Why do the armor textures in Halo 5 look so ugly?

Games Halo 5: Guardians
1

When you compare the textures of Halo 4’s armor to Halo 5, Halo 4- despite running an older game engine, actually looks better than the armor in Halo 5: Guardians.

Halo 4’s armor had a pretty clean look to it. Much like Halo 3, in a way… but not as shiny. The deal with the armor in Halo 5 is that it appears to have this weird glazed texture to it, almost like it’s cell-shaded. The textures on the bodysuit don’t look much better, especially where the black meets the colored bits; they look fine when viewing them in the armory (despite the fact that they’re colored and I would very much prefer black techsuits), but when you see them in-game, in Theater mode or in the opening scene of a match… it looks weird.

2

> 2533274834952794;1:
> When you compare the textures of Halo 4’s armor to Halo 5, Halo 4- despite running an older game engine, actually looks better than the armor in Halo 5: Guardians.
>
> Halo 4’s armor had a pretty clean look to it. Much like Halo 3, in a way… but not as shiny. The deal with the armor in Halo 5 is that it appears to have this weird glazed texture to it, almost like it’s cell-shaded. The textures on the bodysuit doesn’t look much better, especially where the black meets the colored bits; they look fine when viewing them in the armory (despite the fact that they’re colored and I would very much prefer black techsuits), but when you see them in-game, in Theater mode or in the opening scene of a match… it looks weird.

Its weird though because the ones in campaign look pretty crisp from what I remember?

3

Baaaad… decisions?

I mean the texture looked great in the Beta but for some reason it got dumbed down big time. I get the feeling it’s the good ol’e CONSTANT 60fps thing… but i’d rather risk 55fps every now and then… if only my spartan looked like… You know… a super soldier.

4

> 2533274803587475;2:
> > 2533274834952794;1:
> > When you compare the textures of Halo 4’s armor to Halo 5, Halo 4- despite running an older game engine, actually looks better than the armor in Halo 5: Guardians.
> >
> > Halo 4’s armor had a pretty clean look to it. Much like Halo 3, in a way… but not as shiny. The deal with the armor in Halo 5 is that it appears to have this weird glazed texture to it, almost like it’s cell-shaded. The textures on the bodysuit doesn’t look much better, especially where the black meets the colored bits; they look fine when viewing them in the armory (despite the fact that they’re colored and I would very much prefer black techsuits), but when you see them in-game, in Theater mode or in the opening scene of a match… it looks weird.
>
> Its weird though because the ones in campaign look pretty crisp from what I remember?

Campaigns in Halo, has always had an edge in graphics for some weird reason compared to the multiplayer component.

5

I never understand this argument, I actually think they look great. I don’t see the whole ‘plasticy’ thing that everyone else mentions. In certain lighting, e.g. interiors of the Apex 7 map make you look a bit more ‘matte’ than normal. I don’t think it’s a big of an issue as everyone’s making it out to be though. It certainly looks better than the shiny armour of before. Not sure about the Cel Shading you referenced. I don’t even see any issues with the Techsuits, (though I wish they were independently colourable too) but they look vaguely rubberized and authentic for me. Like a material that is flexible, yet form-fitting.

6

> 2533274803587475;2:
> > 2533274834952794;1:
> > When you compare the textures of Halo 4’s armor to Halo 5, Halo 4- despite running an older game engine, actually looks better than the armor in Halo 5: Guardians.
> >
> > Halo 4’s armor had a pretty clean look to it. Much like Halo 3, in a way… but not as shiny. The deal with the armor in Halo 5 is that it appears to have this weird glazed texture to it, almost like it’s cell-shaded. The textures on the bodysuit doesn’t look much better, especially where the black meets the colored bits; they look fine when viewing them in the armory (despite the fact that they’re colored and I would very much prefer black techsuits), but when you see them in-game, in Theater mode or in the opening scene of a match… it looks weird.
>
> Its weird though because the ones in campaign look pretty crisp from what I remember?

