I'd rather Halo 5 be 30fps if it means better GFX

Games Halo 5: Guardians
1

60 FPS is nice, it makes gameplay smoother. But it puts limitations on the native resolution as well as the GFX/graphics (polygons, textures, lighting).

60fps and 1080p has put alot of pressure on next gen devs, and I blame the PS4 and Xbox One creators for not making the consoles powerful enough. All they needed to do was make the consoles twice as big and we would have 2x the processors, and 2x everything… alright, I probably sound like a dumb donkey right now by saying that as I don’t know how computers work, and maybe they didn’t do that for economic reasons.
Getting back on track,
after seeing how beautiful Uncharted 4 looks, I honestly feel that Halo 5 should drop the 60 fps and go for 30fps. At least for the campaign.

Halo’s campaign isn’t really about difficulty (sure legendary is hard, but 343i and bungie always focused on balancing and skill more in the multiplayer than the campaign). Halo’s campaigns are about the experience. And I was hoping that Halo on next gen (2015 Halo 5 Guardians Xbox One) would have in game graphics as good as (or close too as good as) Halo Wars’ pre rendered CGI Cutscenes. Uncharted 4’s in game graphics are as good as Halo Wars cutscenes (That means next gen CAN run in game graphics as good as CGI from 2009). The issue is at 60 fps, CGI esque visuals are hard to achieve. I’d rather Halo 5 drop to 30fps If it means I get to walk through a world with Halo Wars quality visuals. For the campaign at least. 60 fps matters more to the multiplayer because the smootheness can make a difference with the skill gaps and all that jazz.

If Halo 5 Guardians cuts back from 60fps to 30fps, we could have graphics as good as Halo Wars I bet. CGI quality in game graphics can be possible, Uncharted 4 can do it (the Xbox One is only a bit weaker than the PS4). Halo 4’s first and last cutscene used pre rendered CGI for the cutscenes, and only looks slightly better than Halo 4’s in game cutscenes. Graphics are catching up! If a last gen game like Halo 4 (xbox 360) had cutscenes almost as good as CGI, surely a next gen game like Halo 5 Guardians (xbox one) can pull it off. Only thing holding it back is the 60fps. I understand that CGI will always be ahead of in game graphics as CGI is pre rendered. But by now, in next gen, xbox one. I hope Halo 5’s graphics are as good as CGI from 2009 (right now it’s 2015).

Uncharted 4’s in game graphics are as good as 2009 quality CGI.

The Xbox one is only slightly weaker than the PS4, so I expect Halo 5’s in game graphics and cutscenes to look as good as Halo Wars’s CGI.
PS4 can pull of CGI quality in game graphics, Xbox One should too.

Furthermore, Halo on Xbox One currently has some CGI quality elements. The Halo ring on the background of Zenith is in game and looks as good as CGI. And the Halo 5 spartans (not the ugly ones we saw in the beta) look CGI quality, hopefully their final models look that good.

What ever happens, I’ll be alright as long as Halo 5 has NO LOW RES TEXTURES. I swear to god if I see one more low res texture on Xbox One (next gen), I’m gonna snap. Low resolution (blurry) textures should be a thing of the past! Halo 4 was filled with low res textures, while Halo 3 and Reach on the other hand barely had any…

2

I disagree wholeheartedly. I prefer 60 fps and lower native res. When you look at comparisons between 900p and 1080p there’s hardly a difference unless you have a large TV and sit a certain distance away from it. 30 and 60 fps though is usually pretty obvious.

Halo 4 had to use low res textures because it pushed the 360 to the limit as it was. Of they didn’t use those textures the console probably would have overheated or burnt out.

Also pulling off CG quality graphics has its limitations. The Order looks beautiful, but you can tell where they sacrificed certain parts if the graphics if you look closely and the gameplay has suffered as a result. Ryse is probably the best example of great graphics with pretty decent gameplay on the Xbox.

Halo is an fps game and I’d rather have the gameplay be good first because that’s what the game is primarily…a game.

Getting Halo wars level CGI in game is also impossible. No machine can possibly continually render that kind of graphics in real time. All that stuff is pre-rendered. That’s like expecting games to be able to run H2A cutscenes as gameplay. Rendering that much detail in real time would leave even a monstrous rig chugging. The game CGI is possible because it is rendered in engine. Also there’s a clear difference between Uncharted 4’s CGI and gameplay so I don’t know where you’re getting that stuff from.

Let’s be a little more down to earth with our expectations now shall we?

3

Yeah, no, absolutely not. 60FPS should be the priority in both campaign and multiplayer. Gameplay should always triumph over graphics.

Whatever the reason was, whether the last gen went on for to long or the developers simply wanted the consoles to be very economical, the current consoles are not equipped to deliver 1080P and 60FPS while also having all the bells and whistles to really make them stand out from last gen.

