• 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.

DF: Can Halo 5 deliver on its 60fps promise?

Theorry

Member
Of course, the real game-changer here is performance. For the first time, Halo 5 is built from the ground up with 60fps gameplay in mind. However, the question of whether 343 can hit that target with an acceptable level of consistency is still open to question, based on the E3 showing. While last year's multiplayer beta turned in relatively solid frame-rates, the conference campaign footage raises some concerns. Based on the demo, it seems that the target is a 'perceptual' 60fps experience more in line with the Call of Duty titles. That is, while the target remains 60fps, performance levels often dip below during action sequences.

The question is to what extent 343 will allow performance to deviate from the desired frame-rate - and right now, to be brutally frank, the E3 experience is some way off the level of consistency we want from the final game. This could wind up becoming a real issue if there isn't sufficient improvement: right now, only the quietest of moments delivers a completely stable frame-rate: every battle sequence in the demo suffers from noticeable drops - something we observed not just in the media briefing live demo, but in 343's own b-roll footage.

It's clear that performance is an important focus for Halo 5 and we applaud 343 for committing to a top-tier 60fps target when so many other games ship at 30fps or below. Keeping this goal in mind lends additional credibility to a wealth of evidence suggesting that 343 is experimenting with a dynamic resolution framebuffer. By adjusting pixel count based on engine load, this feature could allow Halo 5 to maintain a higher frame-rate at the expense of image quality during action heavy sequences. In its current form, this is clearly evident both in campaign and Warzone footage. In theory, it sounds like a promising solution, but Frank O'Conner again cautions that "there's zero permanent resolution information to take away from E3."

The current dynamic frame resolution system can actually be observed in more detail within the 'Road to E3' video published on the Halo Channel a few weeks back, and embedded below. It provides a closer look at the game in a debug state, complete with important performance statistics visible on-screen, as the camera is flown in and around the environment. We can see the horizontal resolution apparently shift dynamically between a full 1920 all the way down to 832 pixels. With 810 vertical lines in play we're looking at a resolution ranging from 1920x810 to 832x810. However, in b-roll distributed during E3, minimum resolution observed comes in at 1152x810 - not exactly wonderful but presumably more indicative of where the system is right now during gameplay.

The drive to optimise performance has implications elsewhere. Independent of rendering resolution, we also see plenty of low-resolution transparent alpha effects. Smoke and particles are rendered at a resolution low enough to produce noticeable saw-tooth edges where they intersect with the silhouette of the view weapon. This could be the key to delivering a stable 60fps experience, and right now it does seem that 343 is running the gamut of well-known techniques designed to ease up on GPU utilisation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=To4Tx3FG6zs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Wgx4E_21D4

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2015-can-halo-5-deliver-on-its-60fps-promise
 

Stacey

Banned
1152x810

What the fuck is this shit?

Dropping to this resolution and still not getting a locked 60?
 

Toki767

Member
60fps multiplayer and 30fps single player maybe?

Kinda doubt single player will be locked at 60. Although if they need to drop the resolution or lessen some effects to do so, they really should.
 

Caayn

Member
Frank O'Conner's post on Gaf about this.
Any directfeed 60fps videos?

Also...Is it still 720p or is the game at 900p or higher now?
Our final resolution will be the result of final polish, iteration and significant optimization. You should expect ALL our IQ to improve before launch. There's zero permanent resolution information to take away from E3.

60fps multiplayer and 30fps single player maybe?
No thanks, jumping that fast between two framerates is jarring and not a pleasent experience, imo.
 

Omni

Member
1152x810

What the fuck is this shit?

Dropping to this resolution and still not getting a locked 60?

Yeah, haha.

I know it's not finished yet, but Halo 5's visuals don't seem very impressive and to see it drop that much in both resolution and framerate is a bit jarring. I'm a bit worried about the final product.
 

zychi

Banned
I have 0 faith 343 will deliver what they promised. And i will be skipping the game sadly. Theyve killed my love for one of the few franchises id buy a console for
 

Omni

Member
Seems a realistic res to me.

Uh, no.

