Halo Anniversary sub HD confirmed.

[QUOTE="GotNugz"]

[QUOTE="delta3074"]and you would know because obviously you are a well renowned developer who has developed a load of games on the xbox 360,amirite?Wasdie

i give up, i guess people are satisfied with 640p. let me ask you a question what looks better Halo remake, or Perfect Dark Zero?

You're the one yelling lazy coding when you have never once programed graphics on the 360 once in your life. You have absolutely no idea the kind of constraints that are put on programmers developing on the consoles.

i don't need to be Carmack to spot bad programming. you have eyes don't you? it's clear as day that this game is not demanding, or have other developers really found the hidden powah?

That's disappointing. I don't see what's so special with with the visuals that the game has to be sub-HD or limited to 30FPS. When a game like Gears of War is 720p and 30FPS and looks way better.

GD1551

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

[QUOTE="GotNugz"]

i give up, i guess people are satisfied with 640p. let me ask you a question what looks better Halo remake, or Perfect Dark Zero?

GotNugz

You're the one yelling lazy coding when you have never once programed graphics on the 360 once in your life. You have absolutely no idea the kind of constraints that are put on programmers developing on the consoles.

i don't need to be Carmack to spot bad programming. you have eyes don't you? it's clear as day that this game is not demanding, or have other developers really found the hidden powah?

[QUOTE="GotNugz"]

[QUOTE="delta3074"]oh god, not another armchair developer, 30 FPs is fine for consoles and some of the best looking games including crysis 2 are sub HD.navyguy21

but crysis 2 pushes the xbox near limits, Halo ann not so much.

the remake looks worse than 360 launch games, and that original halo engine is laughable, do you really think it's taxing the system? it uses no AA and is sub HD, not to mention that it ran on a 733mhz P3 cpu and on a gpu many times weaker.

www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-halo-anniversary-demo-analysis

rather dissapointing to be honest for a game that is 10 years old. it should be running at 60fps and native 1080p but instead we get choppy 30 frames and 640p. 343 should be ashamed the game doesn't even look that good, in fact much worse than 360 launch titles and those games ran on only 1 core lol. although real-time engine change is something iv'e never seen before.

GotNugz

[QUOTE="navyguy21"][QUOTE="GotNugz"]

but crysis 2 pushes the xbox near limits, Halo ann not so much.

GotNugz

the remake looks worse than 360 launch games, and that original halo engine is laughable, do you really think it's taxing the system? it uses no AA and is sub HD, not to mention that it ran on a 733mhz P3 cpu and on a gpu many times weaker.

[QUOTE="GotNugz"]

www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-halo-anniversary-demo-analysis

rather dissapointing to be honest for a game that is 10 years old. it should be running at 60fps and native 1080p but instead we get choppy 30 frames and 640p. 343 should be ashamed the game doesn't even look that good, in fact much worse than 360 launch titles and those games ran on only 1 core lol. although real-time engine change is something iv'e never seen before.

bobbetybob

it can't even switch to 720p

[QUOTE="bobbetybob"][QUOTE="GotNugz"]

www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-halo-anniversary-demo-analysis

rather dissapointing to be honest for a game that is 10 years old. it should be running at 60fps and native 1080p but instead we get choppy 30 frames and 640p. 343 should be ashamed the game doesn't even look that good, in fact much worse than 360 launch titles and those games ran on only 1 core lol. although real-time engine change is something iv'e never seen before.

GotNugz

it can't even switch to 720p

[QUOTE="GD1551"]

That's disappointing. I don't see what's so special with with the visuals that the game has to be sub-HD or limited to 30FPS. When a game like Gears of War is 720p and 30FPS and looks way better.

navyguy21

A baffling inclusion if I might say so.

The idea is neat but it's ultimately a gimmick that wears off fast. They should have managed their resources differently imho.

It's amusing and nostalgic to indulge in for a bit but soon you just want to play the game.