Gameplay matters just as much in campaign as it does in multiplayer and 60FPS is better for gameplay. There is precisely 0 chance of creating Halo Wars quality graphics in real time, 30fps or otherwise. I thought this was explained to you in the last thread.

Uncharted 4 does not look as good as Halo Wars CGI, it simply doesn’t. If you are going to try and make that argument link actual gameplay. Uncharted 4 definitely looks good, but it absolutely doesn’t look like anything close to ‘CGI’ quality. Your expectations are not based in reality when it comes to graphics.

It boggles my mind you can complain about low res textures and then say that the virtually texture less renders we were initially given of Halo 5 armors looks good. They are shiny and nothing else. Linking clearly misleading low res pictures does not help your case.

4

Absolutely 110% no to 30 fps. Gameplay > graphics and that means FPS > textures/resolution.

5

> 2533274819446242;3:
> It boggles my mind you can complain about low res textures and then say that the virtually texture less renders we were initially given of Halo 5 armors looks good. They are shiny and nothing else. Linking clearly misleading low res pictures does not help your case.

What?!

Those spartans are high res, and the shinyness shows how good the lighting is. They are not very textured sure, but by no means are they low res.

This is low res. Low res means blury textures at an inappropriate viewing distance. That picture I linked, the textures look fine from a distance, but when your in first person and see them close up it looks blury.

There should be no low res on xbox one.

6

> 2533274913936758;4:
> Absolutely 110% no to 30 fps. Gameplay > graphics and that means FPS > textures/resolution.

I want to see next gen focus on graphics. Xbox One gameplay capabilities are exactly the same as Xbox 360 gameplay capabilities. The controler is exactly the same. But the graphical capabilities have so much potential.

Yes Gameplay > Graphics, but I miss the days when Halo 2 and Halo 3’s graphics were so good for its time and everyones jaws dropped :confused:

7

> 2533274831961512;2:
> I disagree wholeheartedly. I prefer 60 fps and lower native res. When you look at comparisons between 900p and 1080p there’s hardly a difference unless you have a large TV and sit a certain distance away from it. 30 and 60 fps though is usually pretty obvious.
>
> Halo 4 had to use low res textures because it pushed the 360 to the limit as it was. Of they didn’t use those textures the console probably would have overheated or burnt out.
>
> Also pulling off CG quality graphics has its limitations. The Order looks beautiful, but you can tell where they sacrificed certain parts if the graphics if you look closely and the gameplay has suffered as a result. Ryse is probably the best example of great graphics with pretty decent gameplay on the Xbox.
>
> Halo is an fps game and I’d rather have the gameplay be good first because that’s what the game is primarily…a game.
>
> Getting Halo wars level CGI in game is also impossible. No machine can possibly continually render that kind of graphics in real time. All that stuff is pre-rendered. That’s like expecting games to be able to run H2A cutscenes as gameplay. Rendering that much detail in real time would leave even a monstrous rig chugging. The game CGI is possible because it is rendered in engine. Also there’s a clear difference between Uncharted 4’s CGI and gameplay so I don’t know where you’re getting that stuff from.
>
> Let’s be a little more down to earth with our expectations now shall we?

you are right, I am being unrealistic :s
Except for one thing…

IT IS ABSOLUTELY UNACCEPTABLE FOR LOW RES (BLURRY TEXTURES) TO EXIST IN NEXT GEN (XBOX ONE).

Halo 4’s low res is forgivable as it was on last gen…

8

> 2533274952179659;5:
> > 2533274819446242;3:
> > It boggles my mind you can complain about low res textures and then say that the virtually texture less renders we were initially given of Halo 5 armors looks good. They are shiny and nothing else. Linking clearly misleading low res pictures does not help your case.
>
>
>
> What?!
>
> Those spartans are high res, and the shinyness shows how good the lighting is. They are not very textured sure, but by no means are they low res.
>
> This is low res. Low res means blury textures at an inappropriate viewing distance. That picture I linked, the textures look fine from a distance, but when your in first person and see them close up it looks blury.
>
> There should be no low res on xbox one.

OMG THE FLOOR IS A LITTLE BLURRY! BETTER DROP FPS TO 30!

Are you serious? You go around staring at the floor looking for pixels? This is ruining your immersion and making you grab a torch and pitchfork and make the argument that we should damage gameplay to increase some useless shininess for your visual appeal?

Have you ever actually switched from 60 FPS to 30 and not gotten a bad taste in your mouth for how bad 30 is? Frankly, the visual enhancement from 60 alone is worth 10x more than going from 900p to 1080p due to the smooth, realistic flow of the game instead of the obviously manufactured look of 30 FPS. And the difference between 900 and 1080 is neglibible in most cases.

The absolute most I would sacrifice is 1080 for 50 FPS. Nothing lower. 30 is 100% completely unacceptable.

