DF: Hands-On With Halo 5: Guardians: Tech Analysis/Frame-Rate Test - Blistering 60fps where 1080p is a rarity

Dark10x posts ( he is from DF ) :

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=182453028&postcount=272

Can't wait for the full breakdown, should be interesting. So it reaches 60fps while actually sweating just a little bit? (In the video, you say it reaches rock solid 60fps without breaking a sweat)...

Ha, yeah, I thought about that line when recording but ended up just keeping it. It's like "well, obviously it's breaking a sweat if the resolution is being lowered" but it was just used to highlight how smooth it runs

"How often does it drop below 1344x1080? That's the important thing for me. If it drops to closer to 720p during the more intense firefights, that's when I think I'll really start to notice the drop in visuals."

It's a tough call to make since we basically have to capture the game at various points and pixel count from there. From what I can see while playing, however, I feel that it spends a decent amount of time under that resolution. There are a lot of large arenas to do battle in and things become pretty blurry at times as a result. You can really see the resolution adjusting on the fly at times. It's rather interesting how dynamic it really is. Must have been difficult to engineer as it seems super effective.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=182451978&postcount=251

That video was odd. Like they praised it until the last 30 seconds and then said here at the issues but that's all for now.

Well, as the one that made it, the difficult thing was putting together something interesting enough within the embargo window. Basically, I could only discuss four missions from the game while everything else was off limits.

I have a lot of nitpicks and things to point out that are being saved for the next video which we're probably going to call "The Price of 60fps". That was just a quick preview, basically.

The thing is, the examples I wanted to use to highlight various issues all occur outside of the missions we could cover.

So, basically, the full article and next video will cover a LOT more. It's still a beautiful game, though, but there are certainly some things that look a bit rough. I still think they made the right choices in order to hit that buttery smooth frame-rate. I seriously cannot get over HOW smooth it really is. I've literally encountered ONE area in the entire game where the frame-rate dipped for ~10 seconds. That's it.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=182456699&postcount=354

Yeah, there are a lot of decal and normal map issues.

And this one :

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=182445125&postcount=99

It's a bold move for 343 to aim at 60 FPS, even if it involves dropping resolution. A cleaner image but a frame rate drop would have been much more noticeable, not to mention not as good on an interactive level.

Don't care how the game looks at this point, I hope this becomes more of a standard throughout the console market.

Buttery smooth

I watched some warzone footage earlier and you could really tell when the dynamic resolution would dip down into sub HD territory.

I think they're using FXAA as well and that shit certainly didn't help.

I'm playing the game. You're reading shit articles that give you only scraps of reality.

I commend them for sticking to 60FPS after the MCC. Honestly, I'm not much of a 60FPS person, console player and all that, but some genres are just better played at 60FPS. First person shooters, being one of them.

COD and BF were running at 60FPS, so no reason Halo couldn't follow suit, so I'm glad we're at that point now.

You realize 720p is still HD? Sub HD would be old TV resolutions something like 480

or 640p.

Damn beat me to it.

Looks like Xbox Owners have a gem. But it's not without it's problems. The enemies animate at 30 fps? That's going to be very distracting.

+1

Gameplay first.

So that's what It was, I remember a few weeks back pointing out the animation quality looked like something from Halo 1.

Ya, lets listen to a hardcore lem instead.

Bih, stop lying.

DF: Hands-On With Halo 5: Guardians: Tech Analysis/Frame-Rate Test - Blistering 60fps where 1080p is a rarity

I don´t give a damn, can somebody freeze me until next week ? the suspense is killing me !

@Chutebox: Yeah let's listen to theoretically amazing Internet Paladin.

Actually the max Halo 5 would get from me for graphics is 8/10 and there are far too many past gen leftover elements to be impressed.

I'm not sure why Chutebox has a boner for me and thinks I wouldn't ever say anything negative about anything MS related.

Who is this guy? I don't get him at all. Who does he think he is? I've never seen such an inflated ego.