I really don't see what the point of this remake is then if it can't even do full HD. It's dumb enough that it's coming out just 10 years after the game was first released. Why don't they wait another 5/10 years and make it on the 360's successor for that respective anniversary and actually have it running at 1080p at 60fps.

[QUOTE="navyguy21"][QUOTE="GD1551"]

That's disappointing. I don't see what's so special with with the visuals that the game has to be sub-HD or limited to 30FPS. When a game like Gears of War is 720p and 30FPS and looks way better.

Filthybastrd

A baffling inclusion if I might say so.

The idea is neat but it's ultimately a gimmick that wears off fast. They should have managed their resources differently imho.

It's amusing and nostalgic to indulge in for a bit but soon you just want to play the game.

[QUOTE="GotNugz"]

[QUOTE="navyguy21"] if ANY game on consoles were running 2 engines it would take a performance and resolution hit. End of story dude. How can you say 3D takes power to run, but not consider that running 2 game engines might (and does) do the same?navyguy21

the remake looks worse than 360 launch games, and that original halo engine is laughable, do you really think it's taxing the system? it uses no AA and is sub HD, not to mention that it ran on a 733mhz P3 cpu and on a gpu many times weaker.

i have already responded to you but if i must own you again why not. here are the facts. both engines are sub HD, both engines run at a not so smoothe 30fps, no AA on original, the game runs on the same A.I. as Halo ce, considering all of that lets look at the technical aspect.

Xbox-733mhz cpu, 64mb SDRAM, 133mhz nvidia gpu,

360-3.2ghz triple core cpu, 500mhz ati gpu with 10mb Edram, 512mb DDR3.

so where sis the rest of the console's resources go?

[QUOTE="delta3074"][QUOTE="1stPlaceWinner"]That's pretty amusing, people hate on HD remasters because all they do is upscale to 1080p and make it 60FPS, yet the remake that's supposed to be better ends up sub HD and 30 FPS, and sometimes dips below that lol1stPlaceWinner

looking better doesn not excuse it being below 30fps in some parts and sub hd.

uhhhh, yes it does actually. the GOW collection is 60 FPS and 1080p becasue all it is is a resolution upgrade, nothing more. both games look exactly like they did on the ps2, except clearer.

and where did you get "below 30 FPS" from?

[QUOTE="GotNugz"]

[QUOTE="bobbetybob"] ...do you even know anything about the game? It's running on a mix of the Reach and Halo 1 engines, Halo 1 to get the controls and gameplay the same but the Reach engine for all the graphics, basically it's running the same as Reach did, it's not going to magically switch to 1080p from 720p when you switch to classic mode because you can do it on the fly.bobbetybob

it can't even switch to 720p

how am i trolling? are you denying the game doesn't support 720p? next time look at what you type before pressing submit.

30FPS is not choppy...

[QUOTE="navyguy21"][QUOTE="GotNugz"]

the remake looks worse than 360 launch games, and that original halo engine is laughable, do you really think it's taxing the system? it uses no AA and is sub HD, not to mention that it ran on a 733mhz P3 cpu and on a gpu many times weaker.

GotNugz

i have already responded to you but if i must own you again why not. here are the facts. both engines are sub HD, both engines run at a not so smoothe 30fps, no AA on original, the game runs on the same A.I. as Halo ce, considering all of that lets look at the technical aspect.

Xbox-733mhz cpu, 64mb SDRAM, 133mhz nvidia gpu,

360-3.2ghz triple core cpu, 500mhz ati gpu with 10mb Edram, 512mb DDR3.

so where sis the rest of the console's resources go?

It is something that has carried over from the Halo: Reach engine. Has to do with the way their framebuffer comes out and how they fit everything into the eDRAM. And I believe that they have to use the eDRAM otherwise they hit a bandwidth bottleneck.