1152 x 810 = 933120 pixels
900 x 1600 = 1440000 pixels

Also Halo 2 Anniversary's campaign was 1328 x 1080 (1434240 pixels) which is slightly less than 900p. This would be a huge downgrade.
 

jelly

Member
Games state 60fps but it's rarely consistent. MCC wasn't exactly 60fps all the time and they're old games. Battlefield games, nope. Forza is a solid one.

I hope they get performance up but I don't think much changes with games usually unless performance is very poor to begin with.

I'm more Interested in getting a great campaign and amazing encounters. If it's just COD explosions in space at sort of 60fps then I'll be disappointed but 343 have said the rest of the game is huge and different ways to approach. Fingers crossed but still wary.
 

10k

Banned
These new generation consoles have far too weak cpu's to be pushing 1080p60 unless it's a remaster of last gen games. Four months from release and they've yet to hit 60fps with low quality smoke effects and such. This game may end up shipping at 900p or locking at 30 frames.
 

BigTnaples

Todd Howard's Secret GAF Account
Damn.



Would've rathered them go for 30 for campaign and 60 for multiplayer honestly.


Very underwhelming graphically thus far.
 
I wasn't expecting it drop to sub-hd levels, I thought something around 900p or higher under heavy load where it probably wouldn't be as noticeable. Also disappointed in reading about the low resolution alpha effects causing artefacts. I hope it's not as bad as GT5 rain alpha effects which completely turned me off the game.

Still, it's not in its final stage and we'll probably see some improvements.
 

system11

Member
This will be close enough to "locked" 60 for it not to matter, I don't think there's anything to be worried about. It's their flagship title and that's a specific feature for the new game, the most important one, no way they're going to let that go.
 
I have 0 faith 343 will deliver what they promised. And i will be skipping the game sadly. Theyve killed my love for one of the few franchises id buy a console for

It's the 7th main line Halo game man, not all franchises can last forever.
 

Adaren

Member
All this talk about split screen being cut for a 60 fps-requiring engine has had me wondering the same thing. It'd be impressive if they can pull it off, but fans will keep asking questions if there are any frame drops.

EDIT: Full article raises the same questions and is similarly confused.

The demo regularly drops below its 60fps target but if the simulation were tied so closely to frame-rate, one would imagine that related issues like slow-down would crop up as a result. This is obviously nothing more than speculation on our part, but it certainly seems possible for the game to operate at 30fps
 

nib95

Banned
Just lock it to 30fps with a higher consistent resolution already! At least for the single player anyway. That would be my preference. If we have to deal with inconsistent frame rates, as well as resolutions as low as listed, there's little point in it. They still have a few months of polishing time left, hopefully they can spruce it up. Not just performance and resolution wise, but graphically too.
 

EGM1966

Member
Sounds like they're trying to find a balance between visuals and performance. It's interesting and dynamic resolution or something like Killxone SF uses are both approaches I like but it sounds like they haven't found that balance yet; and ultimately may not overall.

Course they could just make the visuals whatever it takes to deliver smooth 60fps with large open spaces but I get the feeling they won't be willing to sacrifice visuals that much in current climate where resolution and graphics are important to the market (or seem to be).
 

thelastword

Banned
We were having this conversation in another thread prior, sadly even with these low resolution cuts, Halo still does not maintain 60fps.

1280*720 = 921,600
1152*810 = 933,120

and

832*810 = 673,920 (much lower than 720p)

These resolutions are going to look very nasty upscaled, detail is going to be lost in a blurry aliased smudge..
 
Sounds like they're trying to find a balance between visuals and performance. It's interesting and dynamic resolution or something like Killxone SF uses are both approaches I like but it sounds like they haven't found that balance yet; and ultimately may not overall.

Course they could just make the visuals whatever it takes to deliver smooth 60fps with large open spaces but I get the feeling they won't be willing to sacrifice visuals that much in current climate where resolution and graphics are important to the market (or seem to be).

They should have built the game around being 60fps, even if that means reducing the eye candy a bit. Don't go crazy with high tech stuff. 60fps is the right direction the game should be heading, it makes all the difference once you go back to the older sometimes "jittering' Halo games.
 

jelly

Member
They said animations and such are made for 60fps so not sure if 30fps is a possibility without reworking it.
 