Haha, what?? Where the **** did I say listen to me? At least have a clue what you're talking about. Also, don't be a bitch. Ttag me when you're talking about me.

Lol, give me a break with this bullshit.....

>YouTube footage

>"sub HD territory"

>"you could really tell"

haha right... please actually try...

@imt558: Why don't you leave SW if you are so in love with SonyGAF?

What makes you think gameplay first?

There's always compression, but I could definitely tell during some heavy action when the game started to devolve into a blur fest.

Maybe not sub hd, but it must of been close. I enjoy crisp visuals and Halo 5 was just dropping the ball badly.

aren't you a giant bloodborne fan?

What does bloodborne have to do with halo 5 or dynamic resolution?

Yeah, I think I'll just play the game myself and see how it actually looks instead of hand over foot trusting your YouTube assessments...

I notice when I start seeing blurriness and aliasing.

because that game looks and runs like shit but if you like it and have no problem with it then your thing about crisp visuals being that important is bullshit.

That's fine dude, I never asked you to trust me.

Bloodborne was still in 1080p. It may have run 30 but so did the rest of the series on consoles.

No need to bring up Bloodborne. That game won in all categories, by the video above there.

WTF are you doing in the DF thread? The same quoted posts in OP are from DF analyst who is on GAF also? You HYPOCRITE! Got a problem?

That attention to detail, lol.

I am saying Gameplay should always be prioritized. Better frame rates make gameplay more fluid and fun. Controls also feel a lot more responsive. Even on PC when I have to, I lower some of the settings to get higher frame rates. So, I think that it's good decision that they compromised resolution in some scenes for the sake of stable frame rates instead prioritizing graphics just to say "Oh look dem next gen graphics on dat next gen hardware" and forcing people to play the game at 24fps.

So you prefer a game that stays at 1080 at all times and runs at sub 20fps at times to a game that runs at 60fps almost all the time and suffers a bit in resolution?

It honestly depends on the game.

So if a game is sub 60fps then it suffers gameplay wise. Either the game has good gameplay or bad gameplay. I think a stable framerate is important, but I can live with a locked 30fps and 900p to 1080p.

@freedomfreak: lmfao thats pretty good.

i mean, it really doesnt. even then, a game that relies on precise timing and movement running at a shit framerate is way worse than a game dropping resolution at times. yet I never saw you complain about it as much as you do any MS game.

That's less attention to detail than simply model collision...

Nah, I've always shit on Halo dude.

This might be the first time I've actually said anything nice about the series tho on here.

It's no secret MS makes my least favorite consoles. c'mon now. I'd say the same shit about the Dynamic Resolution regardless of platform tho.

Not saying 30fps are unplayable but higher frame rates = more fluid gameplay. Simple fact.

Would you rather have Bloodborne as it is with framerate drops into the 20's at 1080p or at 60 FPS with a dynamic resolution?

Maybe with the greater processing power the ps4 has it might be a bit less noticeable. Bloodborne also isn't a shooter that requires precise aim however so the 30 doesn't really bother me much.

I'll take Dynamic Resolution as long as it doesn't drop below 900p. Better yet I'll take 900p upscaled over DR.

so sub 20fps drops in a game that requires precise timing is cool because its 1080p? man, you are everything wrong with the gaming community. its not a shooter but definitely requires more precision than any halo game.

You keep mention 20 fps but the majority of the game runs in 30.

not a smooth 30.

As a pc gamer sometimes I wish I could just go back in time when people didn't give a crap about graphics and just enjoy the game for what it is.

As a pc gamer I just wish everything was on PC so we wouldn't need to deal with restrictions in any form, period.

Framerate > resolution if you've gotta make a compromise.

And no, you can't just make your 2015, AAA budget, $60 game look like ass by reducing the fidelity to keep a 1080p60. That doesn't fly with consumers.

Almost rock solid 60 fps, this is great news for those who actually prefers smooth and responsive gameplay. It almost makes me want to buy an xbone.