Here’s the thing. They aren’t. While the cinematics appear very detailed and while they are rendered in-engine, there’s a reason they tend to take a little time to load.

The engine is doing one of two things.

1: Using pre-set high detail models that are never actually used in gameplay, but only in cinematics.
2: Rendering particular objects at their absolute highest resolution and polycount.

Since Halo 5 sports variable-detail-by-distance rendering, which looks -Yoink!- terrible beyond 30m, both are perfectly possible. The absolute closest things to the screen are always rendered in 1080, high detail. Things further away from point blank simply are not.

So in all actuality, things appear to have a higher level of detail because what you really take time to look at, IS being rendered in a way nothing else in the game is. The multiplayer equipment is of a noticeably lower resolution than everything else, but the animation frame loss and polycount loss at distance occurs, oddly enough, even more noticeably in campaign.

The other factor is that there are many more shading and lighting sources in campaign, on top of the fact that the “Illumination” spartans receive in multiplayer not being applied in campaign, as balancing is not a problem. Even though I think that mechanic is stupid anyway, figure the giant red name above your enemy and the glowing lights on spartans defeats the purpose.

tl;drVariable rendering means things are inconsistently detailed and illumination on several objects and characters makes Multiplayer seem significantly less detailed than campaign as such is done to a far lesser extent, but not NOT done, in Campaign.

7

> 2533274895399495;5:
> I never understand this argument, I actually think they look great. I don’t see the whole ‘plasticy’ thing that everyone else mentions. In certain lighting, e.g. interiors of the Apex 7 map make you look a bit more ‘matte’ than normal. I don’t think it’s a big of an issue as everyone’s making it out to be though. It certainly looks better than the shiny armour of before. Not sure about the Cel Shading you referenced. I don’t even see any issues with the Techsuits, (though I wish they were independently colourable too) but they look vaguely rubberized and authentic for me. Like a material that is flexible, yet form-fitting.

Its all relative. You look at Battlefield 1 or Battlefront and just how mind blowingly good those games look. I cannot stress how impressed I was by both those games. Halo 5, particularly in terms of character models and some of the environments (compare a Sanghelios map to the Sinai desert and the difference isn’t as great). To be honest though, even Battlefront 1 on Scarif had problems on the Xbox One making the vegetation look good; at least when I played it. BF1 doesn’t have that issue at all.

It really says something when you have a clear centerpiece thing like a Guardian and its badly rendered even though its the only thing you’re supposed to be looking at. I mean theres background stuff in BF1 and BF that looks bad but if something is intended to look awesome then; you know.

So I do think the tech department really needs to deliver for Halo 6. Because atm the big shooters are really pulling ahead graphically.

8

Because the Halo 4 metal textures actually looks like metal. In Halo 5 everything looks like plastic, but not cell shaded.
But I understand there’s something behind keep 60 fps constant, and for gameplay decisions, the spartans looks more “shiny” or “saturated” over the other elements, so you can see them easily.
For campaign, I think Fireteam Osiris armors, illumination and textures looks great, imo.

9

> 2533275010793662;8:
> Because the Halo 4 metal textures actually looks like metal. In Halo 5 everything looks like plastic, but not cell shaded.
> But I understand there’s something behind keep 60 fps constant, and for gameplay decisions, the spartans looks more “shiny” or “saturated” over the other elements, so you can see them easily.
> For campaign, I think Fireteam Osiris armors, illumination and textures looks great, imo.

Yeah I thought the Spartans looked pretty crisp and detailed in the campaign.

So, they make the armor look like they have been gloss varnished as a design decision to make them more visible?

I am very surprised they made the trade off on graphics for FPS. I remember watching a Youtube vid by Extra Credits and they said that the developers and more importantly the money behind games will almost always push graphics over FPS. Maybe they thought the graphics were solid during the dev cycle and didn’t anticipate other games pushing the boat out so far. Or, maybe its a technical issue. I mean I have noticed that a lot of the DLC maps are way better visually than the base maps.

