Support NeoGAF

[Dubz]

Any halo fan, which you're not, who complains against a lower resolution in favor of stable 60fps is NOT the target audience for this game.

Plenty of PC games you can play at high fidelity and 60fps.

343 knows their audience, 60fps above all, anybody who says otherwise hasn't experienced 60fps halo or doesn't know halo at all.

This is a strange post considering that all previous Halo's run at 30 FPS, minus MCC.

 

[Fisty]

This is a strange post considering that all previous Halo's run at 30 FPS, minus MCC.

Halo became one of the most popular shooters on the planet using 30fps across 5 games, so no 30fps is not acceptable

 

[Primethius]

Any halo fan, which you're not, who complains against a lower resolution in favor of stable 60fps is NOT the target audience for this game.

Plenty of PC games you can play at high fidelity and 60fps.

343 knows their audience, 60fps above all, anybody who says otherwise hasn't experienced 60fps halo or doesn't know halo at all.

Are we talking SP or MP because I can argue for 30 FPS in SP for days and I'd like to think I'm as OG Halo fan as it gets.

 

[Naked Lunch]

For Halo multiplayer, 60fps is all that matters. There's no going back ever again.

The fact that the upped the player count to 24 (a first for Halo) and are still promising 60fps for warzone tells you their dedication to smooth gameplay.

 

[JumPeRJumPzZ]

I know you're probably going to ignore this just like you do every other post which categorically proves you wrong, however I'd like to try and push this across to you.

I'm very curious to see what you think about the fact that Destiny was 1080p on the Xbox One at launch.

Especially considering the game went gold on roughly the 25th of August; only 1 month after it's beta on the Xbox which ran at 900p.

Was that magic? Because according to you it would have to be.

You cant compare Destiny with Halo 5... 343 most likely works with the most updated SDKs etc.

Nothing proved so far that im wrong.
Only thing that comes from the agressive people is "its not finished". Yes that is true.

But i havent seen a game in YEARS, that changed drasticly in 3 months before release. Never happened.

I dont think that the Dynamic Resolution is going away. They dont build that stuff to throw it away some weeks before release.

Like someone said, they will probably optimize that stuff even more. And maybe it wont drop that often anymore at release.

 

[DarthWalden]

I may be completely wrong here (I don't work in the industry or anything) but since performance is usually the very last thing to be cleaned up (which in most cases means optimizing the game to keep the frame rate at an acceptable level) however since this game seems to be employing a dynamic resolution to allow for a constant 60 fpS wouldn't the optimization time be spent on pushing the resolution higher for longer consistent periods of time and wouldn't all those changes likely take place in the next 4 to 5 MOnths? In terms of stabilizing framer ate we see that all the time with games between e3 and release so I don't see why it's an issue to assume that the dynamic resolution will be cleaned up too.

Also was halo campaign playable at e3 or just the war zone multilayer?

 

[Bgamer90]

I'll be happy as long as it's at least 900-1080p for single player (dynamic resolution) and 900p for multiplayer at 60 FPS.

 

[Freiya]

Sure 60 fps is cool but not if it means my campaign looks like a smooth 360 game, 60 fps campaign was a mistake imo. There is a reason so many people are disappointed with the way it looks.

 

[VinFTW]

This is a strange post considering that all previous Halo's run at 30 FPS, minus MCC.

And Halo is infinitely better now with 60fps.

Any shooter is better off as 60fps, especially a title as competitively focused as Halo 5.

Sure 60 fps is cool but not if it means my campaign looks like a smooth 360 game, 60 fps campaign was a mistake imo. There is a reason so many people are disappointed with the way it looks.

yes because the game looks like a 360 game

lmao, this fucking thread is priceless

 

[Serenity]

I know you're probably going to ignore this just like you do every other post which categorically proves you wrong, however I'd like to try and push this across to you.

I'm very curious to see what you think about the fact that Destiny was 1080p on the Xbox One at launch.

Especially considering the game went gold on roughly the 25th of August; only 1 month after it's beta on the Xbox which ran at 900p.

Was that magic? Because according to you it would have to be.

They were targeting a single resolution though and improved it. It seems this using dynamic resolution. Wouldn't they need to different programming techniques. Seems odd to program for dynamic resolution then swtiched to a fixed one.

 

[TheLostBigBoss]

Any halo fan, which you're not, who complains against a lower resolution in favor of stable 60fps is NOT the target audience for this game.