Madness

Member
"there's zero permanent resolution information to take away from E3."

But here's an article talking about resolution even though we say there is no resolution information to take away from E3.

It's a fact now, Xbox One is weaker than PS4. Very few games able to hit 1080p/60fps on the console. Halo 5 beta played amazing at 60fps, so much so, I'd rather play at a lower resolution at 60fps, than at 1080p/30 or 900p/30. We came from 640p and sometimes sub 30 frames with Halo 3, and Halo 4 barely limped in at 720p but on certain maps or even during campaign would dip into 20 frames or less.


Dynamic scaling means that there is no set resolution, they'll use a variety to keep their target frame rate. 1080pr worked well for H2A, who knows what we get for H5.
 
I really hope they can lock the multiplayer res to 900p~1080p and 60fps.
But then again you have games like bf4 that are 720p on x1.
Current gen is just to weak to be blown away by graphics at 60 fps.

But here's an article talking about resolution even though we say there is no resolution information to take away from E3.

It's a fact now, Xbox One is weaker than PS4. Very few games able to hit 1080p/60fps on the console. Halo 5 beta played amazing at 60fps, so much so, I'd rather play at a lower resolution at 60fps, than at 1080p/30 or 900p/30. We came from 640p and sometimes sub 30 frames with Halo 3, and Halo 4 barely limped in at 720p but on certain maps or even during campaign would dip into 20 frames or less.

Dynamic scaling means that there is no set resolution, they'll use a variety to keep their target frame rate. 1080pr worked well for H2A, who knows what we get for H5.

Yeah the beta played great at 720p still would like to have 900p as a minimum in the release version.
 

PnCIa

Member
I am someone who is very, very concerned about game resolutions, BUT the game is not done! So judge the final product!
 

VGA222

Banned
How does DF know that the video that they used for their analysis doesn't have any frames dropped during the capture process.
 

Percy

Banned
Considering the degree of compromise 343 have been making with this title solely for the sake of 60fps , anything less than locked 60fps across the board in the final product would be pretty embarassing and would represent a pretty massive failure on their part.
 
Considering the degree of compromise 343 have been making with this title solely for the sake of 60fps , anything less than locked 60fps across the board in the final product would be pretty embarassing and would represent a pretty massive failure on their part.

What compromise have they made? No split screen? I was under the impression it was irrelavent, regardless...what else?
 

Shin-Ra

Junior Member
Count the low-res alpha pixels.

1BK94A.jpg
 

nOoblet16

Member
Fast or not it's jarring as fuck. Consistency over everything.
Nonsense.

How would it be any different from something like playing two different games that run at different framerate back to back...(for your "that fast part"). Campaign also plays different from multiplayer so it is pretty much like two different games. You don't play campaign over and over everyday for years...you do when when it comes to multiplayer though.

If this game was 30 FPS then by your logic you'd still complain since you could play Halo4 and all other Halo at 60FPS on Xbox One and according to your experience that would be very jarring. I'll repeat again, if Halo 5 becomes your main game you still won't be playing the campaign regularly.


Your reasoning would make sense in a game like Destiny where PvE and PvP are integrated together deeply but not in Halo where both of them will be separated far apart and you actually jump between PvP and PvE constantly and on a regular basis almost everyday.
 

Leyasu

Banned
Four months to go. I was hoping for a 900/60 final product, yet it seems the xbone is struggling to allow them even that!

God I hope this gen aint dragged out for another 5 years.
 

Glass

Member
Nonsense.

How would it be any different from something like playing two different games that run at different framerate back to back...(for your "that fast part").

Because its literally the same game, playing Spartans with the exact same abilities, Master Chief would feel like he was moving through syrup after playing the lightning fast multiplayer.
 

tuna_love

Banned
Nonsense.

How would it be any different from something like playing two different games that run at different framerate back to back...(for your "that fast part"). Campaign also plays different from multiplayer so it is pretty much like two different games. You don't play campaign over and over everyday for years...you do when when it comes to multiplayer though.

