Halo 5 has not advanced far from Halo ce!?!

From 1986 (Super Mario bros nes) - 2001 (Halo ce) = 15 years later and a gigantic leap for video game technology.

From 2001 (Halo ce) - 2016 present (Halo5) = 15 years later and a minor move for video game technology.
I blame the advancement of technology for failing to bring us 4k in a reasonable time. 4k has been out for over 5 years now but why we don’t see it in video games yet? Because they want to milk the cow for $. And the new generation of gamers (10-25 yr age) are contributing to the holdup by accepting this and not demanding for better quality imo; because you happily allow these developers to milk you for your $ with half -Yoink- completed games, and you love it. This may seem a little harsh, but it is just ranting. if you are from this game group, please don’t take this personal and feel free to debate your perspective.

This is the reason Im not impressed with the advancement of Halo and all games in this generation. I think the younger generation of gamers just don’t understand just how far Halo ce has came based on what they don’t know and what they have not lived through in the gaming industry. Next time, think about this when you see a dinosaur gamer complain about halo.

Before reading I was going to say halo 5 went backwards…

But it’s mainly a cost not availability, compliance, or acceptance issue.

They have to compromise when making a console.
Features vs price, would people buy it…

Examples:
Xbox size? Power brick still included or the console would be huge.

Want 4k?want 1080p with high frame rate cap? Or extra features…
Than xbox one would be ~1000$~

well, back when Nintendo came out, I think we got nintendo 16 bit 480p console for around $100 and minimum wage was around $3.50 per hour, then we get the original xbox for $300, minimum wage was around $6.00. now that minimum wage is only around $8.00 in the US, game systems should cost no more than $500 with 4k resolution 120fps. imo. But instead we pay much more to get a game system (and games) that are not much more advanced than what we got 15 years ago. forgeplay, you suggest paying $1000 for 4k, then that is just another example of milking the cow for $, because based on the static=stics, it is simply not worth that much $.

> 2533274909329991;3:
> well, back when Nintendo came out, I think we got nintendo 16 bit 480p console for around $100 and minimum wage was around $3.50 per hour, then we get the original xbox for $300, minimum wage was around $6.00. now that minimum wage is only around $8.00 in the US, game systems should cost no more than $500 with 4k resolution 120fps. imo.

The NES was 8 bit and cost 200.00 (deluxe set which was pretty much standard) at launch. Most consoles these days are sold at a loss in order to achieve Market saturation so that they can sell other things accessories/subscriptions/games etc. The cost of the materials has little to do with minimum wage. The Snes was 16 bit and 199.99.

The idea that a 4k 120 FPS system should cost 500 dollars due to the minimum wage is absurd. The cost is based on the material/production/shipping/store overhead etc.

> 2533274880633045;4:
> > 2533274909329991;3:
> > well, back when Nintendo came out, I think we got nintendo 16 bit 480p console for around $100 and minimum wage was around $3.50 per hour, then we get the original xbox for $300, minimum wage was around $6.00. now that minimum wage is only around $8.00 in the US, game systems should cost no more than $500 with 4k resolution 120fps. imo.
>
>
> The NES was 8 bit and cost 200.00 (deluxe set which was pretty much standard) at launch. Most consoles these days are sold at a loss in order to achieve Market saturation so that they can sell other things accessories/subscriptions/games etc. The cost of the materials has little to do with minimum wage. The Snes was 16 bit and 199.99.

Personally, my dad just got me the Nintendo super mario/duck hunt one controller and gun on sale at Roses (old walmart) for around $89.00 in year 1989 (Christmas). but it could have been retailed for around $200 in 1985 I’m not going to refute that. but the main point is how technology has not advanced much in the last 15 years as compared to 15 years before Halo ce. this makes the progress of Halo 5 seem stagnant imo.

If you want high framerate and 4k you shouldn’t be looking at console, consoles are sold with the idea of lower price point and easy to use and mass manufactured. You can’t expect a console at $300 to $500 to perform the same as a full blown $1000- $3000 gaming rig.

Not just 4k.
But if all available hardware were considered.
The price would be high, less people would buy it.

I’m sure the processor isn’t the absolute best.

