Support NeoGAF

[Leyasu]

It didn't cause them any issues but they're using an 800x800 buffer and lower resolution alpha effects. Okay.

Lol. Surely you're not thinking that that is what the final resolution will be?

Anyway, just the like the person above said. 343 will have to take the beating before they even dream of saying how woefully inadequate the xbone is. I'm sure they are not comfortable with the position that they are in because of the not so powerhouse hardware they have to work on...

The xbone is my only console at the moment btw.

 

[bidguy]

Lol. Surely you're not thinking that that is what the final resolution will be?

Anyway, just the like the person above said. 343 will have to take the beating before they even dream of saying how woefully inadequate the xbone is. I'm sure they are not comfortable with the position that they are in because of the not so powerhouse hardware they have to work on...

The xbone is my only console at the moment btw.

i dont quite get what they are doing tbh, the game looks almost exactly like halo 4 which ran on ancient hardware. yes it looks good but i expected a lot more from halo

 

[Plasma]

Gamingbolt: Halo 5 Guardians Final Resolution Not Yet Locked, eSRAM Not an Issue, Campaign Runs at 60fps

343 Industries’ Halo 5: Guardians is one of the most anticipated titles of the year and will herald the first truly next gen Halo title for the Xbox One. It still has a ways to go in development though, especially when it comes to the resolution.

GamingBolt spoke to lead producer Chris Lee about the campaign and multiplayer. Will both modes run at 60 FPS? According to Lee, they indeed will.
However, when asked if the resolution would be at 1080p, Lee stated that, “So, we’re still optimizing the game as we haven’t launched so we haven’t locked in our final resolution yet. But we will talk more about that in the future.”

On whether the Xbox One’s eSRAM was causing problems with programming, especially since many developers have expressed their concerns with the memory, Lee said that, “It didn’t cause any issues for us.”

They said something similar on the H2A resolution, if they thought it was going to hit 1080p they would have probably said so by now. Still hoping but not very optimistic.

 

[VincentMatts]

Honestly what has me more worried is how unimpressed i was with the E3 demo. I hope theres more to the game than that cause that looked kinda dull tbh.

 

[Kibbles]

People are setting themselves up for disappointment. Since when has there been a massive difference between the e3 months before a game is released?

 

[ViciousDS]

Honestly what has me more worried is how unimpressed i was with the E3 demo. I hope theres more to the game than that cause that looked kinda dull tbh.

TBH, all game demos at microsofts conference were boring as fuck.

Gears of War 4, Tomb Raider (which later footage with the wilderness/survival stuff looked amazing compared to the scripted shit they showed.) and of course Halo 5.

The gameplay did look extremely dull....Graphics were the last thing on my mind when watching that conference. But as long as framerate is locked to something I'll be happy.

People are setting themselves up for disappointment. Since when has there been a massive difference between the e3 months before a game is released?

Yes, apparently everyone forgot how much better Project cars got when DF released their stuff early and then re-updated it due to the backlash. :/ it was such a minor difference and still had massive issues on the xbox one..

 

[c0de]

People are setting themselves up for disappointment. Since when has there been a massive difference between the e3 months before a game is released?

In performance? Last year it was cod.

 

[JumPeRJumPzZ]

In performance? Last year it was cod.

Huh? If i remember there werent that much issues...

 

[c0de]

Huh? If i remember there werent that much issues...

That wasn't the question. But how many games got a dedicated article from eurogamer after e3 regarding performance which we can use to argue a similar case?

 

[dancrane212]

That wasn't the question. But how many games got a dedicated article from eurogamer after e3 regarding performance which we can use to argue a similar case?

I think Sunset Overdrive had a similar setup where the final release performed noticeably better than what digital foundry took a look at during E3.

 

[nib95]

That wasn't the question. But how many games got a dedicated article from eurogamer after e3 regarding performance which we can use to argue a similar case?

Many big games do. Battlefront, Destiny, Titanfall, Uncharted 4 etc. I think they're working on an Uncharted 4 one for the new E3 demo now, but just haven't had the time to finish it. It's a bit less exciting when the frame rate is just straight locked, but then there are always other things to dicuss too.