Seriously dude. Buy a PC if you want 1080p on 60 FPS. I have and it’s awesome. But let’s not create delusions about what the pathetic next gen consoles are and aren’t capable of.

9

> 2533274913936758;8:
> > 2533274952179659;5:
> > > 2533274819446242;3:
> > > It boggles my mind you can complain about low res textures and then say that the virtually texture less renders we were initially given of Halo 5 armors looks good. They are shiny and nothing else. Linking clearly misleading low res pictures does not help your case.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > What?!
> >
> > Those spartans are high res, and the shinyness shows how good the lighting is. They are not very textured sure, but by no means are they low res.
> >
> > This is low res. Low res means blury textures at an inappropriate viewing distance. That picture I linked, the textures look fine from a distance, but when your in first person and see them close up it looks blury.
> >
> > There should be no low res on xbox one.
>
>
> OMG THE FLOOR IS A LITTLE BLURRY! BETTER DROP FPS TO 30!
>
> Are you serious? You go around staring at the floor looking for pixels? This is ruining your immersion and making you grab a torch and pitchfork and make the argument that we should damage gameplay to increase some useless shininess for your visual appeal?
>
> Have you ever actually switched from 60 FPS to 30 and not gotten a bad taste in your mouth for how bad 30 is? Frankly, the visual enhancement from 60 alone is worth 10x more than going from 900p to 1080p due to the smooth, realistic flow of the game instead of the obviously manufactured look of 30 FPS. And the difference between 900 and 1080 is neglibible in most cases.
>
> The absolute most I would sacrifice is 1080 for 50 FPS. Nothing lower. 30 is 100% completely unacceptable.
>
> Seriously dude. Buy a PC if you want 1080p on 60 FPS. I have and it’s awesome. But let’s not create delusions about what the pathetic next gen consoles are and aren’t capable of.

OMG THE FRAME RATE IS A LITTLE LOW! BETTER BLURRY UP THE TEXTURES!

You say 30 FPS is unacceptable
I say blurry textures are unacceptable

You say To-may-toe

I say To-mah-toe

10

> 2533274952179659;9:
> > 2533274913936758;8:
> > > 2533274952179659;5:
> > > > 2533274819446242;3:
> > > > It boggles my mind you can complain about low res textures and then say that the virtually texture less renders we were initially given of Halo 5 armors looks good. They are shiny and nothing else. Linking clearly misleading low res pictures does not help your case.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > What?!
> > >
> > > Those spartans are high res, and the shinyness shows how good the lighting is. They are not very textured sure, but by no means are they low res.
> > >
> > > This is low res. Low res means blury textures at an inappropriate viewing distance. That picture I linked, the textures look fine from a distance, but when your in first person and see them close up it looks blury.
> > >
> > > There should be no low res on xbox one.
> >
> >
> >
> > OMG THE FLOOR IS A LITTLE BLURRY! BETTER DROP FPS TO 30!
> >
> > Are you serious? You go around staring at the floor looking for pixels? This is ruining your immersion and making you grab a torch and pitchfork and make the argument that we should damage gameplay to increase some useless shininess for your visual appeal?
> >
> > Have you ever actually switched from 60 FPS to 30 and not gotten a bad taste in your mouth for how bad 30 is? Frankly, the visual enhancement from 60 alone is worth 10x more than going from 900p to 1080p due to the smooth, realistic flow of the game instead of the obviously manufactured look of 30 FPS. And the difference between 900 and 1080 is neglibible in most cases.
> >
> > The absolute most I would sacrifice is 1080 for 50 FPS. Nothing lower. 30 is 100% completely unacceptable.
> >
> > Seriously dude. Buy a PC if you want 1080p on 60 FPS. I have and it’s awesome. But let’s not create delusions about what the pathetic next gen consoles are and aren’t capable of.
>
>
> OMG THE FRAME RATE IS A LITTLE LOW! BETTER BLURRY UP THE TEXTURES!
>
> You say 30 FPS is unacceptable
> I say blurry textures are unacceptable
>
> You say To-may-toe
>
> I say To-mah-toe

And your best argument is “because yay shiny”. You don’t understand hardware specs, you don’t understand the difference between 30 and 60 FPS, you don’t understand the difference between 900 and 1080p (at ALL) and you don’t understand that you’re asking to sacrifice gameplay for a negligible increase in textures.

This is not a matter of opinion. You are WRONG on this.

11

Looking back at Halo Wars cut-scenes, they’re obviously not top-notch (even for the time) in any way or form. They’re especially lacking in skin-detail and texture resolution. But at the same time, there are some very high fidelity polygon meshes that would be impossible in real-time even today. In some ways, the trailer for Uncharted 4 looks better (the aforementioned skin detail), but in other ways, it looks worse (polygon meshes). But the real reason the Uncharted 4 trailer looks at all like CGI is because it is CGI. It’s not rendered in real-time.

