Halo 5: Guardians [XO]

Not on X1 though, right? It is 720p@60Hz iirc.
But this is a very good comment imo: The question is, what makes H5 computationally more expensive than MGSV?
From the campaign footage shown @E3, nothing that I can see.

H5 is a fast paced game, a lot of things can happen in a very short amount of time. In MGS, the environment will likely pop in much less, the game is designed to be a stealth game, so the engine can load assets only when it really needs to, where with Halo, you're looking everywhere at once (you can now clamber, and there is a bit of height you can reach in the air) and you're going to have to put a bit more guessing into what to render. This likely causes some headaches that wouldn't be experienced in games like TLOU, MGSV, Tomb Raider etc.

Also, I believe that MGS Phantom Pain and PES2016 are now both 1080p on XBO.

http://www.gamepur.com/news/19304-m...nd-pes-2016-will-run-1080p60fps-xbox-one.html

MGSV is designed to be both a stealth and an action game. To say you need more guessing on what to render in a corridor shooter game than in an open world one makes no sense.
 
From the campaign footage shown @E3, nothing that I can see.



MGSV is designed to be both a stealth and an action game. To say you need more guessing on what to render in a corridor shooter game than in an open world one makes no sense.
H5 is more like Titanfall, then like it is Call of Duty. It's open world. I wouldn't use the campaign snap shot as being representative of the whole game.

Even if it were, at any point in time you always have to account for at least 3 other spartans that can be in your view + enemies at all times. That's already 3 more high end character models than you would have in MGS.

I'm not sure if there is much argument here:
if this is a corridor shooter, but BF4 is not, we're going to have to agree to disagree.
 
Last edited:
I am just curious to see if the big arena like maps are gone partly due to the game being optimized for 60 fps. Big maps was one of my favorite aspects of Halo 1/2/3, Halo 4 was more restricted in terms of scale though, but on the other hand it looked incredible on 360. If the trade-off this time is huge maps for 60 fps i would prefer bigger maps myself. With a controller a perfectly stable 30 fps experience is good enough, even for FPS games imo. Especially for a the SP campaign.
 
Yeah, 60 Hz is gonna be expensive, no doubt about it.

On the other hand, with H4, 343i already took away most of the open-world "go anywhere" aspect of Halo gameplay, so they might as well give us 60 Hz as a little compensation.
 
That story pretty much lived and died all in one day. No second source and not confirmation. Don't get your hopes up.

H5 might be more open than some other FPS, but the size of the level, level of destruction and number of players are what's important. The Devil is in the details.
Thanks. Okay I wasn't sure. I came across it once, but without confirmation then yea it's best not to get hopes up.
 
H5 is more like Titanfall, then like it is Call of Duty. It's open world. I wouldn't use the campaign snap shot as being representative of the whole game.

Even if it were, at any point in time you always have to account for at least 3 other spartans that can be in your view + enemies at all times. That's already 3 more high end character models than you would have in MGS.

I'm not sure if there is much argument here:
if this is a corridor shooter, but BF4 is not, we're going to have to agree to disagree.
Halo 5 isn't open world:

https://twitter.com/JoshingtonState/status/592534568223182850

How high-end are the characters during gameplay?

Environment detail is terrible in that Warzone video. Textures in particular are very low res. Lighting seems baked as well.
 
Halo 5 isn't open world:

https://twitter.com/JoshingtonState/status/592534568223182850

How high-end are the characters during gameplay?

Environment detail is terrible in that Warzone video. Textures in particular are very low res. Lighting seems baked as well.
Right. I'll go back on open world. That should be reserved for games like W3 and Skyrim. But H5 is large in scope still, the battlefield can be large.
I'm not judging graphically h5 until I see a release. The game will never be 30fps, it's built around 60fps so at this point in time we are only debating why h5 does not look like its competitors.

I'm just curious but what exactly are you expecting from Halo 5? You've got keen eyes, you can identify downgrades or types of things that I can't. But I'm wondering this time around because there is no "target render" to compare against that you're being a little extreme with Halo 5. I mean they launched a beta at 720p with no AA and terrible textures. 343i has only made two commitments a) locked 60fps gameplay b) dedicated servers only for multiplayer. They never shown any target footage and XBO SDKs are the same as retail units. Logically things cannot get worse than the beta, so they only have up to go from here.
What I'm trying to get at is, it's too early to judge the graphics thinking these are final because you haven't seen the target yet, unlike other games that had to downgrade from their target. Implying that the game should target 30fps and up their graphics because of the state of the game of a build that likely was certified in Mid May, is premature.
 
Last edited:
Not on X1 though, right? It is 720p@60Hz iirc.
But this is a very good comment imo: The question is, what makes H5 computationally more expensive than MGSV?
PES was 720p on Xbox One because Konami were scratching their noble parts instead of working, I think.
Yeah, 60 Hz is gonna be expensive, no doubt about it.

On the other hand, with H4, 343i already took away most of the open-world "go anywhere" aspect of Halo gameplay, so they might as well give us 60 Hz as a little compensation.
They said the world is going to be 4 times larger in Halo 5 than in Halo 4, we shall see if they do that, if not, it is going to be very disappointing.
 
PES was 720p on Xbox One because Konami were scratching their noble parts instead of working, I think.
They said the world is going to be 4 times larger in Halo 5 than in Halo 4, we shall see if they do that, if not, it is going to be very disappointing.


