I need to know if im the only one feeling this way. Ive been reading all these reviews where people are saying how brilliant and beautiful this game look but I just dont see it.
After playing Halo 5 for a bit I cant help but to feel like the detail and wow factor of this game is not there. 343 had so many statements about how obtaining that 60fps gameplay was a HUGE goal and undertaking for Halo 5. Ill admit, the smooth feel is pretty cool but at what cost? I cant help but to feel like this pursuit of 60fps turned what could have been a great looking game into something bland. Is detail missing in this game because it was too hard to keep 60fps with it?
For a next gen game:
I would expect to see maps with luscious grass, brilliant shadows and some crazy fog or rain. The only part that looks drop dead next gen would be video sequences and the look of your gloves in first person view. The leather look is great!
MP maps with some depth. The warzone maps look OK but nothing we haven’t seen before. The smaller maps… They just got lazy, some of the maps are almost directly from beta with no skins and complete lack of detail Orion for example. The better looking maps are ones taken from previous Halo titles and thats fine but even they could use some sprucing up. When i walk through water how about a little bit of splash. Grass is NOT FLAT and blades do not pass right though me! The subway map is pretty nice with the paper floating around I will say but why do other maps look so… well just bad.
I understand running a game at 60fps is difficult and I give props to 343 for trying to get us there but I would almost prefer lower FPS with more detail.
PS: Mad props for the load times!!!
Thought? Am I nuts?
EDIT: OK many have said they would take back split screen. what about the detail? is it lacking in your opinion?
EDIT 2: LOTS of people talking about split screen, lets talk about the details and graphics people. I agree missing split screen hurts but there are plenty of threads about this! Thanks for all the comments people
> 2533274857577417;2:
> Nope. Not worth it. They removed split screen but that’s my opinion.
I completely forgot about that. I never used it so I didn’t care but I know many people were pissed. I would be too. what about the quality of the game itself? Does it look like what you would expect from a next gen game?
Same, anytime you remove a core experience, like split screen for the sake of the game looking a little better, which it looks just like Halo 4, no it’s not worth it.
I am one of the few people I know that can’t see a difference in 30fps or 60fps. After seeing the sacrifices such as splitscreen, resolution drops, and some of the detail I have to say it is absolutely not worth it. But I relize I am one of the few people hat say anything over 30fps isn’t worth the graphics trade off.
Couldn’t agree more. The spartans themselves are more detailed than ever, but the levels themselves seem to be lacking. ESPECIALLY in the multiplayer. I look back at reach and notice all the small things that add to the detail of the level design. TBH I think it was a huge waste pushing the 60 fps. It obviously caused them more problems than they needed and they sacrificed far too much for it.
The 60fps on this game absolutely makes the game a better experience when you’re playing alone, had no idea why people dug 60fps so much but it feels so smooth.
No way in hell was it worth sacrificing split-screen over. Had a huge Halloween party with my buds, ended up having to switch off controller between 6 people for matches, got boring quickly. Halo is supposed to be a social game, and if it’s in 30fps next time for the sake of Splitscreen, I’m fine with that.
> 2687415849088095;6:
> I am one of the few people I know that can’t see a difference in 30fps or 60fps. After seeing the sacrifices such as splitscreen, resolution drops, and some of the detail I have to say it is absolutely not worth it. But I relize I am one of the few people hat say anything over 30fps isn’t worth the graphics trade off.
> 2632461210777745;7:
> Couldn’t agree more. The spartans themselves are more detailed than ever, but the levels themselves seem to be lacking. ESPECIALLY in the multiplayer. I look back at reach and notice all the small things that add to the detail of the level design. TBH I think it was a huge waste pushing the 60 fps. It obviously caused them more problems than they needed and they sacrificed far too much for it.
Im glad I’m not the only one that thinks reach looked better lol. Its sad if you ask me.
I’m of the multitude that can actually see the difference between 30fps and 60fps. I can certainly tell the difference. As for me, Split-Screen wasn’t a big issue as I am not big into only using half of my screen for games, that bugs me to no end, actually. So I was perfectly accepting of the trade-off. The 60fps makes this game smooth, like very smooth. Everyone complaining about huge lag, just doesn’t know the difference between 30 and 60 fps. Motion blur is not the same in 60 as it is in 30.
I think moving to 60fps was DEFINITELY worth whatever they dropped for it. In this instance, split-screen co-op for a Campaign I’ll play twice or three times in my life and never play again.
I really enjoy the 60 fps. I went back and played Halo Reach last night with my girlfriend and it was really painful to see how much slower and much different it ran at 30 fps. It’s a TREMENDOUS difference. While I do enjoy the 60 fps, I do miss the option to splitscreen
I’m not sure we can pin the blame entirely on 343 for this.
I believe -Yoink!- Must take some of the responsibility when they underpowered the Xbox one in favour of a frigging Kinect system which after about 3 months was pretty much redundant.
I feel that they should have beefed up the hardware so team such as 343 would not have to sacrifice graphical fidelity for 60fps. “Next gen” pfft.
Man the jaggies!
60 Fps runs Smoother than a cashmere codpiece but some parts of the game are Butt-ugly. Namely the map introductions on arena
> 2533274821977927;13:
> I’m of the multitude that can actually see the difference between 30fps and 60fps. I can certainly tell the difference. As for me, Split-Screen wasn’t a big issue as I am not big into only using half of my screen for games, that bugs me to no end, actually. So I was perfectly accepting of the trade-off. The 60fps makes this game smooth, like very smooth. Everyone complaining about huge lag, just doesn’t know the difference between 30 and 60 fps. Motion blur is not the same in 60 as it is in 30.
>
> I think moving to 60fps was DEFINITELY worth whatever they dropped for it. In this instance, split-screen co-op for a Campaign I’ll play twice or three times in my life and never play again.
I could care less about the split screen to. I dont think them dropping it had anything to do with 60fps tho. The detail in the game just looks like crap to me. You can have 60fps in a bland map but is a smoother motion worth the lack of detail, and alot of detail?
> 2533274792264557;15:
> I’m not sure we can pin the blame entirely on 343 for this.
> I believe -Yoink!- Must take some of the responsibility when they underpowered the Xbox one in favour of a frigging Kinect system which after about 3 months was pretty much redundant.
> I feel that they should have beefed up the hardware so team such as 343 would not have to sacrifice graphical fidelity for 60fps. “Next gen” pfft.
> Man the jaggies!
> 60 Fps runs Smoother than a cashmere codpiece but some parts of the game are Butt-ugly. Namely the map introductions on arena
I don’t think the system hardware has anything to do with it. sure its not as good as the PS4 hardware wise but it not under powered. There is no reason why this game looks worse than halo 4 detail wise. I have not seen any lag at all and the motion is great but why can i not see my shadow when I look down at my feet LOL
Those map intros are SOOO bad. Jesus my feet are half way into the floor!
