Halo 5: Guardians [XO]

[Billy Idol]

I'm expecting the SP campaign to be an underwhelming "one and done" thing, so I'm not too worried about SP visuals.

60 Hz will be more important for MP, which is where I will spend most of my time anyway.

Nooooooo! I am only interested in campaign!

Please, don't Battlefield the campaign in Halo games and make it just an extra gimmick

 

[Metal_Spirit]

I just get shocked when I hear about the game reaching a 832*810 resolution... This is 2015, and this is a sub HD resolution. This is bellow the Halo 3 resolution on Xbox 360 (1152×640)
60 fps is good, but if this is the price to pay... I think its too much.
Even 1152X810 shocks me... this is just 1,25% more than 720p... This is a Microsoft First Party game, and above all... its THE GAME...
I really cannot understand how can Microsoft allow a game in this state to be released. Just hope this is a very, very old build, otherwise Sony fanboys will have a field day!

 

[Laa-Yosh]

The game is not even alpha yet. In fact the only place where the res got that low was in a pre-E3 documentary of the demo version, which is of course a separate code base from the main game.
If anything, the 830*810 res shows that the game is able to respond very quickly and efficiently already - after proper optimizations are done, the resolution delta should be a lot more moderate.

 

[shredenvain]

It does not look impressive to me at all.

That's your opinion and that's fine, but I am excited to get my hands on it when it launches.

 

[L. Scofield]

It is not that easy imo and not about graphics vs gameplay!

For 60Hz, the devs might sacrifice a lot which contributes as much to gameplay than 60Hz. E.g. Fully interactive world with destruction, game physics, large scale battles with many many A.I. and vehicles, visibility of far away objects, etc etc.

60Hz is just one single parameter for gameplay imo and not the only one.

You sacrifice the same things with higher-fidelity graphics.

MGSV has all the things you mentioned @1080p60fps.

 

[Inuhanyou]

You sacrifice the same things with higher-fidelity graphics.

MGSV has all the things you mentioned @1080p60fps.

MGSV is also a big empty world a majority of the time with hardly anything going on in it based on what we've seen outside of a few enemies every once in a while.

That's the difference between a Batman level of fidelity and MGS5.

Also, most performance metrics we have on MGS5 are relegated to Ground Zeroes, which is barely a slice of anything to take away performance metrics.

 

[L. Scofield]

MGSV is also a big empty world a majority of the time with hardly anything going on in it based on what we've seen outside of a few enemies every once in a while.

That's the difference between a Batman level of fidelity and MGS5.

Also, most performance metrics we have on MGS5 are relegated to Ground Zeroes, which is barely a slice of anything to take away performance metrics.

Of course there's a difference. That's the point. The fact of the matter is that the more resources you have to spend on something, the less you have to spend on others.

 

[Cyan]

All Halo 5 game modes are going to run at 60 fps. Resolution hasn't been nailed down yet. The eSRAM didn't cause any issue, developers say.

http://gamingbolt.com/halo-5-guardi...ked-esram-not-an-issue-campaign-runs-at-60fps

 

[(((interference)))]

I really don't see why they're sacrificing split-screen, graphics and the sandbox to get to 60 fps. Halo has never been a 60 fps twitch shooter like COD and the 5 Halo games would tell you that the gameplay is tried and tested at 30 fps. Playing Halo Reach back to back with a pseudo ~60 fps title like BF4 on PS4 really doesn't indicate the superiority of the latter approach over a rock-solid 30 fps with good motion blur.

Good motion blur (ala KZ2) is the key here, just compare replays on Halo 3/Reach to actual gameplay see how much of a difference the improved motion blur makes to smoothing out the gameplay.

If Halo 5 runs at 30 fps I won't buy the game. I just don't want to buy it to leave it aside and don't play it. I can try when it is a game I am passionate about , like TW3 or I could forgive anything to Bethesda for a great The Elder Scrolls game.

Do you also not watch movies? I mean they are only shown at a measly 24 fps after all...

