Personally, I think 343i has made a great choice in trading more detail for lower resolution. Its also great that they are taking advantage of the Xbox ones powerful hardware.
Give your say here!
Call me stupid but I always thought resolution was what decided detail?
What powerful hardware?
They had to do this awful solution because the awful Xbone hardware couldnt handle better.
I dont give a yoink about 60fps if the Image Quality looks like my -Yoink-
Eh, I’m not sure I like the sound of it so far. Will have to wait and see how it actually looks in practice. Still, damn glad we’re getting 60fps. After playing the MCC, I can’t imagine this franchise going back to 30fps.
If anything, I’m more bothered by the fact that the cinematics in Halo 5 will still only be 30fps. I loved how much smoother Halo 4’s cinematics were in the MCC, so to see them knocked back down for Halo 5 really annoys me.
Powerful hardware? LMAO. A 2.5 year old GTX 760 ($200 US currently) has 80% more computational power than the whole Xbox One.
The xbox has 1.3 tflops and the GTX 760 has 2.25 tflops or so.
If it was so powerful we might have actually had some texture filtering added into the game. Or maybe 343 are to inept to use decade old techniques that have made games look better and instead choose to add in effects that should only be implemented once the foundation is complete (Ambient Occlusion and Bloom).
> 2533274803896054;2:
> Call me stupid but I always thought resolution was what decided detail?
Not really. There’s also Model Detail, Lighting Detail and Texture detail to bring into account. I can run Counter-Strike 1.6 from 15 years ago in 1080p, but that doesn’t make it look like CS:GO.
Take the following for example. It’s a basic high poly Halo Magnum I made in blender.
Here it is in 1080.
And again in 720.
(EDIT: I say high poly, but it’s really just a basic low poly with a sub-surf modifier to make it look smoother. It’s only about 3000 vertices, but the modifier bumps it up to 200000)
Resolution only determines the number of pixels rendered, the objects and textures themselves maintain their detail, you just don’t see all of it like you would in 1080.
> 2533274803896054;2:
> Call me stupid but I always thought resolution was what decided detail?
You are stupid. 
Just kidding, there is texture resolution and game resolution. The resolution you see on your TV just simply affect the crispness of images being rendered. Just look at the difference between original Halo games and their MCC version, they went from 720p to 1080p. The graphics aren’t better, it is just the images that are sharper because you don’t notice as much the pixels on screen.
> 2533274985547444;4:
> Eh, I’m not sure I like the sound of it so far. Will have to wait and see how it actually looks in practice. Still, damn glad we’re getting 60fps. After playing the MCC, I can’t imagine this franchise going back to 30fps.
>
> If anything, I’m more bothered by the fact that the cinematics in Halo 5 will still only be 30fps. I loved how much smoother Halo 4’s cinematics were in the MCC, so to see them knocked back down for Halo 5 really annoys me.
This 60 fps >>>>>>
> 2533274803896054;2:
> Call me stupid but I always thought resolution was what decided detail?
Take this 478 × 359 picture of the coast of Maui for example. You could argue resolution has no affect on visuals…
It’s just the job of the artists to ensure the game’s textures and lighting look good to begin with. I can’t stress enough how much more important that is than resolution.
> 2533274985547444;4:
> Eh, I’m not sure I like the sound of it so far. Will have to wait and see how it actually looks in practice. Still, damn glad we’re getting 60fps. After playing the MCC, I can’t imagine this franchise going back to 30fps.
>
> If anything, I’m more bothered by the fact that the cinematics in Halo 5 will still only be 30fps. I loved how much smoother Halo 4’s cinematics were in the MCC, so to see them knocked back down for Halo 5 really annoys me.
I thought the cinematics in Halo 4 at 60fps looked wierd, particularly character movements. Or maybe its just me.
Anything above 720p is fine. The lowest resolution Halo 5 can drop to is 1156:810 or 810p (albeit apparently it hardly ever reaches this point, with it usually only dropping to roughly 900p). Resolution also has no effect on detail, its essentially a determination on how sharp the image is. Remember the Beta? and its pretty poor anti-aliasing? that was due to its 720p resolution, there was no effect on the detail of the environments, its just that things looked a little jaggy and less sharp.
> 2533274862233002;11:
> Anything above 720p is fine. The lowest resolution Halo 5 can drop to is 1156:810 or 810p (albeit apparently it hardly ever reaches this point, with it usually only dropping to roughly 900p). Resolution also has no effect on detail, its essentially a determination on how sharp the image is. Remember the Beta? and its pretty poor anti-aliasing? that was due to its 720p resolution, there was no effect on the detail of the environments, its just that things looked a little jaggy and less sharp.
I’m wondering how 1156810 is going to work, given that it’s not even a 169 resolution.
> 2533274823519895;12:
> > 2533274862233002;11:
> > Anything above 720p is fine. The lowest resolution Halo 5 can drop to is 1156:810 or 810p (albeit apparently it hardly ever reaches this point, with it usually only dropping to roughly 900p). Resolution also has no effect on detail, its essentially a determination on how sharp the image is. Remember the Beta? and its pretty poor anti-aliasing? that was due to its 720p resolution, there was no effect on the detail of the environments, its just that things looked a little jaggy and less sharp.
>
>
> I’m wondering how 1156810 is going to work, given that it’s not even a 169 resolution.
I’m %90 sure that Halo 2A (campaign) used a skewed resolution, I’m not entirely sure how it works, but it still certainly looked ok
also, I meant 1152:810, whoops
> 2533274908238201;6:
> > 2533274803896054;2:
> > Call me stupid but I always thought resolution was what decided detail?
>
>
> Not really. There’s also Model Detail, Lighting Detail and Texture detail to bring into account. I can run Counter-Strike 1.6 from 15 years ago in 1080p, but that doesn’t make it look like CS:GO.
>
> Take the following for example. It’s a basic high poly Halo Magnum I made in blender.
>
> Here it is in 1080.
> And again in 720.
>
> (EDIT: I say high poly, but it’s really just a basic low poly with a sub-surf modifier to make it look smoother. It’s only about 3000 vertices, but the modifier bumps it up to 200000)
>
> Resolution only determines the number of pixels rendered, the objects and textures themselves maintain their detail, you just don’t see all of it like you would in 1080.
Difference is not bad,
But, good choice, dynamic resolution.
I think it was a good decision on their part. Now we get 60 FPS and 1080p most of the time. I doubt we’ll even notice when it drops.
> 2533274908238201;6:
> > 2533274803896054;2:
> > Call me stupid but I always thought resolution was what decided detail?
>
>
> Not really. There’s also Model Detail, Lighting Detail and Texture detail to bring into account. I can run Counter-Strike 1.6 from 15 years ago in 1080p, but that doesn’t make it look like CS:GO.
>
> Take the following for example. It’s a basic high poly Halo Magnum I made in blender.
>
> Here it is in 1080.
> And again in 720.
>
> (EDIT: I say high poly, but it’s really just a basic low poly with a sub-surf modifier to make it look smoother. It’s only about 3000 vertices, but the modifier bumps it up to 200000)
>
> Resolution only determines the number of pixels rendered, the objects and textures themselves maintain their detail, you just don’t see all of it like you would in 1080.
Nice!!
I made a magnum and a plasma pistol in maya the other day.