 

[watership]

It didn't cause them any issues but they're using an 800x800 buffer and lower resolution alpha effects. Okay.

It's too bad Halo 5 turned out so bad 4 months before it came out.

 

[VincentMatts]

TBH, all game demos at microsofts conference were boring as fuck.

Gears of War 4, Tomb Raider (which later footage with the wilderness/survival stuff looked amazing compared to the scripted shit they showed.) and of course Halo 5.

The gameplay did look extremely dull....Graphics were the last thing on my mind when watching that conference. But as long as framerate is locked to something I'll be happy.

For me the gameplay was meh and the graphics too. Not hyped at all. Only thing im looking forward to is trying warzone.

edit: But i have to say, the 60FPS really rejuvenated the older games for me (MCC). It might be "just a number" to some, but once you get used to it its hard to go back. I hope they hit it.

 

[Ryouji Gunblade]

After experiencing the glorious 60 fps in the MCC, I don't want to go back to 30 fps.

Was cutting splitscreen a trade-off for this?

 

[LegalEagleMike]

After experiencing the glorious 60 fps in the MCC, I don't want to go back to 30 fps.

Was cutting splitscreen a trade-off for this?

according to the developer yes. If the game delivers on scope and gameplay then I think most people will be fine with it. If they do not deliver then many people are going to wonder why features were removed.

 

[dragonelite]

After experiencing the glorious 60 fps in the MCC, I don't want to go back to 30 fps.

Was cutting splitscreen a trade-off for this?

Depends on the person, i for one have no need for it given most of my friends will
play online.

 

[The Baron Count]

Lol. Surely you're not thinking that that is what the final resolution will be?

Anyway, just the like the person above said. 343 will have to take the beating before they even dream of saying how woefully inadequate the xbone is. I'm sure they are not comfortable with the position that they are in because of the not so powerhouse hardware they have to work on...

The xbone is my only console at the moment btw.

Woefully inadequate? Please.

This line of thinking is so friggin bizarre to me. I don't recall people calling the PS2 hardware "woefully inadequate" even though it was a distant third in power, because it was plenty capable. The most powerful system on the market right now isn't anywhere near powerful enough to call the X1 "woefully inadequate". It's proven that it is perfectly capable, just certainly not as capable as it's competition.

Really dislike the mentality of everything that isn't the absolute best somehow being shit.

 

[Abdiel]

Woefully inadequate? Please.

This line of thinking is so friggin bizarre to me. I don't recall people calling the PS2 hardware "woefully inadequate" even though it was a distant third in power, because it was plenty capable. The most powerful system on the market right now isn't anywhere near powerful enough to call the X1 "woefully inadequate". It's proven that it is perfectly capable, just certainly not as capable as it's competition.

Really dislike the mentality of everything that isn't the absolute best somehow being shit.

I get what you're saying, though it's also not really the same situation.

The amount of titles that come out on both of these consoles, and also on PC now, is not at all the same as it was in the PS2 era. The amount of software that was straight up exclusive to the PS2 dwarfed the library of the original Xbox.

With the huge array of multiplatforms that are HUGE franchises now, it means that direct comparisons get made between the hardware in a much more distinct sense. You can draw those lines clearly.

I do still think that there's hyperbole in terms of the difference in power, but it is also not an insignificant difference regarding how these consoles compare. MS put certain priorities into place in the hardware, and it handicapped it for a lot of the gaming aspects compared with competing platforms. That's just the reality of this generation.

 

[Shpeshal Nick]

My guess is 900/unstable 60.

 

[Wereroku]

My guess is 900/unstable 60.

I think MP will be whatever they have to have it at to get a stable 60. They want an esports audience and you can't have framedrops. However I think they will be more lax with the SP portion but who knows.

 

[The Baron Count]

I get what you're saying, though it's also not really the same situation.

The amount of titles that come out on both of these consoles, and also on PC now, is not at all the same as it was in the PS2 era. The amount of software that was straight up exclusive to the PS2 dwarfed the library of the original Xbox.

With the huge array of multiplatforms that are HUGE franchises now, it means that direct comparisons get made between the hardware in a much more distinct sense. You can draw those lines clearly.