Plenty of PC games you can play at high fidelity and 60fps.

343 knows their audience, 60fps above all, anybody who says otherwise hasn't experienced 60fps halo or doesn't know halo at all.

I've played all the Halo's, I can definetly say that I would be fine with a 30FPS Halo, just like all the others.

Besides, it's being played with analog sticks, this ain't CS:GO/CS:S level shit here where twitch reactions based on server tick rate and client FPS. Halo played fine with 30FPS.

 

[OEM]

there actually are people who would want higher graphics and half the framerate?

dynamic res sounds very good. check COD AW, it was nice looking game.

 

[VinFTW]

I've played all the Halo's, I can definetly say that I would be fine with a 30FPS Halo, just like all the others.

Being fine with it and knowing what's the better experience is a different beast.

The beta was the best halo has ever felt to me in terms of smoothness, and that was a beta a year before launch AND had some FR problems.

60fps halo is too good, there's no going back.

 

[Poodlestrike]

Dynamic res>>>fluctuating frame rate. Very few of the 1080p, 60fps games on consoles are actually 60fps consistently. Hell, very few of the 30fps games can even manage that!

Consider the following:

1) Halo 5 is a video game. Its primary concern should be gameplay.

2) We live in a sadly imperfect world. Amongst those imperfections is the sad state of today's gaming consoles, which are roughly comparable (performance wise) to an entry level gaming PC. As such, technical compromises are, and will remain, a feature of all current gen games, at least for the foreseeable future.

3) Dropping frames is more disruptive to gameplay than dropping pixels (lowering the resolution). See: Wolfenstein TNO vs, I dunno, Assassin's Creed Unity (or any other of the current gen games that struggle to maintain 30 or 60 frames). Which did you find more conducive to a smooth play experience, Wolfenstein's variable resolution or ACU's miserable frame rate? Considering that a not-insignificant portion of players didn't even notice the former, this one answers itself.

Thus, we are left with the following: Halo should be gameplay focused, compromises must be made to achieve technical excellence, and variable resolution is preferable to variable frame rate with regards to gameplay.

All of the other stuff (such as potential min and max resolutions) is entirely pointless to speculate on, as the majority of graphical polish comes in the very last stretch of design.

Also, 60fps>30fps, for reasons that have been elaborated on OVER AND OVER AND OVER. Seriously, guys, get off that hill.

 

[cantthink9]

I really wish people didn't get there panties in a bunch over 30fps. 30 or 60 is fine to me as long as the game looks good. I guess I'll always be a dirty little graphics whore.

 

[MrGreencastle]

Dynamic res>>>fluctuating frame rate. Very few of the 1080p, 60fps games on consoles are actually 60fps consistently. Hell, very few of the 30fps games can even manage that!

Consider the following:

1) Halo 5 is a video game. Its primary concern should be gameplay.

2) We live in a sadly imperfect world. Amongst those imperfections is the sad state of today's gaming consoles, which are roughly comparable (performance wise) to an entry level gaming PC. As such, technical compromises are, and will remain, a feature of all current gen games, at least for the foreseeable future.

3) Dropping frames is more disruptive to gameplay than dropping pixels (lowering the resolution). See: Wolfenstein TNO vs, I dunno, Assassin's Creed Unity (or any other of the current gen games that struggle to maintain 30 or 60 frames). Which did you find more conducive to a smooth play experience, Wolfenstein's variable resolution or ACU's miserable frame rate? Considering that a not-insignificant portion of players didn't even notice the former, this one answers itself.

Thus, we are left with the following: Halo should be gameplay focused, compromises must be made to achieve technical excellence, and variable resolution is preferable to variable frame rate with regards to gameplay.

All of the other stuff (such as potential min and max resolutions) is entirely pointless to speculate on, as the majority of graphical polish comes in the very last stretch of design.

Also, 60fps>30fps, for reasons that have been elaborated on OVER AND OVER AND OVER. Seriously, guys, get off that hill.

Should be in the OP.

 

[Primethius]

Dynamic res>>>fluctuating frame rate. Very few of the 1080p, 60fps games on consoles are actually 60fps consistently. Hell, very few of the 30fps games can even manage that!

Consider the following:

1) Halo 5 is a video game. Its primary concern should be gameplay.