If you look at actual gameplay from Uncharted 4, it looks much more like you’d expect a game rendered in real-time to look. It’s far from the quality of the trailer, and even further from what could be accomplished with offline rendering six years ago. But that’s to be expected, because offline rendering can have thousands of times more rendering time per frame than real-time rendering, and graphics processing technology just hasn’t evolved fast enough to catch that.

Neither PS4 nor Xbox One is a rendering powerhouse. In terms of power, both are fairly mediocre computers which are getting quickly caught up by mobile devices. And this means that compromises have to be made. For a more cinematic third person shooter game like Uncharted, 30 fps might be an acceptable compromise. But for a fast paced first person shooter like Halo it’s not. For a fast paced first person shooter that’s arguably primarily about multiplayer, it’s crucial that the gameplay experience is both smooth and responsive.

When it comes to texture resolution, don’t hold your breath. You need a really high resolution for textures to look good close-by, and for storing and accessing those textures, you need lots of bandwidth and lots of memory, and I don’t know whether either of the consoles has enough of them.

12

> 2533274913936758;10:
> > 2533274952179659;9:
> > > 2533274913936758;8:
> > > > 2533274952179659;5:
> > > > > 2533274819446242;3:
> > > > > It boggles my mind you can complain about low res textures and then say that the virtually texture less renders we were initially given of Halo 5 armors looks good. They are shiny and nothing else. Linking clearly misleading low res pictures does not help your case.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > What?!
> > > >
> > > > Those spartans are high res, and the shinyness shows how good the lighting is. They are not very textured sure, but by no means are they low res.
> > > >
> > > > This is low res. Low res means blury textures at an inappropriate viewing distance. That picture I linked, the textures look fine from a distance, but when your in first person and see them close up it looks blury.
> > > >
> > > > There should be no low res on xbox one.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > OMG THE FLOOR IS A LITTLE BLURRY! BETTER DROP FPS TO 30!
> > >
> > > Are you serious? You go around staring at the floor looking for pixels? This is ruining your immersion and making you grab a torch and pitchfork and make the argument that we should damage gameplay to increase some useless shininess for your visual appeal?
> > >
> > > Have you ever actually switched from 60 FPS to 30 and not gotten a bad taste in your mouth for how bad 30 is? Frankly, the visual enhancement from 60 alone is worth 10x more than going from 900p to 1080p due to the smooth, realistic flow of the game instead of the obviously manufactured look of 30 FPS. And the difference between 900 and 1080 is neglibible in most cases.
> > >
> > > The absolute most I would sacrifice is 1080 for 50 FPS. Nothing lower. 30 is 100% completely unacceptable.
> > >
> > > Seriously dude. Buy a PC if you want 1080p on 60 FPS. I have and it’s awesome. But let’s not create delusions about what the pathetic next gen consoles are and aren’t capable of.
> >
> >
> >
> > OMG THE FRAME RATE IS A LITTLE LOW! BETTER BLURRY UP THE TEXTURES!
> >
> > You say 30 FPS is unacceptable
> > I say blurry textures are unacceptable
> >
> > You say To-may-toe
> >
> > I say To-mah-toe
>
>
> And your best argument is “because yay shiny”. You don’t understand hardware specs, you don’t understand the difference between 30 and 60 FPS, you don’t understand the difference between 900 and 1080p (at ALL) and you don’t understand that you’re asking to sacrifice gameplay for a negligible increase in textures.
>
> This is not a matter of opinion. You are WRONG on this.

720p is 1280x720

900p is1600×900

1080p is 1920x1080

The higher the resolution the sharper.

The better the graphics, the lower the frame rate (preformance). I prefer pretty visuals to preformance.

Even when I’m gaming on a crappy PC, I max out the graphics and play at 20fps.

I know how this stuff works, it is a matter of opinion.

OKAY MR.MACARONI?

13

> 2533274825830455;11:
> Looking back at Halo Wars cut-scenes, they’re obviously not top-notch (even for the time) in any way or form. They’re especially lacking in skin-detail and texture resolution. But at the same time, there are some very high fidelity polygon meshes that would be impossible in real-time even today. In some ways, the trailer for Uncharted 4 looks better (the aforementioned skin detail), but in other ways, it looks worse (polygon meshes). But the real reason the Uncharted 4 trailer looks at all like CGI is because it is CGI. It’s not rendered in real-time.
>
> If you look at actual gameplay from Uncharted 4, it looks much more like you’d expect a game rendered in real-time to look. It’s far from the quality of the trailer, and even further from what could be accomplished with offline rendering six years ago. But that’s to be expected, because offline rendering can have thousands of times more rendering time per frame than real-time rendering, and graphics processing technology just hasn’t evolved fast enough to catch that.
>
> Neither PS4 nor Xbox One is a rendering powerhouse. In terms of power, both are fairly mediocre computers which are getting quickly caught up by mobile devices. And this means that compromises have to be made. For a more cinematic third person shooter game like Uncharted, 30 fps might be an acceptable compromise. But for a fast paced first person shooter like Halo it’s not. For a fast paced first person shooter that’s arguably primarily about multiplayer, it’s crucial that the gameplay experience is both smooth and responsive.
>
> When it comes to texture resolution, don’t hold your breath. You need a really high resolution for textures to look good close-by, and for storing and accessing those textures, you need lots of bandwidth and lots of memory, and I don’t know whether either of the consoles has enough of them.