I do still think that there's hyperbole in terms of the difference in power, but it is also not an insignificant difference regarding how these consoles compare. MS put certain priorities into place in the hardware, and it handicapped it for a lot of the gaming aspects compared with competing platforms. That's just the reality of this generation.

And those direct comparisons tend to outline just how little difference the power makes for most multiplats. More often than not it is a matter of 900p vs 1080 with very few other differences, that is nothing compared to the difference between the Xbox hardware and the PS2.

This might just be because I play on PC primarily but if Iook at these system's GPUs and compare them to what I have in my PC. THAT is a huge difference. 2816 shader cores versus the PS4's 1152. That's a big difference to me.

768 vs 1152 is not huge at all in my mind and the general 50 percent reduction in pixels in multiplat games reflects that. I know that is a big difference to some people but I just think contextually, it's pretty damn small.

I mean geez, go look at the differences in GTA3 on the Xbox vs the PS2 if you want to see a huge gap in power, it was nuts.

Anyway, I certainly have no interest in a PS4 vs X1 thing, because honestly they both occupy the same space in my mind. It's just that acting like the X1 is a vastly inferior machine in terms of performance is simply a fallacy and rather silly.

It IS an inferior machine in terms of performance, that is an indisputable fact. I wouldn't say it's a tiny gap between the two either. I just don't think it's a huge one.

Just seems to me like most people that say these things couldn't actually tell you what the shader cores do or what the difference between GDDR3 and GDDR5 is.

Christ, I just realized how "PC master race" this post can possibly come across. Not my intention, like, at all.

I just believe in degrees.

 

[L4nnist3r]

My guess is 900/unstable 60.

Not even, I think they might have problems locking 60FPS at 900p. My guess is that resolution will be close to 720p.

 

[The Baron Count]

Not even, I think they might have problems locking 60FPS at 900p. My guess is that resolution will be close to 720p.

If they're shooting for keeping it ACTUALLY locked? Then yeah, I think you might be right.

Most "60FPS" games don't exactly hit that mark often enough to really be referred to as such in my opinion. Depends on how consistent they want it, but given the complexity of a Halo environment and what we know about the specs in the system, yeah I wouldn't bet on reaching 900p.

 

[uncledonnie]

They said something similar on the H2A resolution, if they thought it was going to hit 1080p they would have probably said so by now. Still hoping but not very optimistic.

I would happily take the H2A resolution, it looked great.

 

[EBE]

do you guys really think this is going to be 720p?

 

[The Baron Count]

do you guys really think this is going to be 720p?

We have absolutely no way of knowing but given the complexity of the game they are building, keeping that frame rate consistent is going to be a hell of a task. I think they will either keep the resolution dynamic or go slightly above 720. They ain't messin around with Warzone. That thing is going to be difficult to optimize.

Either that or the game will end up having some performance issues here and there. We will have to wait and see.

 

[EchoChamber]

If they don't reach 60 locked the game craps itself, that's the reason splitscreen is not in halo 5 guardians.

 

[emrober5]

If it's 720p I'm not buying it. I am a little more accepting of "1080pr" after playing H2A, but dropping down to 720 would be unbearable at this point.

They never should have gone for 60fps

 

[EBE]

We have absolutely no way of knowing but given the complexity of the game they are building, keeping that frame rate consistent is going to be a hell of a task. I think they will either keep the resolution dynamic or go slightly above 720. They ain't messin around with Warzone. That thing is going to be difficult to optimize.

Either that or the game will end up having some performance issues here and there. We will have to wait and see.

i guess. i just dont see it shipping at 720p. i think that downplays the xbox one hardware too much and makes a mountain out of warzone's molehill.

 

[The Baron Count]

i guess. i just dont see it shipping at 720p. i think that downplays the xbox one hardware too much and makes a mountain out of warzone's molehill.

Like I said, we'll see.

I think it's important that people take a second and think of most of the 60FPS games out there and how small and controlled they tend to be. Warzone is looking to be the largest scale thing this series has ever had which is saying a lot.

The only game that is really comparable in scale attempting to do 60FPS is BF4 and while it is massively impressive on both systems, performance left a lot to be desired and it was 720p on the X1.

