Support NeoGAF

[VinFTW]

I wonder why naughty dog shows something so polished so much earlier than 343.

I just get the impression that naughty dog is a tier above 343 in tech and skill.

That's just my impression from their output as of late.

When ND showed UC4 at PSX, a year-ish before launch, it was running at 30, when it was supposed to be a 60FPS game (at the time).

When Halo 5 showed its beta a year before launch, it was AT LEAST running 60 at the time.

Looked fine too.

Frank and Josh has stated multiple times on several different forums, optimization is the last thing they do and resolution is never final till way later.

But GAF will be GAF and this thread will continue on for another 20+ pages thinking the res/FR is final.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with concerns and discussing this stuff. It's the rampant, blatant drive-by shit posting that never seems to stop in Halo threads.

 

[Jakartalado]

How can you make a proper comparison if they aren't final? There is a lot of refinement that happens in the end of development.

Killzone Shadowfall is a good candidate for an overall comparison once Halo 5 ships. Different targets too. Mind you, Killzone:SF is a launch game.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PDfu1mYQXEg

But Killzone looks leagues better than Halo 5. I'm not getting this, 343 manage to turn Halo 4 graphics (which are amazing) into something bleak.

I know it's 60 frames, but it doesn't look next gen to me.

And we all know that is what you will get in the final version, only thing it could change is performance.

Happily, Tomb Raider looks amazing and will be my most wanted game for this Holiday

 

[EmptySpace]

You seem happy. But I wonder why.

i am as happy as you are hurt.

 

[Ishan]

Would have thought late work might prove more effective on multiplats given the opportunity to replace the generic with more tailored, platform-specific optimisations, personally. First party targeting a single platform much less so.

Hmm good point ... Dunno I guess not a game dev myself

I wonder why naughty dog shows something so polished so much earlier than 343.

I just get the impression that naughty dog is a tier above 343 in tech and skill.

That's just my impression from their output as of late.

Nd has been a graphical powerhouse for a while now ... I expect 343 to push out something good but well for example I don't expect respawn to out tech crytek etc ... Some studios are just decked out on their technical side I guess . I know ms is trying to build 343 into that but it takes time . Plus dunno does 343 tend to be like evolution ? (Lots of late in dev cycle improvements)

 

[VinFTW]

i am as happy as you are hurt.

sigh

 

[c0de]

i am as happy as you are hurt.

Then I must have misread your post.

 

[Journey]

Alpha basically refers to transparent effects/textures (if you are familiar with photoshop at all, the alpha channel controls the opacity of an image, it's the same thing with textures/effects). Rendering transparencies is bandwidth intensive and so resolving them at low resolution is a compromise done to save on bandwidth. This was a common theme with PS3 games vs 360 games for example because of that console's limited memory bandwidth compared to the 360. Anyways, when you are resolving transparencies at low resolution, and you have a scene where there is a transparent texture/effect covering most of the screen like in that image, it will look like dogshit.

The fact that he can't see what's going on even when circled, speaks volumes. That image in its entirety is blurred and not necessarily a good representation of alpha effects.

 

[Final Verdict]

Well, with the assets they are using, and world size they are pushing, H5 looks very similar to Destiny...only at 60fps.

So if they can't lower the assets/poly count, and keep the lighting, then the only way to keep a 60fps would be to drop the rendering resolution...and with Destiny just barely making it to 1080/30, I wouldn't be surprised to see H5 stick around the neighborhood of 720/60.

And that said, the fact that they are able to simulate the whole game at 60fps to is impressive, though it sounds like some of the physics simulation might run at 30fps too...Wich could be due to Cpu limitations.

Anyways, if they somehow managed to pull off 900p at a fairly locked 60, then I would be really impressed.

 

[BokehKing]

It's not like the ps4 can do 1080p/60p that well (beautiful, of course being subjective) either and still have a beautiful game.

If they want 60, they are going to have to make graphical sacrifices, but if the people playing it don't care, then it shouldn't affect people who won't be playing it

 

[Aceofspades]

I wonder why naughty dog shows something so polished so much earlier than 343.

I just get the impression that naughty dog is a tier above 343 in tech and skill.

That's just my impression from their output as of late.

Well, ND is on a totally different skill level than anyone else tbh, you cant compare the two.

 

[Bornstellar]

Curious where DF got their source footage, since afaik, e never got 60 fps direct feed on the campaign from MS.