so… that trailer lied… EVERYONE SAID THAT IT WAS IN GAME FOOTAGE RENDERED IN REAL TIME!

Uncharted 4 lied to me!

14

> 2533274825830455;11:
> Looking back at Halo Wars cut-scenes, they’re obviously not top-notch (even for the time) in any way or form. They’re especially lacking in skin-detail and texture resolution. But at the same time, there are some very high fidelity polygon meshes that would be impossible in real-time even today. In some ways, the trailer for Uncharted 4 looks better (the aforementioned skin detail), but in other ways, it looks worse (polygon meshes). But the real reason the Uncharted 4 trailer looks at all like CGI is because it is CGI. It’s not rendered in real-time.
>
> If you look at actual gameplay from Uncharted 4, it looks much more like you’d expect a game rendered in real-time to look. It’s far from the quality of the trailer, and even further from what could be accomplished with offline rendering six years ago. But that’s to be expected, because offline rendering can have thousands of times more rendering time per frame than real-time rendering, and graphics processing technology just hasn’t evolved fast enough to catch that.
>
> Neither PS4 nor Xbox One is a rendering powerhouse. In terms of power, both are fairly mediocre computers which are getting quickly caught up by mobile devices. And this means that compromises have to be made. For a more cinematic third person shooter game like Uncharted, 30 fps might be an acceptable compromise. But for a fast paced first person shooter like Halo it’s not. For a fast paced first person shooter that’s arguably primarily about multiplayer, it’s crucial that the gameplay experience is both smooth and responsive.
>
> When it comes to texture resolution, don’t hold your breath. You need a really high resolution for textures to look good close-by, and for storing and accessing those textures, you need lots of bandwidth and lots of memory, and I don’t know whether either of the consoles has enough of them.

you are my favorite response. Because you disagreed with me, but you were nice about it :slight_smile:
Although I have to argue Halo is just as much about Campaign as Multiplayer. And the cutscenes are very cinematic, even the gameplay. Remember that beautiful vista in Halo 4 on requiem when you exit the wreckage? Or looking at the water in Silent Cartographer (anniversary). Or looking at the Halo ring when you first land on it?

15

Am I the only one that hates 60fps? I just don’t feel like it adds much to the experience. Plus when I do split-screen with my brother everything goes to -Yoink-. Just make it 30fps again. I prefer it that way.

16

> 2533274952179659;12:
> > 2533274913936758;10:
> > > 2533274952179659;9:
> > > > 2533274913936758;8:
> > > > > 2533274952179659;5:
> > > > > > 2533274819446242;3:
> > > > > > It boggles my mind you can complain about low res textures and then say that the virtually texture less renders we were initially given of Halo 5 armors looks good. They are shiny and nothing else. Linking clearly misleading low res pictures does not help your case.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > What?!
> > > > >
> > > > > Those spartans are high res, and the shinyness shows how good the lighting is. They are not very textured sure, but by no means are they low res.
> > > > >
> > > > > This is low res. Low res means blury textures at an inappropriate viewing distance. That picture I linked, the textures look fine from a distance, but when your in first person and see them close up it looks blury.
> > > > >
> > > > > There should be no low res on xbox one.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > OMG THE FLOOR IS A LITTLE BLURRY! BETTER DROP FPS TO 30!
> > > >
> > > > Are you serious? You go around staring at the floor looking for pixels? This is ruining your immersion and making you grab a torch and pitchfork and make the argument that we should damage gameplay to increase some useless shininess for your visual appeal?
> > > >
> > > > Have you ever actually switched from 60 FPS to 30 and not gotten a bad taste in your mouth for how bad 30 is? Frankly, the visual enhancement from 60 alone is worth 10x more than going from 900p to 1080p due to the smooth, realistic flow of the game instead of the obviously manufactured look of 30 FPS. And the difference between 900 and 1080 is neglibible in most cases.
> > > >
> > > > The absolute most I would sacrifice is 1080 for 50 FPS. Nothing lower. 30 is 100% completely unacceptable.
> > > >
> > > > Seriously dude. Buy a PC if you want 1080p on 60 FPS. I have and it’s awesome. But let’s not create delusions about what the pathetic next gen consoles are and aren’t capable of.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > OMG THE FRAME RATE IS A LITTLE LOW! BETTER BLURRY UP THE TEXTURES!
> > >
> > > You say 30 FPS is unacceptable
> > > I say blurry textures are unacceptable
> > >
> > > You say To-may-toe
> > >
> > > I say To-mah-toe
> >
> >
> >
> > And your best argument is “because yay shiny”. You don’t understand hardware specs, you don’t understand the difference between 30 and 60 FPS, you don’t understand the difference between 900 and 1080p (at ALL) and you don’t understand that you’re asking to sacrifice gameplay for a negligible increase in textures.
> >
> > This is not a matter of opinion. You are WRONG on this.
>
>
> 720p is 1280x720
>
> 900p is1600×900
>
> 1080p is 1920x1080
>
> The higher the resolution the sharper.
>
> The better the graphics, the lower the frame rate (preformance). I prefer pretty visuals to preformance.
>
> Even when I’m gaming on a crappy PC, I max out the graphics and play at 20fps.
>
> I know how this stuff works, it is a matter of opinion.
>
> OKAY MR.MACARONI?

