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

LOL! Bloodborne is 30 fps 98% in the game. It has dips lowest to 24 for 1 sec 2 or 3 times in DF videos. You have 2 of them. You should check it out.

Getting a little excited about the game. I know I won't care too much about the resolution if I'm having a hell of a time. But i'm still hoping it looks decent.

Did anyone sincerely believe that 343 was going to be able to deliver a locked 60fps/1080p game on the scale of Halo 5 with dozens of enemies, vehicles and explosions of the screen simultaneously and not have to scale back some aspects of image quality from time to time?

Alert me when there is a game on EITHER console that manages to accomplish that...

None the less, the game is quite impressive graphically with some areas of level 2 looking downright gorgeous IMO and at a literally permanent 60fps.

Well done, 343!

Buttery smooth fps is always preferable but the more I read about the sacrifices to get there part of me want to yell f***** consoles.

The most annoying part is if changes to res are noticeable and frequent. The 30fps enemy animation is also very curious.

Gameplay though will make me forget all that shit

I'm willing to bet that if the Xbone did not have such a shitty memory set-up the struggle for bandwidth wouldn't have caused the dynamic resolutions to drop so low for the sake of frame-rate. But I remember playing Ninja Gaiden 3 and let me say, dynamic resolution is not a good thing. Better to just set the resolution to a fixed amount than having to deal with the annoying inconsistencies that it creates. Between variable frame-rate and variable resolutions I really don't know what is worse seriously.

@ 9:25

DF "There are actually plenty of issues with level of detail pop-in, variable of shadow quality, and texture resolution throughout.. "

LMAO...xbones savior!

You're really fucking desperate aren't you...

my post hurt your feelings?

I just thought that for the biggest and best game lems keep saying to challenge everything the PS4 has, it's still a sloppy and unpolished title. Problem? Call the Waaaaambulance

I thought human eye can't see past 30 fps

Dem 30fps animations. It's amazing the sacrifices they had to make to get 60fps.

@nyadc: pretty much. Foliage and rock formation gifs from KZ SF inc.

No, you're just preemptively damage controlling and it's annoying.

It's a console, not a super computer, sacrifices have to be made to reach and maintain the bottom line, the bottom line is the framerate. Sloppy and unpolished? You don't know what in the **** you're talking about. Are you a Halo player? Do you know what Halo players care about? Obviously not...

Get out of this thread, you have no business here cow. You're not buying this game, you have no interest in it, actually you probably have a lot of interest in and want it, but because it's not on the PlayStation 4 it's a piece of shit, right?

Yeah sure it is! Hahahahahaa

The PS4 is too weak to have both 1080p and 60fps. ;)

It dips quite frequently, and given the kind of game it is where precise movements and actions are needed it's kind of annoying, especially when you realize that Dark Souls can be played in excess of 60 FPS on PC...

Yeah I think Sony should really think about frame-rate first and resolution second.

So its buttery smooth blurry mess?

I'm excited for some 60fps goodness from this game. I'll take lower resolution for some nice performance.

Most PS4 games are a frame-rate mess. lol

Crap textures, 30FPS cutscenes and 30FPS animations. and up to 1080p (mostly not) resolution.

Why are people excited for this? If this is the best the Xbox can do then wow. Looks like a game that would easily run on HD7770 at 60FPS, so much for directx optimisations.

Games that are a fps mess on ps4 are a mess x3 on Xbone. Then you add the usual ugliness of "dynamic resolution" and we have an fps mess while being blurry af. My eyes are tickling just remembering how ugly 720p is.

Face it the PS4 is only 28% more powerful than the X1 after DX12.

You can't just mention DX12 and not Teh Cloud. Add in Teh Cloud and the ps4 is only 4% more powerful than the X1. In the bottom of my heart, i know for a fact that Xbox One has a 2nd GPU so when that's unlocked... game over for PS4. Hell, even your gtx980ti will become irrelevant. Sell your ps4\s before its too late.

@xhawk27: COD AW was 1080p and constant 60fps on PS4 so there goes your lemming dreams. Black Ope 3 looks to be a repeat of that and looks better than the dynamic res lastgen garbage than is Halo 5. Just because the Xbone is too weak to handle 1080p/60 doesn't mean the PS4 is lol.