Also, the game isn't an upscaled version of the original. They have new lighting, new post processing, new textures, new models, new art... I kind of want to see what their newest build looks like, but don't try to claim that what they have demonstrated is "only using 40% of the Xbox 360" because that isn't accurate.

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

[QUOTE="GotNugz"]

i give up, i guess people are satisfied with 640p. let me ask you a question what looks better Halo remake, or Perfect Dark Zero?

GotNugz

You're the one yelling lazy coding when you have never once programed graphics on the 360 once in your life. You have absolutely no idea the kind of constraints that are put on programmers developing on the consoles.

i don't need to be Carmack to spot bad programming. you have eyes don't you? it's clear as day that this game is not demanding, or have other developers really found the hidden powah?

The game is plenty demanding, I have no idea what graphics you're seeing. They are super top-of-the-line but they aren't just ported Xbox code. When you splice two engines into one while keeping the graphics from the original game and then overlaying new geometries, textures, and effects over it, you're going to take a hit somewhere.

A straight port would be boring, without all of this neat stuff it wouldn't be worth it.

[QUOTE="Filthybastrd"]

[QUOTE="navyguy21"] Its because its running 2 engines at the same time. The Halo CE engine (so the game plays the same, enemies react the same, etc) and the new graphics engine layered on top. Its kind of like running a game in 3D and rendering it twice. It zaps resources and RAM. No way around itnavyguy21

A baffling inclusion if I might say so.

The idea is neat but it's ultimately a gimmick that wears off fast. They should have managed their resources differently imho.

It's amusing and nostalgic to indulge in for a bit but soon you just want to play the game.

Some day, some poor soul will be modded for adressing me :P

If they forewent the engine switching, I'd obviously expect a lot more than a slight resolution bump. I consider the function a cool kind of fanservice but it just strikes me as a lot of work for an ultimately underappreciated feature.

That's prescience at work of course, but my past experiences with similar functions reflect upon the notion.

Then again, I'm not really sure how much more work they could have done on the graphics anyway and I'm sure at least some people will shed a few nostalgic tears along the way ;)

[QUOTE="navyguy21"][QUOTE="GD1551"]

That's disappointing. I don't see what's so special with with the visuals that the game has to be sub-HD or limited to 30FPS. When a game like Gears of War is 720p and 30FPS and looks way better.

Filthybastrd

A baffling inclusion if I might say so.

The idea is neat but it's ultimately a gimmick that wears off fast. They should have managed their resources differently imho.

It's amusing and nostalgic to indulge in for a bit but soon you just want to play the game.

I think they've managed their resources appropriately. They're not trying to sell a game to compete with today's shooters. The game itself along with the flashback mode, is total fan service. It's supposed to be amusing and nostalgic. I wouldn't read much more into it.

However let's keep in mind in the demo they say the game looks a lot better now than it did in the demo, so 720p could be that.SaltyMeatballs

I doubt it. Like I said before, I believe that it is carried over fromHalo 3/Halo: Reach and is related directly to what their framebuffer comes out as. They have to fit in the eDRAM and I know Bungie was always against doing tiling(and I wouldn't be surprised if 343 feels the same way). I don't know though. Maybe...

[QUOTE="Filthybastrd"]

[QUOTE="navyguy21"] Its because its running 2 engines at the same time. The Halo CE engine (so the game plays the same, enemies react the same, etc) and the new graphics engine layered on top. Its kind of like running a game in 3D and rendering it twice. It zaps resources and RAM. No way around itnavyguy21

A baffling inclusion if I might say so.

The idea is neat but it's ultimately a gimmick that wears off fast. They should have managed their resources differently imho.

It's amusing and nostalgic to indulge in for a bit but soon you just want to play the game.

[QUOTE="GotNugz"]

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

You're the one yelling lazy coding when you have never once programed graphics on the 360 once in your life. You have absolutely no idea the kind of constraints that are put on programmers developing on the consoles.