No. Higher resolution is not automatically sharper. It’s merely more pixels. If those pixels are the same as they were going to be on a lower resolution then nothing is gained. It also matters which tv/monitor size you’re dealing with to determine if you notice anything at all. Of course, let’s just drop the FPS for all those who aren’t playing on large tvs just so you can look at high resolution dirt textures.

Play an RPG if you want 1080. Halo is a multiplayer shooter and the framerate is far more important than a slightly higher pixel density. Right now the standard for shooters is having higher framerates for gameplay purposes instead of shiny things to look at and for good reason.

As for playing on max graphics on 20 fps…well that’s your choice. But I’d check myself into a mental institute if I were you because 20 FPS is physically painful.
https://frames-per-second.appspot.com/

17

> 2533274913936758;16:
> > 2533274952179659;12:
> > > 2533274913936758;10:
> > > > 2533274952179659;9:
> > > > > 2533274913936758;8:
> > > > > > 2533274952179659;5:
> > > > > > > 2533274819446242;3:
> > > > > > > It boggles my mind you can complain about low res textures and then say that the virtually texture less renders we were initially given of Halo 5 armors looks good. They are shiny and nothing else. Linking clearly misleading low res pictures does not help your case.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What?!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Those spartans are high res, and the shinyness shows how good the lighting is. They are not very textured sure, but by no means are they low res.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This is low res. Low res means blury textures at an inappropriate viewing distance. That picture I linked, the textures look fine from a distance, but when your in first person and see them close up it looks blury.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > There should be no low res on xbox one.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > OMG THE FLOOR IS A LITTLE BLURRY! BETTER DROP FPS TO 30!
> > > > >
> > > > > Are you serious? You go around staring at the floor looking for pixels? This is ruining your immersion and making you grab a torch and pitchfork and make the argument that we should damage gameplay to increase some useless shininess for your visual appeal?
> > > > >
> > > > > Have you ever actually switched from 60 FPS to 30 and not gotten a bad taste in your mouth for how bad 30 is? Frankly, the visual enhancement from 60 alone is worth 10x more than going from 900p to 1080p due to the smooth, realistic flow of the game instead of the obviously manufactured look of 30 FPS. And the difference between 900 and 1080 is neglibible in most cases.
> > > > >
> > > > > The absolute most I would sacrifice is 1080 for 50 FPS. Nothing lower. 30 is 100% completely unacceptable.
> > > > >
> > > > > Seriously dude. Buy a PC if you want 1080p on 60 FPS. I have and it’s awesome. But let’s not create delusions about what the pathetic next gen consoles are and aren’t capable of.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > OMG THE FRAME RATE IS A LITTLE LOW! BETTER BLURRY UP THE TEXTURES!
> > > >
> > > > You say 30 FPS is unacceptable
> > > > I say blurry textures are unacceptable
> > > >
> > > > You say To-may-toe
> > > >
> > > > I say To-mah-toe
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > And your best argument is “because yay shiny”. You don’t understand hardware specs, you don’t understand the difference between 30 and 60 FPS, you don’t understand the difference between 900 and 1080p (at ALL) and you don’t understand that you’re asking to sacrifice gameplay for a negligible increase in textures.
> > >
> > > This is not a matter of opinion. You are WRONG on this.
> >
> >
> >
> > 720p is 1280x720
> >
> > 900p is1600×900
> >
> > 1080p is 1920x1080
> >
> > The higher the resolution the sharper.
> >
> > The better the graphics, the lower the frame rate (preformance). I prefer pretty visuals to preformance.
> >
> > Even when I’m gaming on a crappy PC, I max out the graphics and play at 20fps.
> >
> > I know how this stuff works, it is a matter of opinion.
> >
> > OKAY MR.MACARONI?
>
>
> No. Higher resolution is not automatically sharper. It’s merely more pixels. If those pixels are the same as they were going to be on a lower resolution then nothing is gained. It also matters which tv/monitor size you’re dealing with to determine if you notice anything at all. Of course, let’s just drop the FPS for all those who aren’t playing on large tvs just so you can look at high resolution dirt textures.
>
> Play an RPG if you want 1080. Halo is a multiplayer shooter and the framerate is far more important than a slightly higher pixel density. Right now the standard for shooters is having higher framerates for gameplay purposes instead of shiny things to look at and for good reason.
>
> As for playing on max graphics on 20 fps…well that’s your choice. But I’d check myself into a mental institute if I were you because 20 FPS is physically painful.
> https://frames-per-second.appspot.com/