2) We live in a sadly imperfect world. Amongst those imperfections is the sad state of today's gaming consoles, which are roughly comparable (performance wise) to an entry level gaming PC. As such, technical compromises are, and will remain, a feature of all current gen games, at least for the foreseeable future.

3) Dropping frames is more disruptive to gameplay than dropping pixels (lowering the resolution). See: Wolfenstein TNO vs, I dunno, Assassin's Creed Unity (or any other of the current gen games that struggle to maintain 30 or 60 frames). Which did you find more conducive to a smooth play experience, Wolfenstein's variable resolution or ACU's miserable frame rate? Considering that a not-insignificant portion of players didn't even notice the former, this one answers itself.

Thus, we are left with the following: Halo should be gameplay focused, compromises must be made to achieve technical excellence, and variable resolution is preferable to variable frame rate with regards to gameplay.

All of the other stuff (such as potential min and max resolutions) is entirely pointless to speculate on, as the majority of graphical polish comes in the very last stretch of design.

Also, 60fps>30fps, for reasons that have been elaborated on OVER AND OVER AND OVER. Seriously, guys, get off that hill.

Nah, for me, 60 FPS is one of the lower priorities for campaign. There's a ton of factors that make a Halo campaign a Halo campaign and prioritizing FPS over everything else seems nonsensical to me.

 

[Steverulez]

There was no target resolution. With the beta already at only 720p, things werent looking good.
7 Months later and the game still suffers from Aliasing and on top of that now uses a Dynamic resolution.

If i buy new Hardware, i expect better things

There is nothing wrong with that.

Your posts read like the game is done and always amuse me. If the video was made in late May, it has 5 months left until given the late October launch, optimisation is one of the last things being done.

I remember you telling me how garbage UE4 was on Xbox One because of how Fable Legends runs/looks on XB1, another game... in beta... that isnt finished. Im pretty sure that had a big update recently too, and that still isnt the most recent build that LH have working in the studio, iirc.

You buy new hardware then judge them on betas months and months before launch, perhaps you should buy other hardware.

 

[Freiya]

And Halo is infinitely better now with 60fps.

Any shooter is better off as 60fps, especially a title as competitively focused as Halo 5.



yes because the game looks like a 360 game

lmao, this fucking thread is priceless

The game is not a looker, the only thing it has going for it is the amount of stuff going on at once and the fps. Thats ok I guess but I expect first party halo to wow me and show me why I bought an xb1. This game wasn't even ready at launch or even a year later like it should have been. Its like people have forgotten this is Microsofts FLAGSHIP game.

I'm still excited for halo 5 and I've just finished reading halo first strike which is like the 4th halo book I've read this month so i can be ready for halo 5. Also replaying halos in mcc as well. I believe i am a halo fan and I still think the game doesn't look that great.

 

[Poodlestrike]

Nah, for me, 60 FPS is one of the lower priorities for campaign. There's a ton of factors that make a Halo campaign a Halo campaign and prioritizing FPS over everything else seems nonsensical to me.

Over everything? Yeah, of course. Halo campaigns should prioritize scale and encounter design.

On a purely technical level, though? Discounting (or only considering after) game design? 60fps>all. It just plays so much better.

Your posts read like the game is done and always amuse me. If the video was made in late May, it has 5 months left until given the late October launch, optimisation is one of the last things being done.

I remember you telling me how garbage UE4 was on Xbox One because of how Fable Legends runs/looks on XB1, another game... in beta... that isnt finished. Im pretty sure that had a big update recently too, and that still isnt the most recent build that LH have working in the studio, iirc.

You buy new hardware then judge them on betas months and months before launch, perhaps you should buy other hardware.

Wait, he was talking shit about Legends? Lol. Game is gorgeous!

Spoiler

Pls don't report me for breaking NDA.

 

[VinFTW]

The game is not a looker, the only thing it has going for it is the amount of stuff going on at once and the fps. Thats ok I guess but I expect first party halo to wow me and show me why I bought an xb1. This game wasn't even ready at launch or even a year later like it should have been. Its like people have forgotten this is Microsofts FLAGSHIP game.

I'm still excited for halo 5 and I've just finished reading halo first strike which is like the 4th halo book I've read this month so i can be ready for halo 5. Also replaying halos in mcc as well. I believe i am a halo fan and I still think the game doesn't look that great.

Watch the Warzone giant bomb first look and tell me this isn't a next gen game.