 

[iroboto]

I really don't see why they're sacrificing split-screen, graphics and the sandbox to get to 60 fps. Halo has never been a 60 fps twitch shooter like COD and the 5 Halo games would tell you that the gameplay is tried and tested at 30 fps. Playing Halo Reach back to back with a pseudo ~60 fps title like BF4 on PS4 really doesn't indicate the superiority of the latter approach over a rock-solid 30 fps with good motion blur.

Good motion blur (ala KZ2) is the key here, just compare replays on Halo 3/Reach to actual gameplay see how much of a difference the improved motion blur makes to smoothing out the gameplay.



Do you also not watch movies? I mean they are only shown at a measly 24 fps after all...

I can't fully agree here:
https://frames-per-second.appspot.com

Running 60 fps baseball @ 2000px/s no motion blur vs
Running 30 fps @ 2000px/s 1.0 realistic motion blur

And I know which one I would do better at for target acquisition and recognition. When the whole screen is moving at a fast rate, having that clarity and being able to separate and acquire targets quickly is more important than realism. There are seldom reasons why gaming hardware would provide a distinct advantage over people that don't - but this is one of them. Extremely high FPS with high resolution and faster monitors 120/144hz monitors allows for a distinct clarity, response and feedback that is not afforded by a slow latency 60Hz LCD running 30FPS. We can probably go a bit further and talk about aspect ratios vs mouse sensitivity and resolution, but we're really targeting professional eSport gaming at that point in time which is not as applicable.

 

[egoless]

I just get shocked when I hear about the game reaching a 832*810 resolution... This is 2015, and this is a sub HD resolution. This is bellow the Halo 3 resolution on Xbox 360 (1152×640)
... Sony fanboys will have a field day!

Clearly this generation of noise has proved only 1080p is HD. So it doesn't matter what level of sub HD it is, the same people will set the goalposts accordingly. If memory serves, it was exactly Halo 3 that you mention, that this site started pixel counting. Then later the same people, in lieu of other revelations, heralded horizontal scaling as still being HD. So again, it doesn't matter, the goalposts will always move accordingly.

I really don't see why they're sacrificing split-screen, graphics and the sandbox to get to 60 fps.

It's quite jarring going from 60fps CoD to 30fps Halo on 360. Try it. You don't notice it in MCC because they're all running at 60fps. The Halo 5 Beta (720p60) had exactly the right movement, aiming, gameplay for it's fast paced and frenetic action. 30fps wouldn't fit well with that.

 

[(((interference)))]

I can't fully agree here:
https://frames-per-second.appspot.com

Running 60 fps baseball @ 2000px/s no motion blur vs
Running 30 fps @ 2000px/s 1.0 realistic motion blur

And I know which one I would do better at for target acquisition and recognition.

Actually that framerate demo applet shows there's not a huge difference between 60 fps vs 30 fps (ceteris paribus). While your settings do make 30 fps look worse, I think that's down to their motion blur implementation.

If we freeze the Milky Way background (0 px/s speed) and have both moons set to 500-1000 px/s with no motion blur, then while 60 fps looks better it doesn't look 2x as good, maybe 20-30% better.

And remember, this applet is comparing rock solid 30 fps vs rock solid 60 fps, variable 40-60 fps framerate will have much less advantage over a locked 30 fps, and you get distracting artifacts like judder and tearing.

 

[(((interference)))]

It's quite jarring going from 60fps CoD to 30fps Halo on 360. Try it. You don't notice it in MCC because they're all running at 60fps. The Halo 5 Beta (720p60) had exactly the right movement, aiming, gameplay for it's fast paced and frenetic action. 30fps wouldn't fit well with that.

Well CoD is a much faster style of game than Halo, it's very much a twitch shooter and 60 fps makes sense there. But certainly playing BF4 on PS4 (which I have put some 100+ MP hours in), I wouldn't say that its twice as good in terms of framerate/response as Halo Reach (where I played online MP again for 10 or so hours last weekend).

However, BF4 on PS4 is a hell of a lot better than BF3 on 360 (which I logged some 150+ hours on)
because in BF3 any time you were in the midst of a hectic battle with buildings collapsing, vehicles exploding, mortar strikes inbound etc, the framerate would drop to 20 fps or less and the loss of responsiveness would make it much harder to stay alive, especially when you're already in a low-survival situation (causing the frame-rate drops).