Or the type of hard drive, xbox still doesn’t use a solid state hard drive in their standard consoles.
A solid state hard drive is almost double she cost of the ones you usually find in laptops and low to lower high end computers.
(Spinning hard drives)(hdd or sshd)

Or the fact 1080p 60 fps actually pushes this “next gen” console.

They could have, used expensive hardware and made it do that with ease.
But the 399 or 499 was too much, and most people I know stayed with a 360.
Because of cost.

> 2533274909329991;5:
> > 2533274880633045;4:
> > > 2533274909329991;3:
> > > well, back when Nintendo came out, I think we got nintendo 16 bit 480p console for around $100 and minimum wage was around $3.50 per hour, then we get the original xbox for $300, minimum wage was around $6.00. now that minimum wage is only around $8.00 in the US, game systems should cost no more than $500 with 4k resolution 120fps. imo.
> >
> >
> > The NES was 8 bit and cost 200.00 (deluxe set which was pretty much standard) at launch. Most consoles these days are sold at a loss in order to achieve Market saturation so that they can sell other things accessories/subscriptions/games etc. The cost of the materials has little to do with minimum wage. The Snes was 16 bit and 199.99.
>
>
> Personally, my dad just got me the Nintendo super mario/duck hunt one controller and gun on sale at Roses (old walmart) for around $89.00 in year 1989 (Christmas). but it could have been retailed for around $200 in 1985 I’m not going to refute that. but the main point is how technology has not advanced much in the last 15 years as compared to 15 years before Halo ce. this makes Halo 5 seem stagnant imo.

Mate, Halo 5 is about 85 gigabytes of data. Every SNES game I had as a kid fits on a 2 gb flash drive with room to spare. Have you actually looked at the technical specs of the one and compared it to the original Xbox? Even using graphics as an arbitrary factor the graphics of the original xbox can’t be compared to anything produced for the one.

The storage capacity alone is a massive change. I have a 1TB portable hard drive attached to my one that cost me around 40 dollars. Compare this to the first 1 TB drive I bought which had to have its own power source/was 7 or 8 times larger/ and cost around 250 dollars. Technology certainly hasn’t stagnated in the last 15 years.

> 2533274803562826;6:
> If you want high framerate and 4k you shouldn’t be looking at console, consoles are sold with the idea of lower price point and easy to use and mass manufactured. You can’t expect a console at $300 to $500 to perform the same as a full blown $1000- $3000 gaming rig.

gaming rigs certainly throws a curveball in the picture. They would be the reason for the inflation of prices if 4k consoles would cost us $1000.

btw, based on my experience with the broadcasting industry, 4k resolution is actually not around 3000 more than 1080p, it is acually equivalent to 1220p-1500p as compared to 1080 progressive scan. They just label it “4k” to deceive consumers to think it is far more advanced than what it actually is.

trust me when I say this, the ps4 and xbox 1 is more than capable of performing as good as an 1100 dollar gaming rig. the reason we are not seeing the true potential is because limits are set on consoles to milk the cow for $.

> 2533274880633045;8:
> > 2533274909329991;5:
> > > 2533274880633045;4:
> > > > 2533274909329991;3:
> > > > well, back when Nintendo came out, I think we got nintendo 16 bit 480p console for around $100 and minimum wage was around $3.50 per hour, then we get the original xbox for $300, minimum wage was around $6.00. now that minimum wage is only around $8.00 in the US, game systems should cost no more than $500 with 4k resolution 120fps. imo.
>
>
> Mate, Halo 5 is about 85 gigabytes of data. Every SNES game I had as a kid fits on a 2 gb flash drive with room to spare. Have you actually looked at the technical specs of the one and compared it to the original Xbox? Even using graphics as an arbitrary factor the graphics of the original xbox can’t be compared to anything produced for the one.
>
> The storage capacity alone is a massive change. I have a 1TB portable hard drive attached to my one that cost me around 40 dollars. Compare this to the first 1 TB drive I bought which had to have its own power source/was 7 or 8 times larger/ and cost around 250 dollars. Technology certainly hasn’t stagnated in the last 15 years.

very interesting, so you are telling me that NES games takes up about 2gp on a cartridge and I believe halo ce takes up around 5-6 gb on the original xbox game, that is a huge leap providing an obvious improvement in game quality and visual graphics. however the 6 gb Halo ce to the nearly 100gb Halo5 should render 10k resolution and 300fps imo based on the amount of disk space it hogs.

