Executive producer Chris Lee says the resolution will be discussed more in the future.
My guess will be 900p/60FPS. If they happen to hit 1080p, then great. But glad they are aiming for the 60FPS first..
Yeah definitely. The frame-rate needs to be stable. If the campaign hits a steady 60fps then MP is pretty much gonna remain the same too, minus maybe Warzone considering how much action there will be on screen.
The game will be 900p @60fps and i dont know why people continue to hide what is normal for the xbox one. The game comes out in a couple months so im quite sure the game is basically done being made and its about polishing everything now. Most core gamers already knows what the Xbox one is capable of already. The developers already know exactly how the game will be so they should just be upfront about
I think resolution is way overrated. Stable frame rate is far more important so just do a dynamically adjusted resolution. That is what the Xbox One is designed and optimized for, stable frame rate with dynamic resolution. Most important of all, give me a solid game!!! I watched the vidoc for Halo 5 and you really see the blood, sweeat, tears and love they gave Halo 5. It might just be the best Halo yet. Warzone looks like chaotic awesomeness. I am soooo hyped for this game! :D
It definitely does need to be stable, but I doubt even running at 1152X810 (slightly better than 720p) this game will stay at a locked 60FPS, it's clearly an eSRAM issue, because a HD7770 with 1GB of GDDR5 and an i3 (CPU closest in performance to the 8 core Jaguar in use both X86 consoles) wouldn't have any problems running Halo 5 at a locked 60FPS at 900p with higher texture resolutions and denser particle counts, with dynamic physics in play, none of which is happening in this game on XB1. Seems likely 343 will have to drop some details somewhere to keep the game at 1152X810 at 60FPS. Unless their code is pretty unoptimized, which isn't very likely 3 months from going gold. This game won't be 1600X900 with a locked 60FPS, it's probably going to either stay at the 1152X810 or take a slight drop to 1280X720 and it still won't be a locked 60FPS, the VRAM to make that happen just isn't there. Unless the particle counts are basically cut way back and a lot more visual compromises are made.
I have to agree with MrSec84. I'm having my doubts about this game being 1080p or even 900p. I think the resolution will be close to the 720p, either that or they will have to compromise on the effects.
Well Cindy-rella I was hoping at the start of this gen 1080p 60fps would be the standard for MOST games if not ALL by 2015. FACT is its not but because alot of loud mouths who care more about a silly fanboy war put priority on a few extra pixels rather than the actual feel of the physical mechanics of playing the game itself devs more often choose resolution vs giving us the tightest gameplay. Xbox One had a launch game at 1080p 60fps, it was great but lets be honest here while you seem to be discounting X1 neither console has shown any consistency for that bar, ps4 has just had some multiplats with higher res and truth is most of those werent as much an example of power but more that the devs didnt bother to optimize for esram. I mean come on KZsf had a "misinformation" cover about its res, plus it was a very shallow limited experience even compared to ps3 KZ games, InfamousSS was 30fps much like most open world games like Sunset O, yet Infamous SS lacked the life in the city compared to its predecessors, ps4 best looking game was very linear, very short, reused many sequences, full of more movie cutscenes and the devs still cut the screen size of your tv to do a workaround for higher res, then you have a exclusive racer that is smaller in terms of content & features yet its still only 30fps= Damm its next gen bro we should at the very least expect bigger games with tighter well put together un-rehashed gameplay vs just a bit better looking game thats cut &pasted from last gen but if you keep that res focus mentality expect more of the same. Do I want it all HELL YEAH but the writing is on the wall devs on BOTH consoles cant do it all so there a balance= I want gameplay 1st and foremost, not that I dont care about res, but laugh all you want cause I'll take a game a game like Halo5 striving to give me so much more at maybe 900p vs what KZsf did with its hybrid 1080p....so yeah its easy to talk crap on X1 but when you look at what games sony has presented for their console I just dont see this great spec divide in terms of actual real games between both consoles. Its easier for devs to throw 1080p & 30fps on the box for ad purposes but real gamers realize 60fps for shooter & racing games matters more because game with alot of fast movement play smoother.
@4show KZSF's SP mode is 1920×1080 and any gane the X1 could do the PS4 could do better. And X1's flagship title being only 720 or 810 is a disgrace. And just shows how pathetic it is.
dantesparda its interesting that you chose the word "could", lol "could" is a big word.... All those multi's could have run better on ps4....but they didn't. You could care about more than 1 particular aspect of what makes a game "better"....but it seems you don't. All those multi's could have launched without needing to have 1080p patched in, no bugs....but they didn't. Ryse could have been soooo much more if they varied the gameplay.....but they didn't. AC Unity could of been 1080p like Black Flag....but it wasn't. Driveclub could have been 60fps on the most powerful console....but it wasn't. X1 could make better Kinect games....Im still waiting. PS4 could do BC too....we'll see? -You see "could" and **will are two totally different things, I can only compare whats on store shelves now, ps4 has more multiplats at 1080p, thats it. Nothing else imo over X1 so if you mean ps4 will have more 1080p games this gen then so be it but as you said in terms of "better" games well so far I'll take X1's library. -Wii U has more exclusives at 1080p 60fps yet I don't think that warrants labeling all those games better by default, because they are NOT pushing any boudaries which is why nobodys hyping them, not that nintendo fans should care because clearly thats not nintendos intent, their fans want more Mario with just a new twist so thats cool. -Fact ps4 & X1 will have bigger and better games, 99% of that will be dtermined by the devs involved passion, skill, & budget.