 

[Seanspeed]

i am as happy as you are hurt.

So if you perceive him to be 'hurt', rightly or wrongly, you admit that you are happy to see the current situation as it is with Halo? I mean, rarely do people out themselves as console warriors so blatantly, but you'd think you could at least try and be a bit more subtle about it like most others in this thread have.

 

[Jrs3000]

When ND showed UC4 at PSX, a year-ish before launch, it was running at 30, when it was supposed to be a 60FPS game (at the time).

When Halo 5 showed its beta a year before launch, it was AT LEAST running 60 at the time.

Looked fine too.

Frank and Josh has stated multiple times on several different forums, optimization is the last thing they do and resolution is never final till way later.

But GAF will be GAF and this thread will continue on for another 20+ pages thinking the res/FR is final.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with concerns and discussing this stuff. It's the rampant, blatant drive-by shit posting that never seems to stop in Halo threads.

The sad truth.

 

[El_Chino]

To compare here was CoD last year before it's release.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2014-call-of-duty-advanced-warfare-tech-analysis

 

[Solid Samus]

I'm a 60fps or bust kinda guy but in the end, I don't think it was worth it, not when it comes with so many drawbacks. I hope the game is at least a solid 60 when it releases.

To compare here was CoD last year before it's release.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2014-call-of-duty-advanced-warfare-tech-analysis

9 months before release

not three months

 

[Courage]

I wonder why naughty dog shows something so polished so much earlier than 343.

I just get the impression that naughty dog is a tier above 343 in tech and skill.

That's just my impression from their output as of late.

bahahahahaha

is this real life

 

[Juanfp]

Many developers have said that the games receive the final optimazation in the last weeks of developmente including ND. But now with 343 they need the game ready months before its is launch?

 

[Theorry]

I'm a 60fps or bust kinda guy but in the end, I don't think it was worth it, not when it comes with so many drawbacks. I hope the game is at least a solid 60 when it releases.



9 months before release

not three months

Uhh 5 months. That was a E3 vid and the game came in november.
That article was posted. july 2nd.

 

[Welfare]

9 months before release

not three months

July 2, not February 7.

 

[malfcn]

The trend of shitting on Halo and beta or preview content is getting old. "Oh look, unoptimized wip.. it's going to fail."

 

[RyudBoy]

Graphics looked somewhat unimpressive at the e3 conference. Obviously, the game isn't finished so let's hope things will improve by the time of its release. I don't want a 30fps campaign though. Totally against that idea.

 

[Solid Samus]

Uhh 5 months. That was a E3 vid and the game came in november.
That article was posted. july 2nd.

July 2, not February 7.

lmao, I done fucked up.

 

[TomShoe]

bahahahahaha

is this real life

Ok, you lost me here. Where is the derision coming from? I'm browsing the 'chin-fat' UC4 thread and the 15 min gameplay video, and the reactions seem to be generally positive. Their footage looks stunning, even if it is only at 30 fps. I'm not trying insinuating that ND as a team are more skilled than 343i, but given the reactions to what has been shown, it seems to be the general consensus.

 

[Jomjom]

I play games not resolutions

Well that's cool at least 343 knows they can drop to 240p and at least one dude will still be happy.

 

[Sporran]

As a non xbox one owner have to say i thought it looked pretty good.

 

[ps3ud0]

Really dont see the point in such analysis on an unreleased game, Im sure lots of games weve played probably were in a sorry state only a few months before.

I cant enjoy Halo 5 in this current state, so I dont really care til the games in my hands

ps3ud0 8)

 

[Obliterator]

I hate to be a stickler about graphics but it really bumbs me out just how weak of a system the Xbone is. Halo 4 last gen blew me away with the visuals it achieved on the 360. Halo 5 is having the exact opposite effect. It doesn't look great and is running at a really low resolution.

If the gameplay is excellent that's more important but I cant help but be hugely underwhelmed by it visually

 

[malfcn]

Well that's cool at least 343 knows they can drop to 240p and at least one dude will still be happy.

And bring in the clowns.

 

[Jomjom]

And bring in the clowns.

I'm just responding to that guy's ridiculous comment with a facetious and equally ridiculous comment.

Obviously resolution isn't everything, but in this day and age it's obviously something. Saying something dumb like I play games not resolution in a DF thread is worthy of being mocked.

 

[93xfan]

Better be a locked 60fps. If not they're going to look foolish.