10

> 2533274803587475;9:
> > 2533275010793662;8:
> > Because the Halo 4 metal textures actually looks like metal. In Halo 5 everything looks like plastic, but not cell shaded.
> > But I understand there’s something behind keep 60 fps constant, and for gameplay decisions, the spartans looks more “shiny” or “saturated” over the other elements, so you can see them easily.
> > For campaign, I think Fireteam Osiris armors, illumination and textures looks great, imo.
>
> Yeah I thought the Spartans looked pretty crisp and detailed in the campaign.
>
> So, they make the armor look like they have been gloss varnished as a design decision to make them more visible?
>
> I am very surprised they made the trade off on graphics for FPS. I remember watching a Youtube vid by Extra Credits and they said that the developers and more importantly the money behind games will almost always push graphics over FPS. Maybe they thought the graphics were solid during the dev cycle and didn’t anticipate other games pushing the boat out so far. Or, maybe its a technical issue. I mean I have noticed that a lot of the DLC maps are way better visually than the base maps.

I can’t tell for sure, but it is what I see. 343 wanted to push Halo 5 back to competitiveness, so 60 fps is a must, I believe.
The different shading on the spartans I assume it is for gameplay reasons, it may not be the most beautiful spartans in the world, but it worked to make the gameplay less confusing, I think.

11

I understand where you’re coming from, that’s a odd look to the graphics that make halo 5 look…ehhh.

but its nothing THAT big that’ll ruin the game for me, Just wish the customization on WayPoint texture was fixed.

12

The textures don’t bother me as much as the majority of the armor is hideously ugly anyways.

13

> 2533274803587475;9:
> > 2533275010793662;8:
> > Because the Halo 4 metal textures actually looks like metal. In Halo 5 everything looks like plastic, but not cell shaded.
> > But I understand there’s something behind keep 60 fps constant, and for gameplay decisions, the spartans looks more “shiny” or “saturated” over the other elements, so you can see them easily.
> > For campaign, I think Fireteam Osiris armors, illumination and textures looks great, imo.
>
> Yeah I thought the Spartans looked pretty crisp and detailed in the campaign.
>
> So, they make the armor look like they have been gloss varnished as a design decision to make them more visible?
>
> I am very surprised they made the trade off on graphics for FPS. I remember watching a Youtube vid by Extra Credits and they said that the developers and more importantly the money behind games will almost always push graphics over FPS. Maybe they thought the graphics were solid during the dev cycle and didn’t anticipate other games pushing the boat out so far. Or, maybe its a technical issue. I mean I have noticed that a lot of the DLC maps are way better visually than the base maps.

Halo will probably never put graphics over frames. Most competitive shooters wouldn’t either.the graphics in today’s games meet the standard, which many are perfectly fine with, we don’t need to have graphics be the focus each game that comes out when more time can be put into the games performance.

someone earlier referenced BF1s graphics and such, halo ultimately doesn’t need to rival that to be the better game. It just needs semi decent looks mixed with great gameplay.

Frames can cause lag if they’re constantly dropping and can result in delays of animation in a game, that’s why 343 would prioritize it over graphics as they actually effect performance of a game.

14

> 2533274923562209;13:
> > 2533274803587475;9:
> > > 2533275010793662;8:
> > >
>
> Halo will probably never put graphics over frames. Most competitive shooters wouldn’t either.the graphics in today’s games meet the standard, which many are perfectly fine with, we don’t need to have graphics be the focus each game that comes out when more time can be put into the games performance.
>
> someone earlier referenced BF1s graphics and such, halo ultimately doesn’t need to rival that to be the better game. It just needs semi decent looks mixed with great gameplay.
>
> Frames can cause lag if they’re constantly dropping and can result in delays of animation in a game, that’s why 343 would prioritize it over graphics as they actually effect performance of a game.

Yeah that was me.

