand that the team managing forms have not knowledge of the 3d modeling department. So i hope they will forward it so we can get a answer in probably a community update or a livestream.
I want to ask why are halo 5 graphics not comparable to other fps games. BF1 etc… they all look so much better. halo 5 looks like plastic models for most parts… if you compare two game you will see what I mean… I want to know why is it that halo development team can not just come up with good Gameplay graphics and I dont mean cut scene graphics. It is possible to have such graphics we all know that… BF 1 have proven it already. … what is lacking? devlopers? skilled guys like EA have? Cant you guys write a letterto Microsoft saying you need better 3d modelers…
or do we need a better game engine. … if you go and look at cryengine 3 and 4 information video you will know that I mean.
halo 5 has a heavily modified halo 4 engine… not a completely new engine. …
343 I hope that you have made a new engine or plan to make it fot halo 6 because halo needs a new engine.
I am not ranting or something. … I am just putting up my opinion on graphics and why they should step it up.
So true lol, our Spartans be looking like toy figures with that plastic like look. I hope your question gets answered man, it probably won’t but one can hope
They prioritized 60fps and therefore needed to apply dynamic resolution. Plus forge maps in matchmaking don´t help. But you are right that the graphcis do leave a little something to be desired… Still, I love 60fps, too bad the game still has framerate issues (at least with forged maps).
I know what you mean, Halo 5 looks good, but not something “WOW” like a CryEngine can do. I honestly think it is the Engine needs a heavy upgrade, plus, Halo 5 runs at 1080P/ 60 fps, so 343 priorized performance over graphics.
Hopefully, with the new Xbox Scorpio we could see a Halo game with maximum performance 60 fps / 4K and high end graphics with incredibly realistic textures.
Surprise us, 343!
The plastic look has nothing to do with graphics and more to do with textures and how they do the effects.
ill also add that battlefield uses a much newer engine in frostbite 3? 4? Can’t remember anymore, halo still uses the original engine from 2001 but modified. Honestly though halo doesn’t need high end graphics, it just needs to meet the standard, which it does and a little more. The looks shouldn’t be a priority when it’s been in an identity crisis over gameplay reasons.
not vs upping the graphics but if I were 343 they’d be the least of my worries as again, they go past the standard and there are more issues to worry about, like getting their push for 60 fps worked out, getting the gameplay identity established, launching a complete game at release, etc etc.
This topic could go in numerous directions. There’s multiple answers, and multiple theories.
UEG ShadowAngel is pretty spot on with his reply.
Another thing is why does Halo 5 look the way it does? Well, you can blame the community as well. A good portion of the community didn’t like how the beta looked, so they changed it.
Personally, the beta build looked far superior IMO to the final version of the game.
I know what you guys means. I tend to stick to one multiplayer FPS and that’s been Halo. I get bored with others that I try. I did recently get Battlefield 1 since it was half-off (already bored with it) but I was blown away by its visuals. Same with Battlefront. Looks great, but these games leave a lot to be desired and are clunky and glitchy. I know these aren’t the only options, but I will take tried & true gameplay on an ancient & solid engine over clunky & glitchy gameplay on a new & pretty engine.
I mean, if they can get the game to play like Halo and look as good as Battlefield 1, that’d be ideal, but I’m sure there’s a good reason they haven’t yet. That’d be quite the endeavor. We’d either be without a Halo game for a long time, or they’d need to double their staff, half of which would crank out the next game on the current engine, and the other half to take several years to build a brand new engine that doesn’t feel too alien to Halo.
> 2533274923562209;5:
> The plastic look has nothing to do with graphics and more to do with textures and how they do the effects.
>
> ill also add that battlefield uses a much newer engine in frostbite 3? 4? Can’t remember anymore, halo still uses the original engine from 2001 but modified. Honestly though halo doesn’t need high end graphics, it just needs to meet the standard, which it does and a little more. The looks shouldn’t be a priority when it’s been in an identity crisis over gameplay reasons.