Agree. This is really lowering my excitement for this game.

 

[Courage]

Ok, you lost me here. Where is the derision coming from? I'm browsing the 'chin-fat' UC4 thread and the 15 min gameplay video, and the reactions seem to be generally positive. Their footage looks stunning, even if it is only at 30 fps. I'm not trying insinuating that ND as a team are more skilled than 343i, but given the reactions to what has been shown, it seems to be the general consensus.

It's just funny bringing up Uncharted 4 out of all games. A game that targeted 60fps initially, which has now been reduced to 30. And that's fine, but there wasn't much of an outcry when that was announced either. On the other hand, we have a Digital Foundry article nitpicking an alpha build of Halo 5 with people all up in arms because it has 'dynamic resolution' or whatever.

So coming into this thread and claiming ND are tech gods is disingenuous. Compromises are made in every game.

 

[malfcn]

I'm just responding to that guy's ridiculous comment with a facetious and equally ridiculous comment.

Obviously resolution isn't everything, but in this day and age it's obviously something. Saying something dumb like I play games not resolution in a DF thread is worthy of being mocked.

I apologize. Personally I don't think it was an equal comment. Tech threads are their own beasts. Commentating on preview stuff is valid. But often it just created a pile of stew.

 

[Kinsella]

I'm just responding to that guy's ridiculous comment with a facetious and equally ridiculous comment.

Edit: Yeah you're right, his statement was dumb. I confused him with the people arguing framerate > resolution.

 

[Kibbles]

720/60 would be fine just disappointing considering it doesn't look a whole lot better than H4 imo which is running 1080/60.
Maybe technically it has a lot more going on but the art style isn't helping that evolution.

 

[Solid Samus]

His comment wasn't ridiculous, though. We agree that yours however was.

his comment was ridiculous enough to be banned for it. It's the same kinda shitpost that was pervasive in old DF threads until they became the graveyard for juniors they were always meant to be. "I play games, not resolutions" is a pretty meaningless statement that has pretty much no place in a DF tech analysis thread.

It's perfectly fine in a DF thread to state you couldn't give a shit about the resolution because framerate (shock- also a technical feature of the game) has a vastly larger impact on a game.

I'm trying, I really am, but I just can't locate the alternate universe in which that's what Taishan actually posted. Looked to me like the same old tl;dr reductive bullshit people love to get their accounts locked over in these sorts of threads, you're the only one inferring that Taishan was implying disregard at the resolution because framerate is more valuable, as opposed to Taishan implying disregard at the thread because Taishan doesn't play DF analysis, Taishan plays games yo!

 

[safichan]

Personally i do think Halo5 will hit 60fps but it will have to do it with lower resolution and less good effect or asset...plus maybe...just maybe...it will not going to have a solid 60fps...maybe there will be some rate drops here and there...

 

[Jomjom]

His comment wasn't ridiculous, though. We agree that yours however was.

Well Ok then. I guess the guy doesn't care about resolution in games but cares about resolution in GAF threads then.

Whatever, he's banned anyway.

I'm sure 343 will find a good resolution for this. Obviously they aren't going to be dynamically switching between HD and sub HD resolutions, so I don't think anyone should really be worrying about that. Still lots of time for optimization.

Also as for your edit. If you think that sure go into every thread and post the equivalent of "who cares about this bullshit anyway, I sure don't" and see how long your account lasts.

 

[Kinsella]

720/60 would be fine just disappointing considering it doesn't look a whole lot better than H4 imo which is running 1080/60.
Maybe technically it has a lot more going on but the art style isn't helping that evolution.

I'd like the copy of Halo 4 you have that's running at a constant 60fps. The version I have on MCC is a mess.

Well Ok then. I guess the guy doesn't care about resolution in games but cares about resolution in GAF threads then.

Whatever, he's banned anyway.

I'm sure 343 will find a good resolution for this. Obviously they aren't going to be dynamically switching between HD and sub HD resolutions, so I don't think anyone should really be worrying about that. Still lots of time for optimization.

Meh, he wasn't arguing what I thought he was. I thought he was one of the people arguing framerate over resolution. It appears he was just whining about all tech talk. And you're absolutely right, this isn't the place for that.

 

[Harmen]

I cannot put my finger on why I am not impressed. I know it is 60 fps, has a large scale and features hectic battles, but something about how it all comes together does not impress me. I don't know. I think the art direction is good and by no means it looks bad (some parts look great), but I feel even at 60 fps it could look better with these production values (I assume Halo 5 has a large budget and team).