Wasdie

i don't need to be Carmack to spot bad programming. you have eyes don't you? it's clear as day that this game is not demanding, or have other developers really found the hidden powah?

The game is plenty demanding, I have no idea what graphics you're seeing. They are super top-of-the-line but they aren't just ported Xbox code. When you splice two engines into one while keeping the graphics from the original game and then overlaying new geometries, textures, and effects over it, you're going to take a hit somewhere.

A straight port would be boring, without all of this neat stuff it wouldn't be worth it.

super top of the line:? but hey i'm not a game developer i just use my eyes, oh well maybe i'm a bit blind.

[QUOTE="navyguy21"]

[QUOTE="Filthybastrd"]

A baffling inclusion if I might say so.

The idea is neat but it's ultimately a gimmick that wears off fast. They should have managed their resources differently imho.

It's amusing and nostalgic to indulge in for a bit but soon you just want to play the game.

Heil68

so still, the only place to play HD Halo is on; PC!ShadowDeathX

a TRULY sad development

No one will switch back and play thru the whole game like that. Its there for comparison, a services for the fans of Halo. Ive never played the original but im dying to compare the 2 throughout the game. Its a nice feature to have. Wish more remakes and remasters would do it.navyguy21

[QUOTE="ShadowDeathX"]so still, the only place to play HD Halo is on; PC!sayyy-gaa

a TRULY sad development

I dunno', I think it's kinda' funny. :P

[QUOTE="navyguy21"]No one will switch back and play thru the whole game like that. Its there for comparison, a services for the fans of Halo. Ive never played the original but im dying to compare the 2 throughout the game. Its a nice feature to have. Wish more remakes and remasters would do it.Heil68

[QUOTE="Heil68"][QUOTE="navyguy21"]No one will switch back and play thru the whole game like that. Its there for comparison, a services for the fans of Halo. Ive never played the original but im dying to compare the 2 throughout the game. Its a nice feature to have. Wish more remakes and remasters would do it.navyguy21

why are you so desperate to defend halo, are you on the payroll?

[QUOTE="navyguy21"]

[QUOTE="Heil68"] But at the price of resolution and possibly FPSs. I'd personally pick that if it was possible over running 2 separate engines. GotNugz

why are you so desperate to defend halo, are you on the payroll?

[QUOTE="GotNugz"]

[QUOTE="navyguy21"] You say resolution like its 480p or something. Bungie CHOSE to make it sub HD by trimming a few pixels so there would be no tiling in EDRAM. It was a design choice. Reach is capable of running at 720p when tiled. Not sure what you are getting at.

navyguy21

why are you so desperate to defend halo, are you on the payroll?

it's a fact that the game is not rendered in HD, it's also a fact that it's not locked at 30fps. i don't think it's irrational at all to hope this game would atleast pull 720.

[QUOTE="navyguy21"][QUOTE="GotNugz"]

why are you so desperate to defend halo, are you on the payroll?

GotNugz

it's a fact that the game is not rendered in HD, it's also a fact that it's not locked at 30fps. i don't think it's irrational at all to hope this game would atleast pull 720.

It IS locked at 30FPS. Do you not understand what 30FPS Locked means? Because it isn't that the framerate can't drop below 30FPS, because you can't just magically make a game output frames that it hasn't rendered yet. 30FPS Locked means that it has a MAXIMUM framerate of 30FPS. They do that so that the game has fewer framerate fluctuations. Makes it appear smoother even if there are times when you waste a few frames per second. When the game is closer to release it will be more stable on the performance side.

As for the resolution, yet again you are ignoring a key factor. The game is using the Halo: Reach engine. The way that the Halo: Reach engine manages it framebuffer means that it has to be sub-HD for it to fit in the eDRAM without tiling. They could make it 720p or even 1080p, but it would mean fundamentally changing the way that their engine does most things.