Halo isn’t a multiplayer shooter. The campaign is just as important as the multiplayer. Why do you think the emphasis of the franchize outside of the games is on lore, books. In Halo 1, the campaign was the core experience. I feel that better graphics make the campaign mor enjoyable than smoother gameplay. But thats just me, sorrrraaaaaay for disagreeing!

18

> 2533274952179659;5:
> > 2533274819446242;3:
> > It boggles my mind you can complain about low res textures and then say that the virtually texture less renders we were initially given of Halo 5 armors looks good. They are shiny and nothing else. Linking clearly misleading low res pictures does not help your case.
>
>
> What?!
>
> Those spartans are high res, and the shinyness shows how good the lighting is. They are not very textured sure, but by no means are they low res.
>
> This is low res. Low res means blury textures at an inappropriate viewing distance. That picture I linked, the textures look fine from a distance, but when your in first person and see them close up it looks blury.
>
> There should be no low res on xbox one.

Notice I didn’t say they were low res. They practically had no textures at all. They were basically one step above the white-gray model by adding some colors.

The models look great, the textures look terrible. The low res picture I was referring to was the picture of the Halo 5 endgame where the picture is stretched and blurry and not representative of the actual game.

19

> 2533274952179659;17:
> > 2533274913936758;16:
> > > 2533274952179659;12:
> > > > 2533274913936758;10:
> > > > > 2533274952179659;9:
> > > > > > 2533274913936758;8:
> > > > > > > 2533274952179659;5:
> > > > > > > > 2533274819446242;3:
> > > > > > > > It boggles my mind you can complain about low res textures and then say that the virtually texture less renders we were initially given of Halo 5 armors looks good. They are shiny and nothing else. Linking clearly misleading low res pictures does not help your case.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > What?!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Those spartans are high res, and the shinyness shows how good the lighting is. They are not very textured sure, but by no means are they low res.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > This is low res. Low res means blury textures at an inappropriate viewing distance. That picture I linked, the textures look fine from a distance, but when your in first person and see them close up it looks blury.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > There should be no low res on xbox one.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > OMG THE FLOOR IS A LITTLE BLURRY! BETTER DROP FPS TO 30!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Are you serious? You go around staring at the floor looking for pixels? This is ruining your immersion and making you grab a torch and pitchfork and make the argument that we should damage gameplay to increase some useless shininess for your visual appeal?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Have you ever actually switched from 60 FPS to 30 and not gotten a bad taste in your mouth for how bad 30 is? Frankly, the visual enhancement from 60 alone is worth 10x more than going from 900p to 1080p due to the smooth, realistic flow of the game instead of the obviously manufactured look of 30 FPS. And the difference between 900 and 1080 is neglibible in most cases.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The absolute most I would sacrifice is 1080 for 50 FPS. Nothing lower. 30 is 100% completely unacceptable.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Seriously dude. Buy a PC if you want 1080p on 60 FPS. I have and it’s awesome. But let’s not create delusions about what the pathetic next gen consoles are and aren’t capable of.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > OMG THE FRAME RATE IS A LITTLE LOW! BETTER BLURRY UP THE TEXTURES!
> > > > >
> > > > > You say 30 FPS is unacceptable
> > > > > I say blurry textures are unacceptable
> > > > >
> > > > > You say To-may-toe
> > > > >
> > > > > I say To-mah-toe
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > And your best argument is “because yay shiny”. You don’t understand hardware specs, you don’t understand the difference between 30 and 60 FPS, you don’t understand the difference between 900 and 1080p (at ALL) and you don’t understand that you’re asking to sacrifice gameplay for a negligible increase in textures.
> > > >
> > > > This is not a matter of opinion. You are WRONG on this.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 720p is 1280x720
> > >
> > > 900p is1600×900
> > >
> > > 1080p is 1920x1080
> > >
> > > The higher the resolution the sharper.
> > >
> > > The better the graphics, the lower the frame rate (preformance). I prefer pretty visuals to preformance.
> > >
> > > Even when I’m gaming on a crappy PC, I max out the graphics and play at 20fps.
> > >
> > > I know how this stuff works, it is a matter of opinion.
> > >
> > > OKAY MR.MACARONI?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > No. Higher resolution is not automatically sharper. It’s merely more pixels. If those pixels are the same as they were going to be on a lower resolution then nothing is gained. It also matters which tv/monitor size you’re dealing with to determine if you notice anything at all. Of course, let’s just drop the FPS for all those who aren’t playing on large tvs just so you can look at high resolution dirt textures.
> >
> > Play an RPG if you want 1080. Halo is a multiplayer shooter and the framerate is far more important than a slightly higher pixel density. Right now the standard for shooters is having higher framerates for gameplay purposes instead of shiny things to look at and for good reason.
> >
> > As for playing on max graphics on 20 fps…well that’s your choice. But I’d check myself into a mental institute if I were you because 20 FPS is physically painful.
> > https://frames-per-second.appspot.com/
>
>
>
> Halo isn’t a multiplayer shooter. The campaign is just as important as the multiplayer. Why do you think the emphasis of the franchize outside of the games is on lore, books. In Halo 1, the campaign was the core experience. I feel that better graphics make the campaign mor enjoyable than smoother gameplay. But thats just me, sorrrraaaaaay for disagreeing!