 

[Primethius]

Over everything? Yeah, of course. Halo campaigns should prioritize scale and encounter design.

On a purely technical level, though? Discounting (or only considering after) game design? 60fps>all. It just plays so much better.

There is no doubt that 60 FPS plays better in pretty much every genre. It's just not something that should be pushed for in all situations without consideration for other factors. But it looks like we're in agreement on that.

 

[jem0208]

You cant compare Destiny with Halo 5... 343 most likely works with the most updated SDKs etc.

Nothing proved so far that im wrong.
Only thing that comes from the agressive people is "its not finished". Yes that is true.

But i havent seen a game in YEARS, that changed drasticly in 3 months before release. Never happened.

I dont think that the Dynamic Resolution is going away. They dont build that stuff to throw it away some weeks before release.

Like someone said, they will probably optimize that stuff even more. And maybe it wont drop that often anymore at release.

So Destiny doesn't count just because "reasons".

I can't take you seriously; you must be a troll, I've never encountered someone so willfully ignorant and dense.

They were targeting a single resolution though and improved it. It seems this using dynamic resolution. Wouldn't they need to different programming techniques. Seems odd to program for dynamic resolution then swtiched to a fixed one.

I'm not saying they'll switch to a fixed res. I'm saying you can't establish the final technical details of a game based off of build created many months before launch. Jumper has this ridiculous notion that games just can't be improved before launch. Even though he's been provided with multiple examples as well as multiple devs saying otherwise.

 

[Hendrick's]

This why what they showed at E3 didnt look so hot? Throw me in the 30fps for campaign mode camp.

 

[El_Chino]

Uhm they have to use a Dynamic Resolution for 60fps... thats a struggle to me.


The game is almost final. Come by release and everything will be the same. And i just told you than i dont believe in magic.

You do realize those sprint episodes were filmed back in February-may, they could be incredibly old builds so NO ONE knows what the situation is now. Frankie himself said that resolution will be one of the things they optimize in the last few months of development.

 

[MrGreencastle]

There is no doubt that 60 FPS plays better in pretty much every genre. It's just not something that should be pushed for in all situations without consideration for other factors. But it looks like we're in agreement on that.

We've barely seen anything about this game aside from Arena multiplayer (small scale mp), 1 Warzone map (large scale mp), and an E3 sliver of campaign. I have no doubts in my mind that 343 will be able to one-up every single large-scale encounter in Halo 3, Reach, and 4, while also maintaining 60fps. I'm not worried.

It's typical fanboy bullshit where they try to divert the argument to something else.

Solid post 10/10.

 

[Dick Justice]

This is a topic about tech... so i dont know what your point is.

It's typical fanboy bullshit where they try to divert the argument to something else.

 

[JumPeRJumPzZ]

Your posts read like the game is done and always amuse me. If the video was made in late May, it has 5 months left until given the late October launch, optimisation is one of the last things being done.

I remember you telling me how garbage UE4 was on Xbox One because of how Fable Legends runs/looks on XB1, another game... in beta... that isnt finished. Im pretty sure that had a big update recently too, and that still isnt the most recent build that LH have working in the studio, iirc.

You buy new hardware then judge them on betas months and months before launch, perhaps you should buy other hardware.

Never said that UE4 runs like garbage on XboxOne, but it isnt great looking either.

I dont get why im not allowed to discuss and criticize the tech behind games. Why is the only and worst argument always "sell your console"... really?

Im not telling what you should do either.

 

[Primethius]

We've barely seen anything about this game aside from Arena multiplayer (small scale mp), 1 Warzone map (large scale mp), and an E3 sliver of campaign. I have no doubts in my mind that 343 will be able to one-up every single large-scale encounter in Halo 3, Reach, and 4, while also maintaining 60fps. I'm not worried.

I'm not worried, however I am cautious about it. 4 was a huge regression in scale and while they've talked about 5's scale, they haven't really shown much of it.

 

[thelastword]

Whatever they do to maintain a locked 60fps is okay with me.

Just recently the game was running 720p with dips in multiplayer. The campaign will try to push more with certain scenes and set pieces so you can expect the framerate in SP to dip much more than in MP.