> 2533274909329991;10:
> > 2533274880633045;8:
> > > 2533274909329991;5:
> > > > 2533274880633045;4:
> > > > > 2533274909329991;3:
> > > > > well, back when Nintendo came out, I think we got nintendo 16 bit 480p console for around $100 and minimum wage was around $3.50 per hour, then we get the original xbox for $300, minimum wage was around $6.00. now that minimum wage is only around $8.00 in the US, game systems should cost no more than $500 with 4k resolution 120fps. imo.
> >
> >
> > Mate, Halo 5 is about 85 gigabytes of data. Every SNES game I had as a kid fits on a 2 gb flash drive with room to spare. Have you actually looked at the technical specs of the one and compared it to the original Xbox? Even using graphics as an arbitrary factor the graphics of the original xbox can’t be compared to anything produced for the one.
> >
> > The storage capacity alone is a massive change. I have a 1TB portable hard drive attached to my one that cost me around 40 dollars. Compare this to the first 1 TB drive I bought which had to have its own power source/was 7 or 8 times larger/ and cost around 250 dollars. Technology certainly hasn’t stagnated in the last 15 years.
>
>
> very interesting, so you are telling me that NES takes up about 2gp on a cartridge and I believe halo ce takes up around 5-6 gb on the original xbox, that is a huge leap providing an obvious improvement in game quality and visual graphics. however the 6 gb Halo ce to the nearly 100gb Halo5 should render 10k resolution and 300fps imo based on the amount of disk space it hogs.

I’m telling you copies of every (I have a pretty good collection) SNES game I own take up less than a 1 gig of data.

Where are you getting these numbers? Do you have any knowledge of coding (I don’t), but they seem completely and utterly absurd. If they were capable of putting out a 4k console three years ago for a reasonable amount they would have, it would have put them light years ahead of Sony. We know most gaming consoles are sold at a loss these days to begin with.

There are other factors besides graphics. The sandbox is much larger than CE. There are more enemy types. There is on-line gameplay/stat tracking. The entirety of the req system. You seem to want magic and magic doesn’t exist.

> 2533274909329991;9:
> > 2533274803562826;6:
> > If you want high framerate and 4k you shouldn’t be looking at console, consoles are sold with the idea of lower price point and easy to use and mass manufactured. You can’t expect a console at $300 to $500 to perform the same as a full blown $1000- $3000 gaming rig.
>
>
> gaming rigs certainly throws a curveball in the picture. They would be the reason for the inflation of prices if 4k consoles would cost us $1000.
>
> btw, based on my experience with the broadcasting industry, 4k resolution is actually not around 3000 more than 1080p, it is acually equivalent to 1220p-1500p as compared to 1080 progressive scan. They just label it “4k” to deceive consumers to think it is far more advanced than what it actually is.
>
> trust me when I say this, the ps4 and xbox 1 is more than capable of performing as good as an 1100 dollar gaming rig. the reason we are not seeing the true potential is because limits are set on consoles to milk the cow for $.

The xbox one and ps4 are definitely not capable of running smoothly 3840x2160 (consumer 4k) unless they were running an old game upscaled but definitely not with modern day games.

The xbox one GPU is no where near powerfully enough to output anything like this with any modern game. I am a freelance 3D artist and have also been gaming in 4k for over a year and while rendering for a game is very different than rendering a Still or animation sequence I can very much confirm that you need much more powerfully hardware than the xbox currently offers.

Many things have to be taken into account when making optimization choices for game production, things like how many maps your materials use and the resolution of each texture map has to be prioritised and optimized depending on how relevant the asset is, you have to be careful with calculating lighting, choosing what post processing effects to use or not, animation frame rate, LODs, audio resolution and rendered resolution for you to display. These are all things that people designing games have to think about to try and optimized the game to run on limited memory bandwidth and processing power.

In saying that if scorpio runs true 4k not up scaled I will be very impressed but I’m extremely sceptical

Also unlike broadcasting in which you stream pre rendered content in compressed formats which requires very little on the consumers end to run games are not pre rendered and are much harder to run.

Does anyone have a valid argument to show that halo5 has made an advanced improvement in the past 15 years since halo ce, as compared to the technological improvement from the 1986 Super Mario brothers that occurred 15 years before Halo CE?

