Hello everyone. I’m a bit disappointed to see that Halo 5 has lower resolution textures than Halo 3, Halo 4, and Halo: Reach. All these games are older, yet somehow have better textures than Halo 5. I know this is a mighty claim to make so I have provided facts and proof below.
Halo 5 has worse textures than Halo 3 (rock texture vs rock texture:) - Halo 5 has worse textures than Halo 4 (warthog texture vs warthog texture:) - Halo 5 has worse textures than Halo 4 (rock wall texture vs rock wall texture:) - Halo 5 has worse textures than Halo: Reach (ghost texture vs ghost texture: )Now that we’ve established this, we should ask what happened during development that might have lead to this. I think the reason for this is Halo 5 being 60fps so they had to compromise by lowering texture quality to get it to run that smoothly. But it’s still concerning to see the textures worse than Halo 3, a game that’s far older which makes it hard to excuse. What are your thoughts?
Things like this are far more common than you’d believe actually; I forget what the term for it is, but even games from PS1 era use this method, it just looks much better today. So, they sacrifice high quality on textures up close to put the rendering elsewhere but make the object look good enough you almost wouldn’t notice that it’s been dumbed down. The objective for scenery and objects you interact with is to make them look nice for as long as you’re paying attention, which is normally first glance.
Sure, it might feel insulting to your intelligence, but remember that this is only done so that better performance can be established where it’s needed.
> 2533274879757912;2:
> Things like this are far more common than you’d believe actually; I forget what the term for it is, but even games from PS1 era use this method, it just looks much better today. So, they sacrifice high quality on textures up close to put the rendering elsewhere but make the object look good enough you almost wouldn’t notice that it’s been dumbed down. The objective for scenery and objects you interact with is to make them look nice for as long as you’re paying attention, which is normally first glance.
>
> Sure, it might feel insulting to your intelligence, but remember that this is only done so that better performance can be established where it’s needed.
Unfortunately for me and many others, a lot of the textures are very noticeable like I can’t unsee how bland the textures are. I get that they pushed for performance over quality but it just looks so bad to me personally.
> 2535449665894532;3:
> > 2533274879757912;2:
> > Things like this are far more common than you’d believe actually; I forget what the term for it is, but even games from PS1 era use this method, it just looks much better today. So, they sacrifice high quality on textures up close to put the rendering elsewhere but make the object look good enough you almost wouldn’t notice that it’s been dumbed down. The objective for scenery and objects you interact with is to make them look nice for as long as you’re paying attention, which is normally first glance.
> >
> > Sure, it might feel insulting to your intelligence, but remember that this is only done so that better performance can be established where it’s needed.
>
> Unfortunately for me and many others, a lot of the textures are very noticeable like I can’t unsee how bland the textures are. I get that they pushed for performance over quality but it just looks so bad to me personally.
Yeah, that’s always a problem; when it doesn’t come out as good as probably intended, making it super noticeable.
People say that games on PC have better textures than Xbox and PS. I don’t know if this is true because I play Xbox games but my long distance best friend begs to differ.
As much as they brag about the power of the Xbox One X, this shouldn’t be an issue. I’m hoping this is corrected in Halo Infinite. I’m pretty nit picky on a lot of things concerning graphics, and the textures in Halo 5 are just disappointing in my opinion.
> 2535472078650080;5:
> People say that games on PC have better textures than Xbox and PS. I don’t know if this is true because I play Xbox games but my long distance best friend begs to differ.
I play Skyrim on PC and Xbox, don’t know if it’s just my eyes, but there’s barely any real difference in my opinion.
> 2533274879757912;2:
> Things like this are far more common than you’d believe actually; I forget what the term for it is, but even games from PS1 era use this method, it just looks much better today. So, they sacrifice high quality on textures up close to put the rendering elsewhere but make the object look good enough you almost wouldn’t notice that it’s been dumbed down. The objective for scenery and objects you interact with is to make them look nice for as long as you’re paying attention, which is normally first glance.
>
> Sure, it might feel insulting to your intelligence, but remember that this is only done so that better performance can be established where it’s needed.
Yeah, it’s weird that older games do textures better in some ways. On the bright side it seems like Halo Infinite will do a good job on close up textures too.
> 2535419587718390;10:
> > 2535428114126255;9:
> > Most of the time you never notice something like this, but once you do, you just can’t unsee it.
>
> I find it to be really noticeable in warzone especially
Warzone maps are for the majority based in natural terrain, which are without a doubt the worst type of textures in this game.