>
> not vs upping the graphics but if I were 343 they’d be the least of my worries as again, they go past the standard and there are more issues to worry about, like getting their push for 60 fps worked out, getting the gameplay identity established, launching a complete game at release, etc etc.
yes. you are right. I did know it but it just got off my mind when I was posting. Back to point… when you are trying to make a product smear past the competition, you need to make it better in all spheres… same applies to halo. make it look great feel great. it will itself comeout on top.
about the whole time constrain… I believe that almost all the fans who are here from 2001 will be more than happy to wait until 2019 for a good halo game if they promise to deliver a truly next gen halo with awesome graphics and gameplay…
I realise that making a game engine from scratch and and making it work loke the original is difficult but that does not mean we should not try…
Really If microsof wants to do it… they will and can hire enough employes to make that happen… they have way more cssh in reserves and in hand/bank to do this… its only a risk they have to take and then commit to it. to making a great game…
> 2533274923562209;5:
> The plastic look has nothing to do with graphics and more to do with textures and how they do the effects.
>
> ill also add that battlefield uses a much newer engine in frostbite 3? 4? Can’t remember anymore, halo still uses the original engine from 2001 but modified. Honestly though halo doesn’t need high end graphics, it just needs to meet the standard, which it does and a little more. The looks shouldn’t be a priority when it’s been in an identity crisis over gameplay reasons.
>
> not vs upping the graphics but if I were 343 they’d be the least of my worries as again, they go past the standard and there are more issues to worry about, like getting their push for 60 fps worked out, getting the gameplay identity established, launching a complete game at release, etc etc.
BF1 runs on the Frostbite 3 engine, if I recall. H5 run’s off of Reach’s engine.
I do agree on the visuals of Halo 5. Halo 5 was the first “new” Halo game to make an appearance on the “next gen” xbox one and personally when I first got Halo 5 I was not amazed by how it looked graphically. From Halo 3 - Reach I noticed it looked different and better. Halo 4 was great graphics for Halo on the xbox 360 but Halo 5 I did not notice a huge improvement.
Part of it has to do with 343 wanting to try new things with halo’s designs. That can cause a lot of time to be spent trying new things.
Also if you look at the 3D models they are INCREDIBLY detailed. (Trust me, that’s hard to make. My graphics design teacher in high school said her class struggled to make a frog 3D model.) These things can take up some time as well. In addition to that, if the arm doesn’t tell the hand what it’s doing, there can be some confusion on how to paint the models properly.
There are also the ever so beloved time constraints.
> 2533274961587895;10:
> > 2533274923562209;5:
> > The plastic look has nothing to do with graphics and more to do with textures and how they do the effects.
> >
> > ill also add that battlefield uses a much newer engine in frostbite 3? 4? Can’t remember anymore, halo still uses the original engine from 2001 but modified. Honestly though halo doesn’t need high end graphics, it just needs to meet the standard, which it does and a little more. The looks shouldn’t be a priority when it’s been in an identity crisis over gameplay reasons.
> >
> > not vs upping the graphics but if I were 343 they’d be the least of my worries as again, they go past the standard and there are more issues to worry about, like getting their push for 60 fps worked out, getting the gameplay identity established, launching a complete game at release, etc etc.
>
> BF1 runs on the Frostbite 3 engine, if I recall. H5 run’s off of Reach’s engine.
So does Destiny. And Reach runs a modified Halo 3 engine, which runs a modified CE engine (all Halo games have run on some form of that engine). That was my point earlier: Halo has stood the test of time and has tried & true gameplay. Battlefield, in my opinion, is clunky & glitchy. But Battlefield is a lot prettier than Halo. If that’s the trade off (not saying it is, but trashing the one and only Halo engine for a brand new one sounds pretty risky) is it worth that risk?
> 2533274923562209;5:
> halo still uses the original engine from 2001 but modified.
Which is about as descriptive as saying that CoD:IW still uses the Quake engine from 1996. I mean, sure, it’s technically true, if you track down the lineage of engine updates, but it doesn’t mean anything because the engine has been modified, overhauled, and optimized for different platforms so much that you’d hardly recognize the thing. Feel free to browse the list of features added to the engine by IW and contemplate what’s the amount of code that remains from id Tech 3 (let alone the Quake engine which started this all).
