I've played PS4 and Xbox One games that do it and I never once noticed it. Screen tearing and frame dropping, though, is something I almost always see.
Which PS4 game have you played where DR was so noticeable that you would notice it anyway? The only Dynamic Resolution game (Wolfenstein) on the PS4 is 1080p 60fps 99% percent of the time, so why would you notice a disparity in IQ? On the flipside, it was much easier to notice the lower resolution on the XBONE because it varied in resolution much much more. Pretending that it was about the same and that you could not notice either at the lower rez is being totally disingenuous about it. They do not compare.
This is the thing, DR should be implemented if you can maintain your max resolution and framerate the majority of the time, it was a perfect implementation in Wolfenstein PS4. If Halo was 1080p 60fps say 90% of the time and got DR implemented into the engine to curtail some really heavy scenes, that would not be too bad at all, especially for the hardware, but doing DR for a game which can't even lock 60fps at 720P (based on the footage present), means that the resolution fluctuations is not going to be nice at all.
Have you ever watched a youtube video when your internet connection is acting up, set it to 1080 and it just auto drops to 144p after a couple of seconds of play, it is highly aggravating. I don't understand the notion of 60fps or bust when IQ is butchered and detail is smeared dynamically, it's even worse doing that as opposed to lowering certain effects and giving a 900p 60fps experience instead.
60fps and higher resolution than any halo released on 360. what are you talking about right now?
Except that this is the xbone and not a 360. Halo 5 as we know it, beyond the slides shown, is a 720p game, that's not too far removed from past halos, wasn't Halo4 720P too? Standards suppose to go higher for each console iteration, nobody entered this gen thinking that the only way a flagship halo game was going to be 60fps was to be rendered at the resolution standard of 360 games in 720p.
People are willing to compromise, I've seen many xbox fans say since they now know what the hardware is capable of, that 900p is good enough for them, they expect it in many instances. It's just that Halo5 may not be able to run at 900p 60fps consistently since it has dips at 720p as we know it. Even at 720p with dips there was some sacrifice made to get it there, perhaps lowering the scale of the game, cutting down on the detail, some people would just prefer perhaps a constant 1360*1080, 900p or even a 1080p 30fps game with more eyecandy and a cleaner/sharper image that does not smudge any detail.
The point is simple, the sacrifice in IQ for 60fps is way too much in 2015. Nobody expected such huge cutbacks on display on their 1080p sets. This is where the developer has to cater to both sides of the argument and bring some balance in the IQ vs performance ratio.
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.
So all those millions of people who bought the last 5 Halos and are still playing these games day in day out are not fans at all? They're not the target audience?
The MCC is not even a stable 60fps and was littered in problems, are you saying that persons who played the MCC just can't go back to 30fps because of the MCC's quality? That's would be really ironic. I got that was the gist of your reasoning in a later post.
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.
Usually campaigns in games are way more ambitious, better texture detail and effects, better character models, huge setpieces which can entail all these advancements in one fell swoop, higher quality cutscenes etc... MP is dialed down in almost all games that I know of for a smoother experience.
Do you not understand why DooM 4 won't be rendered in 320x200 either, then?
Halo worked at 30 fps, but it works better at 60 fps. This is obvious to anyone who has tried to play one of the older console games after having played MCC, especially the multiplayer.
Resolution dips should have much less of an impact on actual gameplay than framerate dips, and there's
science that supports this.
You are arguing from one stand point, that's 60fps. Of course 60fps is better than 30fps but not at the expense of a blurry image which lacks detail. You know what always better too? a higher resolution or native resolution, that's always better than sub-native or lower resolutions. If your hardware is capable it's ideal that you have both, if your hardware does not have the easiest time doing both you have to come to a compromise within the hardware constraints. No one wants to shoot a smeared character across a map, it's even harder to keep track of him at 60fps. Balance is the key, resolution is very important too, to me and many others it's equally important to a steady framerate.