Actually it was said that in Warzone mode it had a map size that was 4 times the size of past maps.

http://www.polygon.com/2015/6/15/8782791/halo-5-guardians-warzone

They weren't talking about map size in campaign mode.

Tommy McClain
 
There was no compromise, just a poorly optimised engine, evidenced by the engine being improved to achieve 1080p/60 in the latest iteration.

What do you mean? DrJay just posted it is not true with the 1080p improvement...

And with respect to PES being 720p60Hz only and thus lazy devs and so on...this is better than the current pre-alpha build performance of H5 we got which can drop below 720p.

Anyway, I am looking forward to the release game. Halo was never (an will never be) about graphics, but about action and I hope they deliver on this front.

Just that I hope I can wrap my head around the story thing and who the heck this new main character is and why I am chasing after Masterchef, and what the heck else is going on?!?!?
 
What do you mean? DrJay just posted it is not true with the 1080p improvement...

Fair enough, I didn't see that post. Caught by the ignore filter.


And with respect to PES being 720p60Hz only and thus lazy devs and so on...

I didn't say lazy devs. Being a developer and knowing all about time and budget restrictions impacting performance and features I try to never use that term.

I said poorly optimised engine. There is a huge distinction.


this is better than the current pre-alpha build performance of H5 we got which can drop below 720p.

Why are you comparing a pre-alpha build that we know from communications from 343i has yet to go through optimisation phase, to a shipped product?
 
If it didn't enter any kind of optimization phase then we'd get the 720p60 which was on the H5 beta. The E3 build surely went under some optimization as we have a significantly different build from the beta a few months ago.
 
Ideally it stays at a locked 60. But barring that I agree with your post. But in competition, once a player can realize an advantage that person will always use it. So that 20-30% could result in 20-30% better aiming, recognition that someone could be shooting at you etc. It's likely to add up as a large benefit over the long haul. Of course console is equal playing field so perhaps that point is moot, but I think we get each other.

Having played a lot of destiny PVP vs something like Titanfall on XBO, i much prefer TF. Even with it's imperfect frame update.

I don't think you can go from 60 fps looking 20-30% better to it having a similar impact in terms of gameplay . While the 30 fps moon doesn't look quite as nice in motion as the 60 fps moon, it still is perfectly targetable. Maybe you can say 60fps makes it 5% easier to target very fast moving targets, but even then things like the player's skill at tracking a fast moving target and their aiming sensitivity settings will be vastly more important at determining whether they hit said target rather than the framerate (though obviously if its not a solid 30 fps and fluctuates between 15/20-30 or so, then you're going to have issues).

I played significant amount of MP time in COD4, MW2 & Black Ops on 360/PS3 and while I enjoyed it, I still preferred Halo or BF3 in terms of gameplay/ gunplay (though not BFBC2 incidentally, they made a big improvement in gun handling from BFBC2 to BF3). And I think that's down mostly to the mechanics and pace of the games rather than the 60 vs 30 fps.

And judging by the huge success of 30 fps Destiny, vs ~60 Titanfall which fizzled out, I don't think any overwhelming preference for 60 fps gameplay in MP shooters is evident.

COD games are so popular because of their mechanics, they are much easier to pick up and play than something like Halo or BF, I know noobs who'll run around with an M60 in COD and rack up loads of kills but'll struggle to get a single kill in Halo (because you can't just get see a guy first, spray half your clip and kill them with the 4 bullets you landed). Ditto with BF, which takes at least 20 hours, just so you can be ranked in the middle of the post-match summary (I know, because it took me about that long to do exactly that in BF4 on PS4, despite spending 100+ hours playing BF3 on 360 - albeit with a 1+ year gap of not playing BF in between).

So I think 343i trying to replicate COD's success by matching them on framerate is silly. They tried to bring the mechanics more in line with COD's in Halo 4 and failed miserably, and even if H4 was 60 fps people would still prefer playing 30 fps Halo 3/Reach.

Other than mechanics, COD is also a gaming institution that is assured runaway success merely based on its past success and the network effects of the huge COD community and the fact that even non-core gamers and non-gamers are familiar with the franchise.

So all those things are going to be hard to trump, and saying framerate is the major reason why COD is so successful seems like specious reasoning to me.
 
Last edited:
Unfortunately I don't think the game can change to 30fps. The fixed update portion of the game is based around 60fps, multiplayer server etc, are all operating at this speed. I don't think you can half it without major changes to the whole infrastructure and game client. At this point in time with 4 months to go, 343i is going to have to make 60fps work, and it's easier to do that (since it's just optimization) vs rewriting huge amounts of code.

Of course, they can't change it now - but that's not my point.

The point is why did 343i decide to go down this route, which has never been a hallmark of the series and furthermore is making this tradeoff to the detriment of features that are hallmarks of the series (graphics, split-screen, sandbox).

They made the wrong set of trade-offs with Halo 4 let's hope they don't do it again.
 
Of course, they can't change it now - but that's not my point.

The point is why did 343i decide to go down this route, which has never been a hallmark of the series and furthermore is making this tradeoff to the detriment of features that are hallmarks of the series (graphics, split-screen, sandbox).

They made the wrong set of trade-offs with Halo 4 let's hope they don't do it again.

Because 343i is listening to the wrong people or asking the wrong people for their feedback on what they should do with H5.
 
Back
Top