-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Dynamic Resolution for Halo 5?
- Thread starter JumPeRJumPzZ
- Start date
MvmntInGrn
Member
Ideally it will be 1080p the majority of the time and only drop to accommodate intense visual effects like explosions.
Now in a negative sense. Lets say you approach a cliff with a vast forest being shown below. In a super-optimized world maybe that forest is a mix of pre-rendered and live rendering assets and runs at 1080p with no frame reduction. My concern is that they instead complete this scene quicker using all live rendered assets and the scene suffers from a reduced resolution to accommodate, hurting the production value.
There is a big difference between a dynamic resolution maintaining high quality production values in moments of resource strain, or just acting as a crutch to unoptimized levels/scenario design.
Now in a negative sense. Lets say you approach a cliff with a vast forest being shown below. In a super-optimized world maybe that forest is a mix of pre-rendered and live rendering assets and runs at 1080p with no frame reduction. My concern is that they instead complete this scene quicker using all live rendered assets and the scene suffers from a reduced resolution to accommodate, hurting the production value.
There is a big difference between a dynamic resolution maintaining high quality production values in moments of resource strain, or just acting as a crutch to unoptimized levels/scenario design.
Steverulez
Member
Oh I see, my apologies! Well, I guess games would need to be developed with that possibility in mind, probably be more likely to just improve loading and streaming etc
lol
Sort of agree but the ironic thing is the gameplay has always been good enough to balance the 30 FPS, and that's no longer the case since 343 ruined Halo's gameplay and floaty mechanics. No one cared when Halo was 30FPS because the gameplay was so good. Now we have an average looking game targeting 60 FPS with bad gameplay.
Note: I am not saying the game should not have targeted 60FPS but it is just ironic how one thing that should be a positive (60FPS) and moving forward does not make up for the gameplay.
Yeah depending on what they use to limit the resolution, i think it would at least be possible. If anyone would be keyed into MS's hardware plans for next gen, i think it would be 343. Doubt it would affect very many games, but maybe they are building the engine with future scalability in mind.
JumPeRJumPzZ
Banned
Yup you can see that in the WarZone footage.
curiouscharles
Member
I read that as they thought the textures did a poor job of hiding how low poly the terrain is.
The Real Napsta
Member
Reach looked pretty good. And Halo 4 looked great, although it sacrificed a lot to look that good.
Halo 5 seems to have tons of characters on screen and action (4 detailed Spartans are always on screen & other friendly and enemy AI), with tons of on screen action. This is suppose to run at locked 60 FPS. Which is impressive to me. I'm cool with dynamic res.
No way, Gears 3 looks better.
Halo 4 has some great scenes, real time cut scenes in particular and some levels have nice parts but there is a lot of shortcuts, skyboxes are a step back from the Bungie era, levels lack scale and encounters. Some stuff isn't so hot up close. If Reach didn't have that horrible AA solution that is probably the best looking Halo game, art preference aside.
Poodlestrike
Banned
Leyasu
Banned
I would rather they went the H2A res route. Getting 1080p plus 60fps locked and looking great is too much to ask for on the weakass xbone. So instead of chasing the pr points, I think it would be better to just nail down the res, and go from there.
I think that a locked frame rate is going to be their top priority. So they can/remove/optimise.
I think that a locked frame rate is going to be their top priority. So they can/remove/optimise.
I like when games are 60fps but come on this is just a stupid thing to say, before this generation no console version of a Halo game had been 60fps and they've played just fine.
On the resolution it always bugs me when games aren't running at native res it seems really noticeable to me. Can't wait for more quotes from 343 about it though the last time the H2A resolution was talked about it had a "crystal-like sharpness" which I guess is code for jaggies.
BigEvilTurtle
Banned
I used to get very bad nausea and headaches from Halo 3's bad frame rate. It might play fine but it affects some people negatively.
60 frames per second plays so much better though. For a video game, and a competitive game like Halo isn't that better? Go play MCC collection then go play Halo 3. Huge difference. When 60 FPS was announced, Halo fans were ecstatic, and for good reason.
Reach wasn't graphically impressive at all though. The particles were really the only standout feature. Halo 4 looked way better.
You can lol all you want but halo 5 doesn't even look better than killzone which is a launch game. People can make excuses like "oh it's 60 fps so you can't compare" blah blah all of that is irreverent to people who are just looking at the games. If someone needs to explain to me why the game doesn't look that great be it 60 fps or any other excuse then maybe the decision wasn't a good one.
I won't argue against 60 fps for mp.
Dynasty8
Member
Killzone has always had that realistic look. Halo is more about aesthetics and IMO has a much larger sandbox to play around with. That's not an excuse, it's pretty obvious.
Both look pleasing to look at. They're different art styles...but people seem to always give the nod to the more realistic games.