Halo is not popular for campaign. I’d bet 90% of the people who buy Halo play it once. Halo’s franchise is built on matchmaking, Halo’s identity is for retaining hundreds of thousands of players daily on matchmaking for years.

No FPS game bases it’s existence on an 8 hour rail-guided campaign. Because any game that did would’ve failed horribly. It doesn’t matter how much YOU like the campaign or the books or any of that stuff. Halo is bought, sold, developed and popularized as a MULTIPLAYER game. And in a multiplayer game FPS > res.

20

> 2533274952179659;5:
> This is low res. Low res means blury textures at an inappropriate viewing distance. That picture I linked, the textures look fine from a distance, but when your in first person and see them close up it looks blury.

Anything will look blurry when you concentrate to a small spot and apply a 4x zoom to a 1920x1080 picture. Frankly, nothing in that picture screams “mind blown”, but if you expect to be blown away by graphics in an Xbox One game, you need to tone down your expectations. This isn’t 2005 when manufacturers were ready to sell at a loss to put bleeding edge hardware in their consoles.

> 2533274952179659;14:
> you are my favorite response. Because you disagreed with me, but you were nice about it :slight_smile:
> Although I have to argue Halo is just as much about Campaign as Multiplayer. And the cutscenes are very cinematic, even the gameplay. Remember that beautiful vista in Halo 4 on requiem when you exit the wreckage? Or looking at the water in Silent Cartographer (anniversary). Or looking at the Halo ring when you first land on it?

I’m not saying campaign is not important, but with the amount of time the multiplayer is played, and the amount of respect people have for it as a multiplayer title, it’s safe to say that the feel of the multiplayer comes before the look of the game. There are games that sacrifice playability for pretty pictures, but those games aren’t going to last in the long term. I’m not saying high frame rate is some saving grace, but it definitely helps with the playability of the game.

In the end, I don’t think good, immersive look comes from graphical fidelity. Frankly, I didn’t experience the vistas in Halo 4 as something breathtaking. There was something with the art style of Halo 4 that put me off. I also wasn’t very convinced with the way 343i used their assets either. As far as I’m concerned, 343i never really managed to set up that sense of scale that Bungie had in their games. Bungie always used large sky boxes so that the spaces always felt huge because they were. In Halo 4 I always felt confined.

On the other hand, I still love the setting sun on the level Halo in CE, even with the original graphics. It’s absolutely partly because of nostalgia. I know for certain that if I played Halo CE for the first time now, I would think it looks kinda crappy. But artistically, the way you had the clouds in the distance, the ring arching to the sky, and the huge sea opening in the distance, you don’t get distracted by the blurry excuse of “ground” below. It puts your eyes in the right place.

Likewise, I think a huge part of the reason why Uncharted 4 looks very good is not because of how much resources they have, but how they’ve used. Foliage is one way to make a game look super good, and that’s because it’s something we’ve only been able to render in real time for a few years. Still, Uncharted gets help from the linear design of the game in such a way that flush jungle in Uncharted 4 actually looks like jungle. Ultimately, it’s the small space that allows that.

Additionally, Uncharted has a lot of the rendering budget put into reflections. So, when you have the sun shining after rain, you get all these glimmering reflections off the wet rock and leaves, which look really beautiful. This (and all the foliage) is why the gameplay trailer was set in jungle-like environment in the first place. Still, the artists did great job with using their resources well to make something beautiful. It’s not so much the graphics as it’s the art.