-
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
This.
Karak
Member
Some people noticed this in the newest The Sprint Videos:
Peopler over Beyond3d noticed different Resolutions trough the campaign and warzone gameplay videos too.
A good or bad thing?
A none thing.
Myspcr_Shadow
Member
Is resolution scaling noticeable as framerate dips? I don't think I would be able to tell if the res suddenly dropped as opposed to framerate.
Exploratory
Banned
The first pic is less than half the res of 1080p?
Why can't developers just stick to a power budget rather than play these kinds of games so they have 1080p on a checklist?
A dynamic resolution is better than a fluctuating framerate true, but halving the resolution to keep the framerate up is too much I feel.
Why can't developers just stick to a power budget rather than play these kinds of games so they have 1080p on a checklist?
A dynamic resolution is better than a fluctuating framerate true, but halving the resolution to keep the framerate up is too much I feel.
LordOfChaos
Member
Frame to frame latency directly translates into framerate anyways. 33ms = 30fps, 16.7ms = 60fps.
Anywho, yeah, these are obviously unoptimized builds, the game was held together by duct tape in some of the clips in the sprint videos, I wouldn't think too much about this.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
There is a PR war MSFT is still fighting. Otherwise I agree.
Depends on how low the resolution drops. For Killzone Mercenary on the Vita, it is incredibly noticeable and distracting. Hopefully the lowest the resolution drops is 900p.
WhiteRabbitEXE
Member
My God people in this topic need to stop judging these resolutions as if this is a final product or something.
Sir Abacus
Member
secretanchitman
Member
To me, the top one looks more blurry than the bottom picture.
TheLostBigBoss
Banned
Yes
top one is scaled, obvious from aliasing like effect on edges, and far more blury
DOWN
Banned
Isn't this with no upscale process?
Sir Abacus
Member
It is. That's because it's an image I ran through a quick 50% reduction on the horizontal and expanded it again by 200% using just a nearest neighbor.
If you don't pick it up quickly you probably won't notice a difference. If you're sensitive to aliasing artifacts obviously you'll notice if an edge starts shimmering in a few frames or something.
TheLostBigBoss
Banned
They won't because last time someone lied about the advertised resolution they got sued (Sony/Guriila games with Shadow Fall)
jizzlobber
Member
But... The vids also show heaps of bugs too, and highlight the race to have an e3 demo.
It's unfair to pick at a game in the development.
It's unfair to pick at a game in the development.
Maximilian Kolbe
Member
Don't think 832x1080 is lower than 640x480
Agreed. I know a lot of people think otherwise, but Halo does not, and has not ever needed 60fps. It's not a twitch shooter, in fact it's focus is slightly slower paced, sandboxy, epic goodness. Those massive battles, vehicles, all out wars, crazy vista's, epic interiors etc, all would be better served by going 30fps.
In any case, if they have settled on it, a dynamic resolution to ensure it stays at a fairly consistent 60fps is welcome. Though I don't see why they can't just lock the resolution for consistencies sake (900p would be sufficient). If the frame rate is wonky, not consistent at 60fps (Eg Titanfall), it'd be tragic lol. Not because I'd care much about the drops, but because it'd bother me that they didn't just go 30fps instead.
You are entitled to your opinion of course but I could not disagree more, especially after playing Halo 5 which is much more fast paced, has little aim assist, and new abilities that require timing and low latency.
Yes, the top one is jaggy and blurry.
professor_t
Member
Resolution is more important than framerate in a shooter?
No.
This.
LordOfChaos
Member
I can, but a game isn't a still image, I think the person you were replying to still has a point. If I'm in the midst of heated combat, a framerate dip is going to annoy the crap out of me, the resolution fluctuating, not so much. And it would also depend on how long it dipped that low, if it hits 830p for a second before scaling up after an effect is gone, would I notice the slight extra blur in that time?
Anywho, again, the 33ms/30fps and how many bugs we saw in the Sprint videos we saw make me not fret over this just yet. Still very much a work in progress. We'll see when we see.
Primethius
Banned
Eh, I agree with nib with regards to the single player. Keep 60 for MP but if 60 for SP means I end up getting the same constrained level design of Halo 4, they might as well not bother.
They've said it has scale, I'm just waiting to see it at this point.
They've said it has scale, I'm just waiting to see it at this point.
Ricky Ricardo
Member
Yeah, no. Sorry. I care less about Halo 5 looking PHWOAR EYEBURN and more about that fresh 60fps feeling.
Microsoft can't win at graphics department so they need to go on the smoother one.
Even if I'm ok with that, Microsoft really needs to make their IP a little more "shiny", the console is more powerful than the 360 but we're still waiting for the Killzone/Infamous/The order type of graphics from a Microsoft first party exclusive.
Halo never was a looker before HALO 4 so it won't bother people if the game is smooth as hell as it should because 60FPS for a shooter is really important, I really hope Gears 4 will be 60FPS too, especially after playing GoW UE beta for days now.