In Halo this was never an issue (except 4, and Reach occasionally) as multiplayer always ran at a bulletproof 30 fps 99.9% of the time.

Go play Halo 3/Reach and then watch it in replay mode, it looks a lot smoother due to the higher quality motion blur used in replays. They can easily implement this HQ motion blur in gameplay now and if they reduce input lag to 83 ms (like Criterion did with NFS:HP) then that's already a big improvement over the 30 fps Halo titles and they can use the surfeit horsepower to run at 900p with a bigger sandbox and retain splitscreen.

 

[Rangers]

I can't fully agree here:
https://frames-per-second.appspot.com

Running 60 fps baseball @ 2000px/s no motion blur vs
Running 30 fps @ 2000px/s 1.0 realistic motion blur

And I know which one I would do better at for target acquisition and recognition. When the whole screen is moving at a fast rate, having that clarity and being able to separate and acquire targets quickly is more important than realism. There are seldom reasons why gaming hardware would provide a distinct advantage over people that don't - but this is one of them. Extremely high FPS with high resolution and faster monitors 120/144hz monitors allows for a distinct clarity, response and feedback that is not afforded by a slow latency 60Hz LCD running 30FPS. We can probably go a bit further and talk about aspect ratios vs mouse sensitivity and resolution, but we're really targeting professional eSport gaming at that point in time which is not as applicable.

And then everyone (okay not everyone, just 98% of purchasers) will go play it on their Samsung loaded with processing HDTV with 100 ms panel lag. And not care.

So it doesn't matter what level of sub HD it is, the same people will set the goalposts accordingly.

Dont agree. 900p was initially a controversy on Xbox One, but with each passing release it's barely met with a shrug anymore, as people understand and expect it. However, something even lower than that, possibly even lower than 720P, will ignite a bad PR backlash, guaranteed. As it should, as has been said, it's fricken 2015! It's bad enough that I'm not even playing at my lowly 1080 panel's native resolution.

 

[iroboto]

Lol. Yes. But it's nice to have the option . But truth is, even though you are right they will still feel that the game should be more responsive to controls due to the 60Hz update on game code, animations, physics and graphics.

 

[Billy Idol]

You sacrifice the same things with higher-fidelity graphics.

MGSV has all the things you mentioned @1080p60fps.

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?

 

[turkey]

And then everyone (okay not everyone, just 98% of purchasers) will go play it on their Samsung loaded with processing HDTV with 100 ms panel lag. And not care.

Is that not the perfect reason to get your own input lag as low as possible, thoes normal users probably have no idea their tv is causing lag but they may well "feel" the difference, Cod sells so well and i refuse to believe its the game changing new direction they manage to take it each year.

 

[iroboto]

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?

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

 

[iroboto]

Actually that framerate demo applet shows there's not a huge difference between 60 fps vs 30 fps (ceteris paribus). While your settings do make 30 fps look worse, I think that's down to their motion blur implementation.

If we freeze the Milky Way background (0 px/s speed) and have both moons set to 500-1000 px/s with no motion blur, then while 60 fps looks better it doesn't look 2x as good, maybe 20-30% better.

And remember, this applet is comparing rock solid 30 fps vs rock solid 60 fps, variable 40-60 fps framerate will have much less advantage over a locked 30 fps, and you get distracting artifacts like judder and tearing.

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.

 

[iroboto]

Well CoD is a much faster style of game than Halo, it's very much a twitch shooter and 60 fps makes sense there.

COD has a faster TTK, but that doesn't make it a much faster style of game necessarily, it just means if you don't fire first, you are likely dead. Where in Halo, because of the longer TTK, the better player will likely win the bout.

Go play Halo 3/Reach and then watch it in replay mode, it looks a lot smoother due to the higher quality motion blur used in replays. They can easily implement this HQ motion blur in gameplay now and if they reduce input lag to 83 ms (like Criterion did with NFS:HP) then that's already a big improvement over the 30 fps Halo titles and they can use the surfeit horsepower to run at 900p with a bigger sandbox and retain splitscreen.

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.