It means nothing what a game engine is based on. Game engines are just a bunch of programs put together to make a game, any of which can be changed in any way you want when the need comes. And no one builds triple-A engines from scratch these days because it doesn’t make sense to just throw away completely good, functional code and spend millions of building something as complicated from scratch. We gain nothing from repeating the obvious fact that Halo uses a modified version of the original engine because it means as little to the engine’s functionality as being descentant from single celled organisms means to our functionality.
> 2533274961587895;10:
> BF1 runs on the Frostbite 3 engine, if I recall. H5 run’s off of Reach’s engine.
Halo 5 runs on Halo 5’s engine. Of course, if you want to say Halo 5 runs on the engine of Reach, you might as well say BF1 runs on the engine of Bad Company 2. See above why such reasoning is completely nonsensical.
> 2533274825830455;14:
> > 2533274923562209;5:
> > halo still uses the original engine from 2001 but modified.
>
> Which is about as descriptive as saying that CoD:IW still uses the Quake engine from 1996. I mean, sure, it’s technically true, if you track down the lineage of engine updates, but it doesn’t mean anything because the engine has been modified, overhauled, and optimized for different platforms so much that you’d hardly recognize the thing. Feel free to browse the list of features added to the engine by IW and contemplate what’s the amount of code that remains from id Tech 3 (let alone the Quake engine which started this all).
>
> It means nothing what a game engine is based on. Game engines are just a bunch of programs put together to make a game, any of which can be changed in any way you want when the need comes. And no one builds triple-A engines from scratch these days because it doesn’t make sense to just throw away completely good, functional code and spend millions of building something as complicated from scratch. We gain nothing from repeating the obvious fact that Halo uses a modified version of the original engine because it means as little to the engine’s functionality as being descentant from single celled organisms means to our functionality.
>
>
>
>
> > 2533274961587895;10:
> > BF1 runs on the Frostbite 3 engine, if I recall. H5 run’s off of Reach’s engine.
>
> Halo 5 runs on Halo 5’s engine. Of course, if you want to say Halo 5 runs on the engine of Reach, you might as well say BF1 runs on the engine of Bad Company 2. See above why such reasoning is completely nonsensical.
> 2533275010793662;4:
> I know what you mean, Halo 5 looks good, but not something “WOW” like a CryEngine can do. I honestly think it is the Engine needs a heavy upgrade, plus, Halo 5 runs at 1080P/ 60 fps, so 343 priorized performance over graphics.
> Hopefully, with the new Xbox Scorpio we could see a Halo game with maximum performance 60 fps / 4K and high end graphics with incredibly realistic textures.
> Surprise us, 343!
High quality like the Battlefield games. Mostly like 4 and 1
A stable 60 fps is your answer, that and they really gimped the lighting from the beta which IMO looked a lot better and more “next gen” than the final release but it also didn’t run at 1080p (which I’m sure would have been criticized if that was the case on release and a tbh a lot people -Yoinked!- about being unable to see Spartans clearly so changes were made, poorly I might add. Gears 4 went 30fps for campaign and 60fps for multiplayer so the could really push the graphics in the campaign Halo 5 went 60fps all across the board.
Personally I’m not fussed for 4K, 60FPS in multiplayer is a necessity now, but I would really like them to use Scorpio to push the graphical quality rather than chase 4k.
> 2535409260317548;3:
> They prioritized 60fps and therefore needed to apply dynamic resolution. Plus forge maps in matchmaking don´t help. But you are right that the graphcis do leave a little something to be desired… Still, I love 60fps, too bad the game still has framerate issues (at least with forged maps).
But things like MCC Halo 3/4 and H2A run at a smooth 60fps and look better than Halo 5.
Yeah, but Halo 5 was released in 2015, and BF 1 in late 2016. There’s a pretty big gap, with the introduction of )popular 4k, VR, etc. Halo 6 might be better