 

[Majanew]

I expect 343 to keep the dynamic resolution and it'll probably hover around 720p more than not. Going after 60fps was a mistake. 343 should have locked the game at 30fps with no drops or spikes, with better graphics and a better resolution.

But i have to say, the 60FPS really rejuvenated the older games for me (MCC). It might be "just a number" to some, but once you get used to it its hard to go back. I hope they hit it.

60fps in MCC feels off because there's a lot of deadzones.

 

[El_Chino]

I expect 343 to keep the dynamic resolution and it'll probably hover around 720p more than not. Going after 60fps was a mistake. 343 should have locked the game at 30fps with no drops or spikes, with better graphics and a better resolution.



60fps in MCC feels off because there's a lot of deadzones.

I honestly agree with you 100%. They could've done what uncharted is doing, 30FPS for campaign and 60fps for multilayer.

 

[Fredrik]

What planet are you living on?

Did you miss the 60fps (40fps) Second Son or the 60FPS (40-50fps) Killzone or the 60FPS Drive Club ("we've changed it to 30fps") How about the 60FPS

I'm guessing you also forgot 60FPS Uncharted 4 ("We've changed it to 30fps)

Apparently I have, but please show me where they used 60fps to market those games. Like you said, none of them has achieved 60fps, to my knowledge that was only target framerates and developer pipe dreams before the hardware was finished, not marketing. UC4 going for 30fps in SP has caused a backlash seen in the UC4 thread right now, not because 60fps was used in the marketing but because ND was stupid enough to rant about 60fps being so much better than 30fps when hyping TLOUR so they now look like fools when not going for 60fps in UC4 too. Same backlash will be seen here if H5 go for 30fps and they need to do everything they can to not go down that route.

 

[twobear]

It's too bad Halo 5 turned out so bad 4 months before it came out.

I mean, Uncharted 4 isn't out until the beginning of 2016 and it's already looking absolutely stunning. Horizon isn't out until even later.

If you think they can get a 800x800 game to 1080p in four months, I do't know what to say.

 

[Crossing Eden]

I mean, Uncharted 4 isn't out until the beginning of 2016 and it's already looking absolutely stunning. Horizon isn't out until even later.

If you think they can get a 800x800 game to 1080p in four months, I do't know what to say.

Let's not pretend like ND didn't have to switch their framerate target for the SP portion of UC4. Point is, stop pretending that the e3 demo was the final build of this game. It was not, saying they're having trouble with ESRam based off of the resolution of an e3 demo which might not have even been the current build is ridiculous.

 

[Biker19]

Poor MisterXclown, Dat Secret Sauce still not have arrived on devs hands...

LOL, how does this guy have a lot of fans behind him?

 

[diffusionx]

If it's 720p I'm not buying it. I am a little more accepting of "1080pr" after playing H2A, but dropping down to 720 would be unbearable at this point.

They never should have gone for 60fps

heh, I'm not going to pull a "poster named NeoGAF" thing here, but reading comments like this and then the "Naughty Dog lied to us, we should have 60fps" in the UC4 30fps thread is pretty funny. Damned if you do damned if you don't I guess.

 

[foolishoptimist]

Apparently I have, but please show me where they used 60fps to market those games. Like you said, none of them has achieved 60fps, to my knowledge that was only target framerates and developer pipe dreams before the hardware was finished, not marketing. UC4 going for 30fps in SP has caused a backlash seen in the UC4 thread right now, not because 60fps was used in the marketing but because ND was stupid enough to rant about 60fps being so much better than 30fps when hyping TLOUR so they now look like fools when not going for 60fps in UC4 too. Same backlash will be seen here if H5 go for 30fps and they need to do everything they can to not go down that route.

The first UC4 teaser was released at 60fps.

But we knew it was early, and it was all cut-scene, no gameplay. So no one is particularly surprised at the drop, just disappointed. We'd like to see what ND could pull off at 60fps(and not a PS3 port).

 

[The Wraith]

I would do backflips over 900p/60 fps. If they cant hit that then it will likely be 720p/60 fps. Either way im buying it.

