Not trying to be negative or troll, but for all intents and purposes, Halo 5 looks like a copy and paste of Halo 4 in terms of character models, enemy AI, graphics, etc. Of course there are tweaks to weapons, upgraded resolution, etc, and tweaks to player mechanics (spartan abilities and squad commands), but by and large it looks nearly identical to Halo 4 or any other Halo we’ve been playing for over a decade.
Unless there are more surprises that blow me away (ability to render battles in cloud or completely new AI, etc.), I don’t really see how this can be considered “built from the ground up”.
> 2533274892061674;1:
> Not trying to be negative or troll, but for all intents and purposes, Halo 5 looks like a copy and paste of Halo 4 in terms of character models, enemy AI, graphics, etc. Of course there are tweaks to weapons, upgraded resolution, etc, and tweaks to player mechanics (spartan abilities and squad commands), but by and large it looks nearly identical to Halo 4 or any other Halo we’ve been playing for over a decade.
>
> Unless there are more surprises that blow me away (ability to render battles in cloud or completely new AI, etc.), I don’t really see how this can be considered “built from the ground up”.
Everything looks artistically the same. But there are new meshes, new armor, new mechanics, new models, and a whole new engine. If bungie kept going with halo, halo 5 would have looked like halo 4 too, and halo 4 a little like halo 3. every time you add detail, you can only add so much, and its less noticable each time. that being said, its a little lackluster, hopefully they add some more particles like fog and lighitng for the final game.
“Built from the ground up” usually means that it isn’t based on any previous physics engine - Halo 4’s, for example. I don’t think it means to imply that you wouldn’t see any art direction continuity.
> 2533274971502269;3:
> I agree, the graphics aren’t impressive. They’re not bad, but just look at that forerunner guy’s face. There’s no detail.
The graphics are amazing. However in this new world, people think that all games should be by default CGI-looking quality. And 1080p 60fps. The Warden looked amazing, though, I don’t know what you mean.
To the OP: Built from the ground up means that everything they do is new. New code, new engine, new AI. Not new models or art. They started over, so they didn’t take any Halo 4 code and bring it over.
The better things look, the harder it is to make it better the next time.
Like the jump from CE to Halo 2 was pretty noticeable. The jump from Halo 3 to Halo 4 was pretty substantial. Halo 4 pushed the 360 to its limit to make one of the best looking games we’ve ever had on console.
Now that Halo 5 is coming in, there’s less room to simply improve the graphics without overhauling the art style and design. And 343i seems to be looking for consistency in the style, which isn’t necessarily a bad thing.
Keep in mind that it’s also unfinished and probably unpolished for the most part. There is still several months to launch, and this demo is likely from several weeks to a few months old.
> 2533274892061674;1:
> Not trying to be negative or troll, but for all intents and purposes, Halo 5 looks like a copy and paste of Halo 4 in terms of character models, enemy AI, graphics, etc. Of course there are tweaks to weapons, upgraded resolution, etc, and tweaks to player mechanics (spartan abilities and squad commands), but by and large it looks nearly identical to Halo 4 or any other Halo we’ve been playing for over a decade.
>
> Unless there are more surprises that blow me away (ability to render battles in cloud or completely new AI, etc.), I don’t really see how this can be considered “built from the ground up”.
Well pretty much it means like all the code is made specifically for the Xbone and isn’t based on previous games.
> 2533274877056440;6:
> > 2533274971502269;3:
> > I agree, the graphics aren’t impressive. They’re not bad, but just look at that forerunner guy’s face. There’s no detail.
>
>
> The graphics are amazing. However in this new world, people think that all games should be by default CGI-looking quality. And 1080p 60fps. The Warden looked amazing, though, I don’t know what you mean.
>
> To the OP: Built from the ground up means that everything they do is new. New code, new engine, new AI. Not new models or art. They started over, so they didn’t take any Halo 4 code and bring it over.
Maybe I wasn’t clear, but aside from the graphics, the AI looks and seemingly plays completely identical aside from the new promethian enemy. Not to mention that the promise that “Halo 5 is going to prove what the Xbox One is capable of” seems to be ringing a little bit hollow right now.
Usually when developers say this they mean either that they are building new models based off of previous ones without recycling materials.
