Credits to user 'TANK U 99’for making the original post on this topic. Thought it would make an interesting poll. Would you prefer halo 5 to go the H2A route with CGI cutscenes (cool amazing visuals, but can lead to increased expectation which will ultimately disappoint you for the ingame engine gameplay) or the original in-engine cutscenes (decreased visual quality, but fluent transition from the game to cutscenes, as well as keeping IMO the wacky wonderful movement and animation style of halo rather than realistic movements just to match the realistic visuals that a CGI cutscene will make)?
I wouldn’t mind one or the other. The seamless transition is welcoming but seeing the story in CGI goodness is always neat.
I’m fine with either one of them.
Definitely CGI, in my opinion, as any chance the community gets to experience the closest thing to live-action is welcomed. The photorealism adds to the immersion.
honestly, I would love the better quality CGI over in game, but its all about the budget I suppose. I wouldn’t want them to spend a ton a money on great cutscenes and then have to make cutbacks on other things to compensate.
I’m sure they only got Blur to do Halo 2 Anniversary because putting a re-skin on a campaign is a lot cheaper than a full scale new one.
But for Halo 5 Guardians, I’m sure that the in game engine will look awesome, especially at 1080p 60 frames per second.
cgi, at least for major story cutscenes. just looks better and can be better used tell a story imo.
always activated drop shield right b4 the cutscenes in reach…
Is there an option for the in-game engine to look as good as CGI? Because I would love that. 
I wouldn’t really mind a mix of both, from what I predict the game will look just as nice as a CGI movie.
> CGI looks so much better. CGI is surperior and in-game is Yoink!.
I wouldn’t use H3 as an example because it has aged quite badly in the graphics department apart from its gorgeous lighting. Halo 4’s cinematics are a much better example of excellent transition from cutscene to gameplay and in my opinion, that’s exactly what 343 should be aiming for.
There is no need to go the CGI route as the XB1 is more than capable of rendering amazing looking character models in real-time/in-engine (e.g. Ryse, Quantum Break, BF4, etc…).
> Is there an option for the in-game engine to look as good as CGI? Because I would love that.
I guess we’re still light years away from that. Mostly because of the uncountable details in pre-rendered cgi. It’s just not possible to render this in-game.
Even though CGI certainly has its own flair, personally I still prefer in-engine cutscenes over it. I think any game where the graphical fidelity is adequate, all cutscenes should be rendered using the assets and the engine of the game. Not only does this maintain continuity between gameplay and cutscenes, but it can also allow seamless transitions between cutscenes an gameplay (although, this might not be optimal for a game with a first person view).
Nowadays with the power of modern hardware and motion capture, in-engine cutscenes can look very reasonable, so I really see no reason to fall back to CGI. Of course there is always the wow-factor, but I prefer artistic continuity over that.
> > CGI looks so much better. CGI is surperior and in-game is Yoink!.
>
> I wouldn’t use H3 as an example because it has aged quite badly in the graphics department apart from its gorgeous lighting. Halo 4’s cinematics are a much better example of excellent transition from cutscene to gameplay and in my opinion, that’s exactly what 343 should be aiming for.
>
> There is no need to go the CGI route as the XB1 is more than capable of rendering amazing looking character models in real-time/in-engine (e.g. Ryse, Quantum Break, BF4, etc…).
Yeah, I should’ve chose a more recent game, but Reach didn’t have the best cut-scenes either. Also I’ve played Ryse, but I still find CGI to just be more flawless and just better than in-game overall.
CGI it looks amazing!
if there’s the possibility, i’ll always prefer CGI over in-game engine.
Has to be CGI for me personally.
CGI is awesome but I prefer the in-game engine cutscenes.
> Even though CGI certainly has its own flair, personally I still prefer in-engine cutscenes over it. I think any game where the graphical fidelity is adequate, all cutscenes should be rendered using the assets and the engine of the game. Not only does this maintain continuity between gameplay and cutscenes, but it can also allow seamless transitions between cutscenes an gameplay (although, this might not be optimal for a game with a first person view).
>
> Nowadays with the power of modern hardware and motion capture, in-engine cutscenes can look very reasonable, so I really see no reason to fall back to CGI. Of course there is always the wow-factor, but I prefer artistic continuity over that.
Agreed. CGI looks cool but it would really take me out of the game. The transition from the game to the CGI can be really jarring.
either way, I’m fine. but I think reviewers would appreciate in-game cinematics.
Let’s let 343i show off some in-game cutscenes.
A mixture of both would be great. Similar to what Halo 4 did. Both have their benefits.
- CGI makes my eyes melt from the realism
- In-game allows me to mess with the cutscene by putting random objects in it