Even if I'm ok with that, Microsoft really needs to make their IP a little more "shiny", the console is more powerful than the 360 but we're still waiting for the Killzone/Infamous/The order type of graphics from a Microsoft first party exclusive.
Halo never was a looker before HALO 4 so it won't bother people if the game is smooth as hell as it should because 60FPS for a shooter is really important, I really hope Gears 4 will be 60FPS too, especially after playing GoW UE beta for days now.
Not enough words to express how wrong this is.
Using stills from a video file to illustrate your point isn't the same as using natively rendered gameplay.
If you booted up literally any PC game right now and switched it from 1080p to 900p, it would look considerably blurrier than it's native brother and would be incredibly easy to spot the difference, even without looking at the UI.
That said, in the pursuit of 60fps, this is totally fine.
Primethius
Banned
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.
Myspcr_Shadow
Member
Precisely. Still images is easily noticeable but constantly moving games is a different story. Perhaps in a turn based rpg I would notice it.
Out of curiosity, why is the notion so inconceivable? And on what precedent? All the other Halo's have all been 30fps, some of the best shooters ever made, so I don't see why suddenly it's so different with Halo 5? I feel they've already sacrificed graphical fidelity for the added smoothness, but if they've sacrificed some of the scale and sandboxy, epic, grandiose levels and battles popular with the franchise, in order to reach 60fps, that would be even worse. The E3 debut campaign demo had none of the scale or sense of scope that I expect of the franchise, and I seriously hope the next campaign gameplay demo shows off a level that's more fitting in that sense, especially as they've talked that side of things up.
Contrary to the opinions of many, I actually really enjoyed Halo 4 (mostly for its story implications and character focus with Cortana and Chief), but even that I felt was less grand overall, and slightly more linear than other Halo's. Hopefully that isn't extended with Halo 5.
Halo 3 ( 2007 ) so One Year after Gears of War and the same year as COD 4 Modern warfare :
Primethius
Banned
When you can show me Gears of War or CoD from those years doing the massive battles that Halo 3 did, such as the famous double scarab one, then I might concede my point.Halo 3 ( 2007 ) so One Year after Gears of War and the same year as COD 4 Modern warfare :
But Halo 3 and subsequently Reach were impressive because of their sheer scale. Something 4 gave up to achieve its "pretty" status.
Head.spawn
Junior Member
I'll take that 60 fps all day, so whatever they have to do is fine by me.
Dead Man Typing
Member
I'm a big Halo fan, but 3 was ugly the day it came out. They had set expectations very high with the E3 2006 announcement and missed that mark by a long way. Human faces obviously looked bad and the resolution combined with no anti-aliasing made most of the cutscenes jaggy messes. The lighting was very nice. The amount of enemies and the scale of the action was also very impressive. Truth be told, as ugly as I thought the cutscenes were in Halo 3, I didn't care about any of the flaws while playing the game. It ran well and looked great during gameplay.
Reach did look very nice and went even crazier with the number of enemies in each encounter. People like to criticise Reach's multiplayer, but I really love the campaign. Cutscenes and gameplay look great.
The 33ms framerate shown in the Halo 5 images appears to be during the cutscene before the game begins. If you watch the Sprint video 4, you'll see it's 16ms while in gameplay. The framerate sitcks to 60/59.9 the whole time, while the resolution number fluctuated between 1920 and 832.
WhiteRabbitEXE
Member
That, and his image is stretched in both directions, rather than just the horizontal. So not really the same thing.
AllIsOneIsNone
Banned
There's no logic to that though. They're making it 60fps so it plays better and are in turn making a sacrifice to graphics. Why would they sacrifice gameplay (scale) for gameplay (fps)? Edit: or more accurately, why does it follow that choosing fps over graphics might suddenly compromise a completely different aspect of the game? You could just as easily say previous Halos sacrificed scale for better graphics (in regards to it being 30fps instead of 60), but that also wouldn't make sense. If they make the scale smaller, it's a separate design decision. And look at Warzone, there is a shitload going on at once. If that's possible at 60fps, then I don't see the problem.
Also, it was even said by 343 that this game has more multiple paths/large scale battles than any other Halo (not exact wording, would have to dig up from another thread).
DagnastyEp
Member
I'd much rather have variable resolution than variable framerate.
Have you even played Halo at 60fps? Its absolutely beautiful.
Also as a long time fan who played the beta, I say it was about time Halo did 60.
godhandiscen
There are millions of whiny 5-year olds on Earth, and I AM THEIR KING.
That is your opinion. Do you even own the MCC? 60fps is the best thing that happened to Halo EVER!
3rdamention
Member
I don't think you will notice anything when it comes to how it feels framerate wise.. However, you will be able to tell graphically if you have an eye for resolutions...
Here is what DF said about Wolfensteins resolution switch when going from 1080p to 900p
Digital Foundry said:
So obviously resolution drops that are more extreme than 1080p to 900p would be even more noticeable... If that were to happen...