The graphics are just… Wow, plastic. I’m hoping that 343 makes it more realistic this next time around because after seeing the new BTB maps they just look plastic and wrong.
Anyone else agree?
Go back to Reach style graphics
i agree but i fel like halo 4 did the plastic look fairly well even on the 360 i think that Halo 4 actually looked better than HAlo 5 in fact just go look at hslo 4 it looks better in my opinon
For the most part, I don’t think it looks too plastic, but the BTB maps, and Forge maps in general, I agree. The screenshots they show off looks almost like an early-render, more than a fully fleshed out map. Very Odd, but I think that’s one of the prices of resolution and 60 fps. We’re seeing a drop in texture quality.
Reach was great, realistic and gritty and just beautiful to look at, I would still be playing it if my 360 didn’t crap out a year ago. As for the BTB maps the look they have is because they are forge maps, kinda lazy on 343’s part so hopefully they get some properly made one out here soon.
What’s weird is that Star Wars Battlefront runs at 60fps, looks like the most realistic game out on the market, and it features huge maps (Like, bigger than Warzone maps).
So I really don’t understand the sacrifice.
> 2533274793616507;5:
> What’s weird is that Star Wars Battlefront runs at 60fps, looks like the most realistic game out on the market, and it features huge maps (Like, bigger than Warzone maps).
> So I really don’t understand the sacrifice.
I’m not so sure I agree with that. The Beta played poorly and actually turned me off from the game.
Halo 5 doesn’t look ‘Plastic’ but it does look about the same as Halo 4. But 60fps instead of better graphics I’m down with.
Might as well just build maps with legos…
> 2533274793616507;5:
> What’s weird is that Star Wars Battlefront runs at 60fps, looks like the most realistic game out on the market, and it features huge maps (Like, bigger than Warzone maps).
> So I really don’t understand the sacrifice.
Because it has to do with the game engine. People for whatever reason believe that graphics and performance are solely dependant on the hardware. This is false. The architecture of the game engine is the most important.
On a side note:
You people cry way too much on this forum. And it’s over the most stupid things.
If by plastic you mean the stuff they have shown off for stuff like BTB, I’m pretty sure it’s an early render. I know what you mean with maps like Orion or Pegasus but I think that’s because they’re made out of the forge blocks. Any map that doesn’t have that sort of design just looks great and realistic.
Reach definitely looked more grittier and realistic. I agree. Go back to Reach stule graphics.
> 2656587637345384;8:
> On a side note:You people cry way too much on this forum. And it’s over the most stupid things.
Agreed.
I definitely agree I like more realistic vs 343i art direction, however, I will say that it makes players more visible imo. Also it’s weird to see such bizarre textures with such beautiful backdrops
I like the style of armor in reach, halo 4-5 just don’t look right to me. However I still enjoy halo 5’s customization over halo 4’s.
Armor looks like plastic, certain arena maps have plastic looking textures, forge items looks like plastic, the canvas don’t seem as textured maybe its just the forge just looks plastic. In general just is too smooth to be considered real its like we are dolls playing in a doll house. For those who think there’s 60 fps everytime everywhere are kidding themselves.
> 2533274821977927;6:
> > 2533274793616507;5:
> > What’s weird is that Star Wars Battlefront runs at 60fps, looks like the most realistic game out on the market, and it features huge maps (Like, bigger than Warzone maps).
> > So I really don’t understand the sacrifice.
>
>
> I’m not so sure I agree with that. The Beta played poorly and actually turned me off from the game.
> Halo 5 doesn’t look ‘Plastic’ but it does look about the same as Halo 4. But 60fps instead of better graphics I’m down with.
How did it play poorly? Playing on Hoth (The biggest map in the beta) it stayed a consistent 60 fps. Sometimes, when a grenade exploded in your face, it would drop to like 56 or 57, but that’s barely a dip and it only lasts for like a second. My experience, anyways. You can check out Youtube for Battlefront framerate tests.
> 2656587637345384;8:
> > 2533274793616507;5:
> > What’s weird is that Star Wars Battlefront runs at 60fps, looks like the most realistic game out on the market, and it features huge maps (Like, bigger than Warzone maps).
> > So I really don’t understand the sacrifice.
>
>
> Because it has to do with the game engine. People for whatever reason believe that graphics and performance are solely dependant on the hardware. This is false. The architecture of the game engine is the most important.
>
> On a side note:
> You people cry way too much on this forum. And it’s over the most stupid things.
True. I’ll admit I don’t know what the heck goes on when it comes to designing the game itself. All I know is that it’s possible.
> 2533274904879729;2:
> i agree but i fel like halo 4 did the plastic look fairly well even on the 360 i think that Halo 4 actually looked better than HAlo 5 in fact just go look at hslo 4 it looks better in my opinon
Halo 4 has the best quality maps , no doubt
Their goal was a solid 60fps at all times in multiplayer. One of the first things I noticed when I got on MP were the bland textures. It’s easier to render 60fps without the texture detail. To be honest, I’d rather have a smooth framerate than fancy looking maps, but that’s just me. In campaign, during the heavy battle scenes, they drop the resolution to accommodate and maintain 60fps. I’m guessing they opted for lower detail on the MP maps to avoid the resolution drop. Again, just a guess.
Reach graphics was nice.
Of course the BTB maps look “plastic” they’re just forge maps.