 

[LordOfChaos]

LOL, how does this guy have a lot of fans behind him?

Wow, 4000 feet tall and only 25% of the GPU! At 100% they could make a 16,000 foot tall guardian!

 

[Signet Son]

I'll wait for release. Speculation is just that right now...speculation. Beta was incredibly good. Frank says optimization is in the final stages of development and e3 demo doesn't reflect the final game. I'll take his work over DF findings on an e3 demo.

 

[Gaf-Didact]

If they don't reach 60 locked the game craps itself, that's the reason splitscreen is not in halo 5 guardians.

I still don't really understand this. Its like dudebro science.

 

[Fredrik]

The first UC4 teaser was released at 60fps.

But we knew it was early, and it was all cut-scene, no gameplay. So no one is particularly surprised at the drop, just disappointed. We'd like to see what ND could pull off at 60fps(and not a PS3 port).

I'm actually both surprised and disappointed because of how trust-worthy ND had been in the past and their wizardry doing crazy stuff on past hardwares, when they hyped 60fps and mocked 30fps before releasing The Last of Us Remastered it just seemed very unlikely that they would go back to 30fps in UC4. 343 hyping 60fps early on for Halo 5 is basically the same thing, but I think the fall will be harder for 343 if they downgrade it to 30fps because it's a FPS and it's on the XB1 which is already under stress PR-wise.

 

[L4nnist3r]

i dont quite get what they are doing tbh, the game looks almost exactly like halo 4 which ran on ancient hardware. yes it looks good but i expected a lot more from halo

Maybe the maps on SP are bigger, H4 didn't have the open maps H2 and H3 had.

 

[dragonelite]

I would do backflips over 900p/60 fps. If they cant hit that then it will likely be 720p/60 fps. Either way im buying it.

Same here, too big of a fan to skip it, and the beta played alright for a beta at 720p.

 

[soulassssns]

Or just wait and see instead of making purchase decisions off of a trailer analysis.

 

[c0de]

Many big games do. Battlefront, Destiny, Titanfall, Uncharted 4 etc. I think they're working on an Uncharted 4 one for the new E3 demo now, but just haven't had the time to finish it. It's a bit less exciting when the frame rate is just straight locked, but then there are always other things to dicuss too.

That is not "many". What I mean is there is not enough data available to make any statements based on the past where we can infer anything from an e3 build to a final release.

 

[Harmen]

I'm actually both surprised and disappointed because of how trust-worthy ND had been in the past and their wizardry doing crazy stuff on past hardwares, when they hyped 60fps and mocked 30fps before releasing The Last of Us Remastered it just seemed very unlikely that they would go back to 30fps in UC4.

Nd has been pretty transparent about their priorities though. They have become more ambitious than they initially anticipated and their priority has always been making their games as detailed and beautiful as possible (and I think it shows).

They did not lie when saying 60 fps is superior, because it is. Which is also why the MP component does go for 60 fps, because that is technically feasible within their vision. But to them their vision for sp can only be realised at 30 fps on the ps4. And since you use the term trust, I trust them to make the right tradeoffs for the most amazing sp experience. Disappointment is fair through, but it is not like they went full Game of Thrones on the gaming community here.

The problem with Halo 5 is that for a lot of people it does not look too hot. And that, in combination with a weird dynamic resolution and inconsistent framerate close to launch, does not help. Their targets for the end product are clear and stated explicitly (unlike ND, right?), but I cannot fault people for having some doubts at this point.

I myself do believe Halo 5 will be smooth and running at a good resolution though. After MCC the stakes are high and I do not believe they will f*ck up here, as it is the xbox flagship series.

 

[Caayn]

I honestly agree with you 100%. They could've done what uncharted is doing, 30FPS for campaign and 60fps for multilayer.

No thanks, jumping between 30fps and 60fps is not pleasent.

Why do people suddenly want 30fps singleplayer and 60fps multiplayer?

 

[KORNdoggy]

wern't a ton of people claiming there was no split screen due to to all the simulations being linked to a 60 frames per second framerate which wouldnt work right if you dropped them to 30fps? if that'd the case why can the single player drop well below 60fps? surely it would outright break the gameplay?