[QUOTE="ShadowDeathX"]so still, the only place to play HD Halo is on; PC!sayyy-gaa

a TRULY sad development

alot of pople in this thread seem to be forgetting halos scale. halo has huge maps almost like the original crysis. this isnt a linear corridor shooter like cod.

[QUOTE="GreekGameManiac"]

[QUOTE="EliteM0nk3y"]Halo has never run at 60 fps. The only game on a console that has run at 60 fps that I can think of is Call of DutyWasdie

Lol,what?

I've lost count of how many games have run on 60fps :S

Check your sources.

Most of the games that run at 60fps are sports games or racing games with an extremely controled camera. CoD hasn't had a major graphical upgrade in 4 years.

Nothing wrong with 30fps on the consoles. 99% of people can't tell the difference anyways.

While 30fps is perfectly fine for games, a lot more than 1% of people can probably tell the difference between 30 and 60fps.

That's quite pathetic, really. I'm still buying it. But I'd expect more from a remaster.

A 10 year old game running on powerful (yet also outdated) hardware CAN'T even run at 60fps?

Are they still using the same old engine for Halo 1?

Please enlighten me.

2_Quiet_2_Riot

That's quite pathetic, really. I'm still buying it. But I'd expect more from a remaster.

A 10 year old game running on powerful (yet also outdated) hardware CAN'T even run at 60fps?

Are they still using the same old engine for Halo 1?

Please enlighten me.

2_Quiet_2_Riot

That's quite pathetic, really. I'm still buying it. But I'd expect more from a remaster.

A 10 year old game running on powerful (yet also outdated) hardware CAN'T even run at 60fps?

Are they still using the same old engine for Halo 1?

Please enlighten me.

2_Quiet_2_Riot

they are using the original engine and also the reach engine apparently. i tend to agree with you that it should atleast hit 720p, but i guess since this game is so visually stunning(sarcasm) according to people there is no juice left for real hd. Graphics king confirmed i guess:lol:

[QUOTE="2_Quiet_2_Riot"]

That's quite pathetic, really. I'm still buying it. But I'd expect more from a remaster.

A 10 year old game running on powerful (yet also outdated) hardware CAN'T even run at 60fps?

Are they still using the same old engine for Halo 1?

Please enlighten me.

-RocBoys9489-

it's 2011 graphics yet somehow manages to look like an hd xbox 1 game

[QUOTE="-RocBoys9489-"][QUOTE="2_Quiet_2_Riot"]

That's quite pathetic, really. I'm still buying it. But I'd expect more from a remaster.

A 10 year old game running on powerful (yet also outdated) hardware CAN'T even run at 60fps?

Are they still using the same old engine for Halo 1?

Please enlighten me.

GotNugz

it's 2011 graphics yet somehow manages to look like an hd xbox 1 game

[QUOTE="2_Quiet_2_Riot"]

That's quite pathetic, really. I'm still buying it. But I'd expect more from a remaster.

A 10 year old game running on powerful (yet also outdated) hardware CAN'T even run at 60fps?

Are they still using the same old engine for Halo 1?

Please enlighten me.

GotNugz

they are using the original engine and also the reach engine apparently. i tend to agree with you that it should atleast hit 720p, but i guess since this game is so visually stunning(sarcasm) according to people there is no juice left for real hd. Graphics king confirmed i guess:lol:

It is not about what they can do, it is about how they are doing things. They CAN do 720p. ANY game CAN do 720p. But that means you handle certain things a different way and you sacrifice something to achieve that result. Either way, there is always going to be some "left over juice." But the nature of bottlenecks in these consoles means that you have to choose one side or the other. What they have chosen to do is related DIRECTLY to their framebuffer and the eDRAM... The could make it 720p, but then they would have to find an alternative HDR solution. Given the color palette in the Halo games, using the high quality HDR that they are using produces the best results. However, the tradeoff is a lower resolution...

instead we get choppy 30 frames

GotNugz

you must hate watching movies and television considering those don't even run at 30fps

GG.