Some of you here make some good points referring to “SNES” and Gaming rigs. but I’m looking for a more a compelling argument that shows a major technological progress from Halo CE to Halo 5 in console gaming in particular.

> 2533274909329991;13:
> Does anyone have a valid argument to show that halo5 has made an advanced improvement in the past 15 years since halo ce, as compared to the technological improvement from the 1986 Super Mario brothers that occurred 15 years before Halo CE?
>
> Some of you here make some good points referring to “SNES” and Gaming rigs. but I’m looking for a more a compelling argument that shows a major technological progress from Halo CE to Halo 5 in console gaming in particular.

A visible form of advancement is graphics and even though Halo 5 has pretty poor lighting and uv mapping in some areas it has a lot of PBR materials which are part of progress. The amount of polygons we can render these days is insane compared to the original xbox and things like texture resolution and how light reflections are simulated in the metallic map to show sub surface scratches on metals like the Base walls in warzone are all example of game progression.

> 2533274803562826;14:
> > 2533274909329991;13:
> >
>
>
> A visible form of advancement is graphics and even though Halo 5 has pretty poor lighting and uv mapping in some areas it has a lot of PBR materials which are part of progress. The amount of polygons we can render these days is insane compared to the original xbox and things like texture resolution and how light reflections are simulated in the metallic map to show sub surface scratches on metals like the Base walls in warzone are all example of game progression.

If your like me and remember playing ping pong on Atari then playing super mario on the NES, you would realize an insane improvement in graphics. Also the difference from Supermario brothers to Halo CE is an insane difference in graphics. but the difference in graphics from halo ce to Halo 5 is noticeable but not as insanely greater compared to the previous.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-zfTxCRF9iOM/TbxrMpKLN8I/AAAAAAAAAHE/qyMyXtEuzas/s1600/pong.jpg

15 years later we get this

http://www.gamesdbase.com/Media/SYSTEM/Nintendo_NES/Snap/big/Super_Mario_Bros._-1985-_Nintendo.jpg

15 years later we get this…

http://download.gamezone.com/uploads/image/data/869669/halo1.jpg

now 15 years later this…

http://gamingtrend.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Halo-5-Gameplay-3-620x349.jpghalo 5 has the best graphic but do you really don’t think we should have 4k 120fps by now?

You put too much emphasis on graphics. I think developers should focus more on content and gameplay that graphics. I care even less about 4k than I do about 60fps.
Honestly if you care that much about graphics, you should be gaming on a super PC, not Xbox.

No one whould buy the game system becuase it would cost too much if it was maxed out with the latest technology. It would be like $1500. In time though it will happen, just wait like ten yeasr or so.

> 2533274909329991;13:
> Does anyone have a valid argument to show that halo5 has made an advanced improvement in the past 15 years since halo ce, as compared to the technological improvement from the 1986 Super Mario brothers that occurred 15 years before Halo CE?
>
> Some of you here make some good points referring to “SNES” and Gaming rigs. but I’m looking for a more a compelling argument that shows a major technological progress from Halo CE to Halo 5 in console gaming in particular.

Online play is a huge leap. I don’t know how recently you’ve played CE, but even the difference in graphics between classic CE and the Anniversary version is huge, so I’m not sure where you’re getting that there’s not drastic improvement in graphics.

You just can’t beat the classics. Halo 5 is a pile of crap compared to Conker’s bad fur Day. It has split screen, great respawns, not very glitchy, and is incredibly entertaining.

> 2533274968231926;16:
> You put too much emphasis on graphics. I think developers should focus more on content and gameplay that graphics. I care even less about 4k than I do about 60fps.
> Honestly if you care that much about graphics, you should be gaming on a super PC, not Xbox.

actually I game on pc xbox and ps4. My son has the gaming pc he mostly play rocket league and league of legends, those games don’t appeal to me. I always been a console game exclusive fan. the pc will never offer games as good as Halo, Forza, Gran turismo and mario imo. I will admit that these console games are more fun compared to the high graphics on pc.

xbox can’t put out the graphics? I don’t think so, I believe microsoft and sony could top the graphics on a high end pc. why don’t they? because they are being stingy and gamers from this generation are totally fine with it because they don’t know any better?