If this game was 30 FPS then by your logic you'd still complain since you could play Halo4 and all other Halo at 60FPS on Xbox One and according to your experience that would be very jarring. I'll repeat again, if Halo 5 becomes your main game you still won't be playing the campaign regularly.


Your reasoning would make sense in a game like Destiny where PvE and PvP are integrated together deeply but not in Halo where both of them will be separated far apart and you actually jump between PvP and PvE constantly and on a regular basis almost everyday.
Nonsense
 

Caayn

Member
Nonsense? To you maybe, to me it's very jarring and has an impact on my experience with the game.

Back when H3 and CoD4 were both at their prime I used to jump a lot between the two because I had friends playing both. The jump between them was very jarring each time despite the loading times, disc swapping, etc. inbetween actually playing the two different games. Now CoD4 and H3 played very differently, and the fps difference between playing was noticeably despite the time between the two games. Let alone a 30fps difference in the exact same game with a smaller time inbetween.

And just because you don't play the campaign regularly doesn't mean that others won't.

lowered fps for a photomode or menus in a 60fps game? Sure, but keep the gameplay (target) framerate consistent throughout the game.
 

FordGTGuy

Banned
Who bases an article on what the final product might be while using footage from a behind the scenes video?

C'mon now.

This is just disgusting clickbait from DF.
 

Three

Member
Nonsense? To you maybe, to me it's very jarring and has an impact on my experience with the game.

Back when H3 and CoD4 were both at their prime I used to jump a lot between the two because I had friends playing both. The jump between them was very jarring each time despite the loading times, disc swapping, etc. inbetween actually playing the two different games. Now CoD4 and H3 played very differently, and the fps difference between playing was noticeably despite the time between the two games. Let alone a 30fps difference in the exact same game with a smaller time inbetween.

lowered fps for a photomode or menus in a 60fps game? Sure, but keep the gameplay (target) framerate consistent throughout the game.

You do know that Halo 3 campaign was 30fps right? as was halo 4 as was halo reach. If you think it was jarring and owned that previous halo you didn't need another game to compare it to, you can just compare it like for like to something you've played.
 

Stacey

Banned
Nonsense? To you maybe, to me it's very jarring and has an impact on my experience with the game.

Back when H3 and CoD4 were both at their prime I used to jump a lot between the two because I had friends playing both. The jump between them was very jarring each time despite the loading times, disc swapping, etc. inbetween actually playing the two different games. Now CoD4 and H3 played very differently, and the fps difference between playing was noticeably despite the time between the two games. Let alone a 30fps difference in the exact same game with a smaller time inbetween.

And just because you don't play the campaign regularly doesn't mean that others won't.

lowered fps for a photomode or menus in a 60fps game? Sure, but keep the gameplay (target) framerate consistent throughout the game.

If the loading times are on par with H4 and H2A you'll forget what resolution you were playing at by time the map loads.
 
Four months to go. I was hoping for a 900/60 final product, yet it seems the xbone is struggling to allow them even that!

God I hope this gen aint dragged out for another 5 years.

I'm kinda with you on that. Actually, if this problem continues into the future (which is likely) it could make Steam Machines much more appealing.


Who bases an article on what the final product might be while using footage from a behind the scenes video?

C'mon now.

This is just disgusting clickbait from DF.

While I understand what your are saying, I'm not convinced that this issue is far removed from 343 currently. The game is due in a few months. The fact that HCEA, H2A, H3, & H4 CHUGS in many areas doesn't provide me comfort that Halo 5 will succeed as intended technically.

Halo 5 is still my most anticipated game and I LOVED the beta, but I can't help but be a bit skeptical in this regard.
 

Caayn

Member
You do know that Halo 3 campaign was 30fps right? as was halo 4 as was halo reach.
I know, hence my point. Jumping from a 30fps game to a 60fps in the same genre is jarring for me. I used H3 to CoD4 as an example for that.

I'm well aware that all Halo games have been 30fps so far, with the exception of MCC.
 

Oppo

Member
What the hell does 'perceptual 60 fps' mean? When did this silly term become a thing?

well like Wipeout HD's dynamic rez or Killzone's re projection trick in multi.

both of which worked very well IMO and should be of interest to 343.
 
Top Bottom