But games like BF1 having that level of graphics is hugely impressive. It really does an incredible job of conveying the setting. You really do feel like you’re storming the Alps or storming the crater filled wasteland of the trenchs. Plus having everything look reasonably authentic. Its a huge part of bringing that world to life and that’s arguably even more true for a sci fi game. So I have to disagree, it really does make a difference if I play on a multiplayer map and I am just like “wow”. Even the more impressive Halo 5 maps like the Elite ones can’t match this and a lot of them fall far short of the mark.

Its not the only reason I like BF1. IMO its a return to the sort of destructive environments they had in Bad Company 2 and a slower pace of game with more emphasis on fighting from cover with inter class support. I always felt in BF3 and 4 they wanted to have more set piece maps and a more fast paced twitchy type of game.

I mean if Microsoft wants to continue saying Halo is a triple A franchise, then they can’t just have their peer competitors at DICE and Infinity Ward blow them out the water graphically. It does have a huge impact on peoples perceptions of a games value.

I don’t know, maybe the Scorpio will resolve some of these issues. Also, unrelated topic, but 343 have really had a bad way with timing their releases. Halo 4, 5 and 6 all missed out on being launch titles for the Xbox One and Scorpio. Unless this is deliberate and MS wants to push other new IP during these console releases?

15

> 2533274834952794;1:
> When you compare the textures of Halo 4’s armor to Halo 5, Halo 4- despite running an older game engine, actually looks better than the armor in Halo 5: Guardians.
>
> Halo 4’s armor had a pretty clean look to it. Much like Halo 3, in a way… but not as shiny. The deal with the armor in Halo 5 is that it appears to have this weird glazed texture to it, almost like it’s cell-shaded. The textures on the bodysuit doesn’t look much better, especially where the black meets the colored bits; they look fine when viewing them in the armory (despite the fact that they’re colored and I would very much prefer black techsuits), but when you see them in-game, in Theater mode or in the opening scene of a match… it looks weird.

agreed. it looks supr gud

16

> 2533274803587475;14:
> > 2533274923562209;13:
> > > 2533274803587475;9:
> > > > 2533275010793662;8:
> > > >
> >
> > Halo will probably never put graphics over frames. Most competitive shooters wouldn’t either.the graphics in today’s games meet the standard, which many are perfectly fine with, we don’t need to have graphics be the focus each game that comes out when more time can be put into the games performance.
> >
> > someone earlier referenced BF1s graphics and such, halo ultimately doesn’t need to rival that to be the better game. It just needs semi decent looks mixed with great gameplay.
> >
> > Frames can cause lag if they’re constantly dropping and can result in delays of animation in a game, that’s why 343 would prioritize it over graphics as they actually effect performance of a game.
>
> Yeah that was me.
>
> But games like BF1 having that level of graphics is hugely impressive. It really does an incredible job of conveying the setting. You really do feel like you’re storming the Alps or storming the crater filled wasteland of the trenchs. Plus having everything look reasonably authentic. Its a huge part of bringing that world to life and that’s arguably even more true for a sci fi game. So I have to disagree, it really does make a difference if I play on a multiplayer map and I am just like “wow”. Even the more impressive Halo 5 maps like the Elite ones can’t match this and a lot of them fall far short of the mark.
>
> Its not the only reason I like BF1. IMO its a return to the sort of destructive environments they had in Bad Company 2 and a slower pace of game with more emphasis on fighting from cover with inter class support. I always felt in BF3 and 4 they wanted to have more set piece maps and a more fast paced twitchy type of game.
>
> I mean if Microsoft wants to continue saying Halo is a triple A franchise, then they can’t just have their peer competitors at DICE and Infinity Ward blow them out the water graphically. It does have a huge impact on peoples perceptions of a games value.
>
> I don’t know, maybe the Scorpio will resolve some of these issues. Also, unrelated topic, but 343 have really had a bad way with timing their releases. Halo 4, 5 and 6 all missed out on being launch titles for the Xbox One and Scorpio. Unless this is deliberate and MS wants to push other new IP during these console releases?