I think persons are going to be in for a rude awakening thinking that the dynamic resolution is going to solve all this game's framerate and IQ problems. There has to be a balance, the problem with HALO 5 is that it was already at a low resolution, so a dynamic framerate won't help it much, if at all, it will still run predominantly at the lower resolution. The downside to that approach for an already low resolution game is that framerate may even fall even below 720p when there's dips at that rez.

I personally do not believe they will have full on dynamic resolution though, they will have a cut off point at a certain low resolution and the framerate will drop in those instances. If they don't implement that, then the IQ will be really variable and messy, from menus to ingame etc..Looking at the stats in the OP, it's already looking like it varies quite a bit, if resolutions go as low as 832*810 etc...it's not going to look good at all.

Well, at least you described why some people lament this is not the Halo gameplay change they wanted . Halo becoming more of a twitch shooter is not really what I was hoping for, but it might very well have great sales as there is a big market for those shooters too.

I'm not so sure that there's a sales magnet to twitch shooters outside of COD (yet even COD is losing some steam). Halo has never been about twitch shooting and that's what separated it from other shooters at release. I've seen other shooters follow that path to destructive results...slower methodological shooter to twitch...Killzone 2 to Killzone 3 is but one that had less of a reception deviating from it's roots.

960x1080p it's really, really low res. Isn't it quite close to 720p? Could be really noticeable in the IQ sharpness. I don't know, that's a big comprimise. Isn't it better 900p all the time at this point?

960*1080p never looked good on a 1080p screen, I know because I played several 960*1080p games on the PS3, they were always a very blurry affair. If you are going sub-hd but want a nice upscale to 1080p I find 1280*1080p is where you should start at a minimum. 1440*1080, 1600*1080p, 1782*1080p all work fine on the upside.

 

[JumPeRJumPzZ]

You do realize those sprint episodes were filmed back in February-may, they could be incredibly old builds so NO ONE knows what the situation is now. Frankie himself said that resolution will be one of the things they optimize in the last few months of development.

The Screenshots in the OP are from that last Episode of the Sprint which contains footage from May 2015. Not really that old.

And like i said, why build a Dynamic Resolution solution if you wont use it at the end?

Some of you cant be serious in thinking that the game will drasticly boost a steady 900p/60fps presentation. The game goes gold in what, maybe 3 months?

 

[Steverulez]

It's typical fanboy bullshit where they try to divert the argument to something else.

OP asked if it [Dynamic resolution] was a good or bad thing before editing it out, so... the person came in, answered that it doesn't matter to them.

Perhaps dont ask people for their thoughts if they do not want to be told to some people it doesnt matter.

I personally am not bothered by it either, although if they are going to go for 60fps then I dont expect it to hover in the 45/50 range, pick your frame-rate hit it or just say fuck it and go with 30 (which they wont do now because they already committed to 60)

The point seemed pretty obvious in that post really, doesnt seem like any "fanboy bullshit" that I can see

 

[Fisty]

This has got me curious...

If we get full, native backwards compatibilty next gen, is it possible that games with dynamic resolution like this could take advantage of the better specs and run at full 1080p consistently? I am not a developer, so i dont even know if this would be possible.

 

[Sword Of Doom]

So did the MCC force their hand into making the new Halo 60fps and if so I wonder how MS feel about this. The game will not look as good as you'd expect from a flagship next gen title and I'm just wondering from a PR perspective.

 

[Steverulez]

This has got me curious...

If we get full, native backwards compatibilty next gen, is it possible that games with dynamic resolution like this could take advantage of the better specs and run at full 1080p consistently? I am not a developer, so i dont even know if this would be possible.

No because its a software emulation, theres no new hardware in the box, its running off the same hardware that all the games do, there is nothing extra to draw from.

Spoiler

But at least we have the power of the cloud!

So did the MCC force their hand into making the new Halo 60fps and if so I wonder how MS feel about this. The game will not look as good as you'd expect from a flagship next gen title and I'm just wondering from a PR perspective.

They committed to Halo 5 being 60fps at E3 2013 iirc, which was before they announced Halo MCC so MCC didnt force them into anything.

 

[VinFTW]

So did the MCC force their hand into making the new Halo 60fps and if so I wonder how MS feel about this. The game will not look as good as you'd expect from a flagship next gen title and I'm just wondering from a PR perspective.

Looks pretty damn good considering it's 60fps. I don't think they're worried at all.

 

[MrGreencastle]

So did the MCC force their hand into making the new Halo 60fps and if so I wonder how MS feel about this. The game will not look as good as you'd expect from a flagship next gen title and I'm just wondering from a PR perspective.