This is a lie, it performed worse on the PlayStation 4, dropping into the 40's at times, the Xbox One version maintained its 60 FPS threshold FAR more.

Great visuals, so buttery smooth... If this game was on ps4, it'd be running in 1080p/90fps. Absolutely laughable how an average/below average looking title like Halo 5 isn't running in 1080p. Choosing performance over res in a highly detailed title such as TW3 is fine but an ugly game like Halo 5 makes no sense.

@quadknight: Your flagship title UC4 can't reach 60fps

Halo brings about butthurt and damage control to unprecedented levels, it's actually kind of hilarious.

They are targeting 60fps for MP.

@Zero_epyon: That's good but we shall see, they targeted 60fps for the SP at first too :)

That dynamic resolution and screen tearing is a terrible side effect for those extra frames.

haha yeah they did.

It is Halo after all. Doubt people will be playing it for the graphics.

Tearing at stress points, luckily it has very few of those.

@silversix_ said:

Great visuals, so buttery smooth... If this game was on ps4, it'd be running in 1080p/90fps. Absolutely laughable how an average/below average looking title like Halo 5 isn't running in 1080p. Choosing performance over res in a highly detailed title such as TW3 is fine but an ugly game like Halo 5 makes no sense.

It looks like a 360 game.

Id rather have 60fps rock solid than 1080p

Ugly game like this should have both and not one or the other.

It's not an ugly game, not by a long shot, yes it has shortcomings in certain regards but the game as a cohesive package looks beautiful... I don't know what in the hell you're smoking...

I just ran my own analysis on the PS4. 0000p in every frame.

Don't care if the game looks last gen outside of some of the cutscenes, it still manages to look pleasant as 343 nailed the design language perfectly and is unmistakably halo. It's a shame forge won't be out in time of release as that feature alone for me will make up the bulk of my play time and for SW sake could possibly determine the game not reviewing as a 10 at launch instead of the 9 it will easily get regardless. Anyhow, visuals never hurt halo's critical reception in the past and it won't here either. I don't recall ever thinking "boy i wish that grunt had 80k polys instead of 20k" while sniping a bunch or "man if only this particular rocky surface used a higher rez texture" while hiding from plasma rifle fire and grenades. It looks good enough like previous halo games at their time of release while performing twice as good, that's kind of a big deal.

There are a bunch of idiots in here that think they can tell slightly lower resolutions apart smh.

im never gonna play this game since i dont have an xbox one. But 60 fps is an essential bare minimum in a fps shooter game requires and this is a good move and all console games must be 60fps above all else. Even if it does mean dropping minor graphical details like some antialiasing or other details in the graphics you dont really notice.

lol "blistering" 60 fps. Should be the base line standard really.

Good move on their part though, I'll always take the frames over some extra pixels.

Such a time never existed, my friend.

Those animations that are 30fps are nasty.

You'll always have to deal with the "restriction" of most PC gamers not having top-of-the-line rigs. This would be true even if consoles didn't exist. I don't think the rate of technical advancement in games would be noticeably higher if consoles didn't exist because developers would still have to design their games around your average (4-5 years old) computer.

Blizzard is a PC-exclusive developer (more or less), and arguably the most powerful developer on the planet. They got to their position through two processes:

1. Making amazing games

2. Making games that millions of gamers can smoothly run

i.e. they're not the prettiest games in the world, but they're damn fun to play.

What % of the console user base do you think is even aware of the native resolutions of the games they play?

I'm going to the Halo 5 midnight release and I'm going to ask whoever joins me there. I'm genuinely curious.

Personally I think most console gamers, hell even PC "master race" gamers, are going to care more about massive engagements with dozens of enemies and vehicles that seem truly "next gen", even if it requires some rock textures to be of a lower quality. They're going to be too busy having fun in the encounter to care if the dirt is slightly less refined or there is some aliasing on a stick. Dropping of frame rate however is immediately apparent and I think 343 made a very wise decision to prioritize it over other graphical effects.