When I look at MGS V and Battlefront, also running at 60, I do not have that same feeling. Not sure if they are technically more impressive and the artstyles are hard to compare, but I do think the way all elements come together still look impressive in those.


(I based my opinion on the latest e3 sp footage)

 

[Gnome Scat]

They better be able to deliver if they cut split screen for it.

 

[Purest 78]

Really dont see the point in such analysis on an unreleased game, Im sure lots of games weve played probably were in a sorry state only a few months before.

I cant enjoy Halo 5 in this current state, so I dont really care til the games in my hands

ps3ud0 8)

I was taught at a early age to put your best foot forward. What they showed at E3 was not impressive from a graphics or technical standpoint. They choose to show it in that state criticism is absolutely fair. If they get it much better by launch Praise would be equally as fair.

 

[Primethius]

I cannot put my finger on why I am not impressed. I know it is 60 fps, has a large scale and features hectic battles, but something about how it all comes together does not impress me. I don't know. I think the art direction is good and by no means it looks bad (some parts look great), but I feel even at 60 fps it could look better with these production values (I assume Halo 5 has a large budget and team).

When I look at MGS V and Battlefront, also running at 60, I do not have that same feeling. Not sure if they are technically more impressive and the artstyles are hard to compare, but I do think the way all elements come together still look impressive in those.


(I based my opinion on the latest e3 sp footage)

Maybe because Mgsv and BF have actually shown the large scale where as Halo 5 hasn't?

With Halo 5, we've yet to really see the scale of the game. All we have is PR that it will feature it which makes the 60 FPS in campaign less impressive because we have graphics that aren't very stellar, an inconsistent framer rate and essentially promises of scale.

 

[Noobcraft]

If they can do Halo 4 at 1080p/(mostly)60fps, I'm confident that Halo 5 will look and run fine. Halo 4 looks great.

 

[Jomjom]

Meh, he wasn't arguing what I thought he was. I thought he was one of the people arguing framerate over resolution. It appears he was just whining about all tech talk. And you're absolutely right, this isn't the place for that.

Yeah I agree. Preferring that 343 keep it at 60 over a specific resolution would be totally fine (and I think what most people would prefer anyway). I'm thinking in the end 343 will get it to roughly 1080-900p dynamic with a solid 60 in the end. Come on this is number 5! They will make pacts with Satan if necessary to make it happen for the flagship series.

 

[TheOhrenberger.]

There are a lot of people in this thread saying that Halo 5 doesn't look that much better than Halo 4... those people gotta go get their eyes fixed haha. I know exaggeration is a thing on NeoGAF but come on guys haha.

 

[Courage]

If they can do Halo 4 at 1080p/(mostly)60fps, I'm confident that Halo 5 will look and run fine. Halo 4 looks great.

Thing is, Halo 4 is not nearly as expansive as other Halo campaigns. I agree it looks like one of the best 360 games, but I didn't think the level design was that good. So as long as they nail the latter in 5, I'll be good with it taking a hit visually.

 

[BokehKing]

They better be able to deliver if they cut split screen for it.

I have a feeling we will get another beta announced with further along progress that will just spark this debate again

 

[Kinsella]

Yeah I agree. Preferring that 343 keep it at 60 over a specific resolution would be totally fine (and I think what most people would prefer anyway). I'm thinking in the end 343 will get it to roughly 1080-900p dynamic with a solid 60 in the end. Come on this is number 5! They will make pacts with Satan if necessary to make it happen for the flagship series.

I hope so. The constant juddering in MCC was a real turn off. I've also been spoiled by Destiny's rock solid framerate. It's only 30, but it's always 30. If you're going to pick a framerate, stick to it at all costs imo. Even if that cost is pretty graphics.

 

[JumPeRJumPzZ]

Yeah, no, this is total BS. Please remind me the last time a game got a significant upgrade in Res/FPS/graphics just a few months before release. At this point the assets are essentially finalized and the team is busy taking care of bugs, optimization is a BS term and usually means cutting something to up the performance.

Agree on this.

DF Thread about final halo 5 will be glorious.

 

[hawk2025]

Interesting, it looks like they may be going for the Wolfenstein-style dynamic resolution to lock down the framerate?

I'm OK with that.