Either way, Killzone for me has always been very, very generic and bland as far as story, characters, music, atmosphere, lore, and gameplay goes. This is why I personally love Halo...it delivers on all of those.
staticneuron
Member
If you are talking about shadowfall. That wasn't a resolution drop they used temporal reprojection.
Short way of explaining this is when you upscale an image that is not native resolution the new pixels that are created from the stretch are taken from the nearest neighbor. Temporal reprojection that GG used basically means that their process looked back at the last 3 frames both color and motion vectors of the pixels and uses that as a prediction to create a new frame. If the prediction fails then it uses the nearest neighbor. So that is why Shadowfall will produce what looks like a cleaner image but not always. Sometimes you will get a result that is blurry but the only way you would notice that is if it is sustained for a few frames.
I imagine this is only important for MP in terms of Halo 5 and i am cool with that.... kinda. I agree with people that 60FPS for MP is great (imo doesn't matter as much in SP vs input lag) but where a lower resolution hurts is in large arenas when you have to deal with a threat that is far away. Other than that it is not going to be a deal breaker for most.
lol
I agree with you that Killzone isn't as good of a series as Halo. That's besides the point though. I also personally like the Halo art style more than Killzones but that doesn't change the fact that Halo doesn't look as impressive. I don't even think Halo looks bad tbh, just not as good as I was hoping. I just know the campaign could have been super amazing if it was 30 fps and had more awesome effects and stuff.
I've said my piece on it though and I don't want to get annoying with repeating my opinion. I'll stfu now =)
The only worry for me with dynamic resolution is when companies start using it not for polish, but to make up for consistent framedrops and so they can market stable 60fps.
If it's used in a game that doesn't have frequent drops, and they don't drop too low (so you don't have to do a major resolution drop to bring the rate back up) and so it's basically there just to give the game that super smooth feel without much compromise. That's what it's there for. Smoother experience. Quality.
Not a way for you to fix your lagging game so it ends up looking like we're streaming from youtube at 240p.
If it's used in a game that doesn't have frequent drops, and they don't drop too low (so you don't have to do a major resolution drop to bring the rate back up) and so it's basically there just to give the game that super smooth feel without much compromise. That's what it's there for. Smoother experience. Quality.
Not a way for you to fix your lagging game so it ends up looking like we're streaming from youtube at 240p.
Halo 4 was definitely a good looking game (especially for the 360) but it wasn't jaw dropping like Halo 1 and 2 during their time IMO.
Halo 4 if anything was one of the best looking games on the 360.
I agree but it wasn't jaw dropping to me. It was impressive for the system that it was on (since the 360 was 7 years old at the time) but the game itself wasn't above everything else on consoles. The late PS3 exclusives were more impressive in terms of visuals in my opinion.
Say what you will about the story and characters but Killzone 2's gameplay, music, atmosphere and lore were far from generic. They are unlike anything else on the market.
OdysseusVA
Banned
They're scaling both horizontally and vertically? and the lowest is 832x810?
W O W
O
W
W O W
O
W
1.21Gigawatts
Banned
I thought Halo 4 was the best looking game on 360 and one of the best looking games of the generation.
It didn't quite reach the level some Ps3 exclusives reached because somehow if developers spent years reseachring the hardware there was a way to get a little more juice out of it, but this doesn't take away anything of 343s achievement on the 360.
Now they're going for 60FPS and judging by the E3 footage the game still looks amazing.
It won't be among the best looking games, because there are many 30FPS games pushing visuals, but it will be among the most technically impressive games.
But not admirable enough to lower the overall fidelity of models and environments. Gotta have those 1080p screenshots and PR blurb.
Looking forward to the DF analysis and just how far it drops and how often.
TheOhrenberger.
Banned
The people asking for 30fps are probably new flavor of the month gamers. They'll play halo 5 for a few weeks, be done with it, and then never come back to it. Luckily 343 is listening to the people who will be playing it for a long time and is sticking to 60fps above all else.
Is it?
MrGreencastle
Member
You reckon?
It's far easier to optimise in a campaign environment as you can haven't got to deal with the worry that 24 players might simultaneous appear within 10ft of each other and all throw 4 grenades each.
In the campaign, you can even make design choices around performance, for example, maybe making a particular weapon unavailable in a particular area.
Heh.
I just hope it doesn't look like a jagfest. For the better it just be 1080p or the thing they did with COD on X1, just because of pr.
MadScientist
Banned
More games should do this!
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
I would not go that far. Come on man.
Halo 1 and 2 were pretty graphically top tier at the time of their respective releases. I still think the Halo 2 reveal demo was one of the best ever. Reach was good looking, and obviously Halo 4 was beautiful, so I'm not sure I agree with you on that.
Good luck picking out those enemies on a hill 20 ft away that are comprised of about 2 pixels lol.