That or they mean that they have started Halo from the ground up to where they are now.
Halo is always going to be Halo no matter what drastic change they decided to implement. Graphically speaking its been improved, and the AI as well (considering the warzone gamemode.) The spartans are not going to change because the spartans are the main playable race we all play as, plus a lot of fans will get their -Yoink!- in a bunch if they did. You can’t really expect a game such as this to change anything crazy to blow your mind. Halo 5 is going to be great, trust me.
You can only make a model or texture so high poly to where it will start having diminishing returns. If I made a model with 400,000 polygons and 600,000 polygons you wouldn’t be able to tell too much of a difference.
> 2535463261337659;12:
> You can only make a model or texture so high poly to where it will start having diminishing returns. If I made a model with 400,000 polygons and 600,000 polygons you wouldn’t be able to tell too much of a difference.
Yeah, hit the nail on the head. Not only that but you eat away at the GPU’ resources with stuff not needed. That and there are other methods of adding details such as parallax shading and so forth.
At this point render distance can be increased as well as objects on screen. The latter being bottlenecked by RAM and the CPU though.
I think one reason they made a new engine was because of licensing. The old engine might still contain stuff from Bungie. With an entirely new engine they can more freely license its different technologies to other developers.
> 2533274877056440;6:
> > 2533274971502269;3:
> > I agree, the graphics aren’t impressive. They’re not bad, but just look at that forerunner guy’s face. There’s no detail.
>
>
> The graphics are amazing. However in this new world, people think that all games should be by default CGI-looking quality. And 1080p 60fps. The Warden looked amazing, though, I don’t know what you mean.
>
> To the OP: Built from the ground up means that everything they do is new. New code, new engine, new AI. Not new models or art. They started over, so they didn’t take any Halo 4 code and bring it over.
Halo 2A’s campaign looks better graphically so far IMO.
I am betting that the Demo wasn’t a fully developed game set. It was made to look good but not perfect. This game is going to put H4 to shame when it comes to beauty.
> 2533274933749851;2:
> > 2533274892061674;1:
> > Not trying to be negative or troll, but for all intents and purposes, Halo 5 looks like a copy and paste of Halo 4 in terms of character models, enemy AI, graphics, etc. Of course there are tweaks to weapons, upgraded resolution, etc, and tweaks to player mechanics (spartan abilities and squad commands), but by and large it looks nearly identical to Halo 4 or any other Halo we’ve been playing for over a decade.
> >
> > Unless there are more surprises that blow me away (ability to render battles in cloud or completely new AI, etc.), I don’t really see how this can be considered “built from the ground up”.
>
>
> It’s a new engine, for starters.
I doubt that. My understanding is that the reason why licensed engines like Unreal Engine are so popular is that building an engine for a triple-A game from scratch is an incredibly long and an incredibly expensive endeavor these days due to the complexity of modern games. When you have an engine that’s been built for over a decade to fill the needs of a flagship triple-A title, you don’t simply throw it away and start from scratch.
I don’t believe it’s a new engine in the sense that we normally think. My bet would be that it’s heavily modified version of the previous engine like it has always been with new features enabled by more modern hardware, and ported from the architecture of Xbox 360 to that of Xbox One.
They just try to sell the game to people. No AAA-title is really built from the ground up nowadays. They may modify the engine but rarely built it from ground up.
> 2533274892061674;10:
> > 2533274877056440;6:
> > > 2533274971502269;3:
> > > I agree, the graphics aren’t impressive. They’re not bad, but just look at that forerunner guy’s face. There’s no detail.
> >
> >
> > The graphics are amazing. However in this new world, people think that all games should be by default CGI-looking quality. And 1080p 60fps. The Warden looked amazing, though, I don’t know what you mean.
> >
> > To the OP: Built from the ground up means that everything they do is new. New code, new engine, new AI. Not new models or art. They started over, so they didn’t take any Halo 4 code and bring it over.
>
>
> Maybe I wasn’t clear, but aside from the graphics, the AI looks and seemingly plays completely identical aside from the new promethian enemy. Not to mention that the promise that “Halo 5 is going to prove what the Xbox One is capable of” seems to be ringing a little bit hollow right now.
We can only judge graphics right now. We have to play the game to judge the ai.