I will agree battlefield has always excelled in the graphics but even then it’s never been that title that halo used to be at its prime. To me battlefield is popular only because of its destructive environments and large scale battles with the 32v32 mode with some focus on actual vehicle play. I don’t think graphics are what separates one game from the next, especially when so many are at least meeting the standard. Halo just needs to add something new to its gameplay, or do something others do, but reinvent it to where it’s outdoing what others are doing that will also mesh.

im not very big on graphics personally, it’s why I’m not to bothered by most games that don’t have eye popping graphics, I’m more interested in what’s in it rather than what it looks like. I won’t turn down great graphics but no harm if a dev doesn’t focus on it. My issue is when devs do put focus on graphics some games tend to put to much focus into it where it then plays like crap. There was a PS3 game a while back(can’t remember the name, maybe killzone?) that looked amazing but lost value because no one liked how it played. It didn’t add anything new, was to original, and just had no replay value. It looked great though.

17

> 2533274923562209;16:
> > 2533274803587475;14:
> > > 2533274923562209;13:
> > > > 2533274803587475;9:
> > > > > 2533275010793662;8:
> > > > >
>
> I will agree battlefield has always excelled in the graphics but even then it’s never been that title that halo used to be at its prime. To me battlefield is popular only because of its destructive environments and large scale battles with the 32v32 mode with some focus on actual vehicle play. I don’t think graphics are what separates one game from the next, especially when so many are at least meeting the standard. Halo just needs to add something new to its gameplay, or do something others do, but reinvent it to where it’s outdoing what others are doing that will also mesh.
>
> im not very big on graphics personally, it’s why I’m not to bothered by most games that don’t have eye popping graphics, I’m more interested in what’s in it rather than what it looks like. I won’t turn down great graphics but no harm if a dev doesn’t focus on it. My issue is when devs do put focus on graphics some games tend to put to much focus into it where it then plays like crap. There was a PS3 game a while back(can’t remember the name, maybe killzone?) that looked amazing but lost value because no one liked how it played. It didn’t add anything new, was to original, and just had no replay value. It looked great though.

But graphical limitations can have a big impact on gameplay. I mean I am coming at this mostly from the campaign side of things. But if you compare some of the concept art for places like Genesis, or in the Domain and compare them to the actual game it really does fall short of the vision. Some missions that are clearly supposed to be a big deal like the Breaking where you enter the digital realm scrambling over this machine focusing Cortana’s essence; yet manage to make it mundane and underwhelming. Just used some base forerunner assets in a black skybox.

Or stuff like the Guardian breaking out of Meridian. I think when you are clearly trying to have these big space opera cinematic moments it is important to have the graphics to be able to pull that off convincingly.

18

Thing is, I know BF1 looks absolutely gorgeous, but when you inspect things closely, they have sometimes quite poor, repetitive texturing. I’m talking about face pressed against a rock texture, or a wall, plant, etc. Personally, this doesn’t bother me as much because I don’t generally spend my time staring at these things for too long outside of my first ever time playing. I’d much prefer the game to look semi-decent, and play at 60 FPS, than look gorgeous but only play at 25 FPS. The framerate really is something that helps tremendously in shooters. Until you experience it, you don’t really know what you’re missing. But honestly, I think Halo 5 is still one of the best looking games out there. Obviously the Campaign looks a little nicer than the Multiplayer, but I can see why. In the Campaign, a few frame drops here and there aren’t that important, but in MP it can really mess with the balance if not everybody can get steady frames. The gameplay is fun enough to save the graphics occasionally looking less than excellent. I don’t get the ‘black skybox’ thing in The Breaking though, I thought it had a stormy, cloudy, overcast environment that spanned for miles around. There’s even tinges of red on the horizon?

TLDR: Game is fun enough to warrant a few less than stellar textures. Game looks great anyway, but 60 FPS is better than Amazing graphics in my opinion.