60fps and dedicated servers are two of the most asked for things by Halo fans for years.

 

[USC-fan]

Really should target 30fps for single player. Makes the game look so much better.

 

[Fat4all]

60fps should be the standard for any first person shooter, especially ones with competitive multiplayer.

 

[OldAsUrSock]

Halo was always a looker, except maybe ODST when it came out. 3 had a jaggy problem but the scale and lighting were insane. Reach was a massive jump in fidelity without much sacrifice in scale (if any) and imo remains the graphical king of Halo games on 360.

Since Halo 3 the Halo series has never been a looker of a title. Microsoft basically used Gears as their looker.

 

[Bgamer90]

Since Halo 3 the Halo series has never been a looker of a title. Microsoft basically used Gears as their looker.

100% agree.

Halo 3 was less than 720p and at many times looked like a (really good looking) original Xbox game in my opinion.

 

[El_Chino]

The Screenshots in the OP are from that last Episode of the Sprint which contains footage from May 2015. Not really that old.

And like i said, why build a Dynamic Resolution solution if you wont use it at the end?

Some of you cant be serious in thinking that the game will drasticly boost a steady 900p/60fps presentation. The game goes gold in what, maybe 3 months?

Things improve every month during game development, just because you see something in May doesn't mean it'll be like that in the final build in October.

This whole series shows how game development goes so for you to assume something from the May build will be in the final is quite naive of you.

 

[Gabotron ES]

How will I be able to count vertical pixels and play Warzone at the same time, fuck this gen!

 

[Fat4all]

How will I be able to count vertical pixels and play Warzone at the same time, fuck this gen!

"Play" the game?!? HA!

Playing the game is soooooo last-gen...

 

[acevans2]

As a non-Xbox owner, I'd wager that a variable resolution is less noticeable than a variable frame rate. Seems like they're doing the best thing to reduce impact to gameplay/player experience.

 

[jem0208]

Since Halo 3 the Halo series has never been a looker of a title. Microsoft basically used Gears as their looker.

I feel like you're forgetting about Halo 4.

 

[rokkerkory]

Hmmm i wonder then if mp will be 720p since so much is going on esp in warzone

 

[Primethius]

Since Halo 3 the Halo series has never been a looker of a title. Microsoft basically used Gears as their looker.

I suppose when I say "looker" I'm taking into account the relative technical achievements of each title. Halo 3 featured massive sandboxes in single-player, with huge sprawling battles. So despite having a pretty big aliasing problem and awful face models, it was pretty impressive to me back when I played it in 2007.

The double-scarab fight blew me away. It's partially why I was never too impressed with Halo 4 graphically. It looked great but at the sacrifice of so much of what made Halo campaigns great.

 

[thelastword]

So did the MCC force their hand into making the new Halo 60fps and if so I wonder how MS feel about this. The game will not look as good as you'd expect from a flagship next gen title and I'm just wondering from a PR perspective.

I believe it was a bad decision, some of the halo games looked iffy and still had framerate problems at 30fps. So I just don't see how they're going to have a decent enough IQ in the flavor of current generation games. Historically speaking, I'm more or less referring to Halo 3 which was 30fps with dips and it was not a looker at all, terrible aliasing too. We had Halo 1 which had some serious slowdown in certain scenes way back then at 30fps, I can't comment on the others having no personal reference, but I can imagine, reach, Odst and Halo 4 all had their own IQ and framerate issues at 30fps just the same.

I just don't understand the need for 60fps in a series that thrived so well at 30fps. We all know that something has to be sacrificed for 60fps, so I'm wondering how the dynamic resolution will affect snipers from across the map, just as the lower resolution affected xbone players in COD Ghosts etc..and some of the lower resolution shooters on that system.

I believe they should have opted for a locked 30fps, just ensure that there was no dips, that would have been a first for the series along with the next gen look and perhaps a wider scope with their set pieces.

 

[Fisty]

No because its a software emulation, theres no new hardware in the box, its running off the same hardware that all the games do, there is nothing extra to draw from.

Spoiler

But at least we have the power of the cloud!

No, i mean if they have the exact same hardware set-up in xb2, but for example double ram, double esram, and twice as fast cpu. So not software emulation. Like if you upgrade your PC, same game but better performance.