Yes, Dantesparda, it was 1920 x 1080i. Not 1080p. Plus, I don't think anyone here is trying to say that the Xbox One is equally or more powerful than the PS4, but calling it "pathetic" is obviously hyperbolic and clearly a troll comment. That said, a lot of people, myself included, would rather play on Xbox because of the controller, UI, achievements, etc, etc, and just plain don't care about a small difference in resolution. Witcher 3 has a higher Resolution on PS4, doesn't it? But from what I understand, it also has a terrible framerate when compared to the XB1 version. It doesn't really matter, though. Play what you want, let others play what they want. Coming on here and preaching about the Xbox One being "pathetic" is not going to change anyone's mind and just makes you look bad for saying it.
Yeah I'm not seeing 1080p/60frames across both modes. That would be highly impressive from a technical point of view. Especially a STABLE 60 frames.
dantesparda: "KZSF's SP mode is 1920×1080 and any gane the X1 could do the PS4 could do better. And X1's flagship title being only 720 or 810 is a disgrace. And just shows how pathetic it is." LOL! KZ:Shadowfall multiplayer was1920x1080, which is equivalent to a rendering of 1920x540p. But hey you can stare at that flagship multiplayer game in all it's glory in high resolution (as if it was), but lag out while playing on P2P servers! I would be more concerned about the lack of dedicated servers on a flagship multiplayer game like KZ than boast it's 1080p'ness, which it really isn't. Sony just lied to you, and you ate it up! That is quite pathetic don't you think?
The order in power needed for the given performance & resolution is about this: [email protected] > [email protected] > [email protected] >= [email protected] > [email protected] > [email protected] (considering [email protected], it´s about the same as 720p/30)
Yeah just make it 900p, and give us a stable 60fps, this is what I care about= fast paced solid gameplay. 1080p is great but for a game as big as Halo5 smooth gameplay like what we had in the Beta is whats going to carry the game for months-years down the road, besides the art style, lighting & effects already make Halo5 look great. As much as Iam looking forward to some other upcoming games Halo5 is my most anticipated because its one of the very few games with a awesome multiplayer that can hold my attention along with Gears & COD all year between other great releases, which is exactly why its soooo important 343 keeps the focus on gameplay, so far Im confident they will.
I'm in agreement on this comment.
I agree, I think the game will be 900p @60 fps, or maybe a dynamic resolution with a locked 60fps. I also agree with @donthate, resolution is overrated, this is something I noticed very early on in owning all of the systems. It is funny how perception overweighs real world experiences. Overall, wouldn't it be funny that with all of the resolution talk this gen, and the xb1 being "less powerful" than the ps4, if the xb1 managed to possibly put out 3 1080p 60fps AAA EXCLUSIVES before the "more powerful" system (ps4) put out one??
1080P is great and all but it's hard to appreciate the extra sharpness when it is blurring across your screen because of 30FPS......
No one can tell the difference between 900p and 1080p sitting 10' form a TV anyway. Maybe on a 32" monitor where you are <2 feet away.
@DougLord "No one can tell the difference between 900p and 1080p sitting 10' form a TV anyway". That may be true for you, but it's slightly arrogant to assume nobody can.
He's actually right there are diminishing returns as you get further away, so no human on this planet could see a difference between 900p (upscaled) and 1080p from TEN FOOT away on a 32" screen.. using a larger screen or closing the distance will vastly change that. 900p on my PC monitor looks horrible, but guess what, I'm TWO FOOT away. Here's a simple chart to illustrate: http://icdn3.digitaltrends.... People will always claim that's BS, fine, please provide evidence as subjective opinion is meaningless.
I really don't know the difference but what I do know is I want a fun game that looks next gen. We gotta stop this 1080 stuff and let Devs give us a great experience. Idc what system you play on jus make sure the game is fun and have replay ability
yeah it's true. Many people have the placebo effect when they know that something is running at a higher resolution they "claim" to see the difference. But at distances of over 10' on a TV smaller than 55" the human eye cannot distinguish individual pixels.. they are just too darn small. So unless you are gaming on a monster TV, or sitting like 5' away, then it's highly unlikely. PC gaming is completely different.
DougLord, the receptors in our eyes have a finite resolution so our ability to resolve fine detail has limits based on this. Using wikis verifiable figures for human vision: Visual acuity = 0.6 arc mins Vernier acuity = 0.13 arc mins To be able to see a difference between 1080p and 900p from 10 ft away, and for just visual acuity alone, our pixel pitch needs to be: 120 inches * tan(0.6/60) = 0.021 inches Therefore, a 16:9 1080p screen will need a diagonal length of roughly: 0.021 * 1080 * sqrt(1+pow((16/9),2)) = 46 inches Looking at 900p this becomes about 38 inches for the same pitch. Given this we should observe a difference between 900p and 1080p from 10 ft away given side-to-side viewing on 46 inch screens. In fact, as soon as you go above 38 inches there will be a difference growing between 900p and 1080p content in favor of the latter. If we include vernier acuity we'd need a much smaller pixel pitch for the same viewing distance; for example, on paper even a standard 24" 1080p monitor isn't small enough to hide all content aliasing artifacts at that 10 ft viewing range. It's quite an intriguing aspect of human vision (there are acuity tests online you can toy with to highlight the effect). In the end this is inherently linked to the biology of the human eye, how we sample light on our retina, and how our sensory input is evaluated by the brain. For the most part, mathematically evaluating things like this shouldn't be too contentious as long as we don't ignore person-to-person variations. P.s. Given the wiki figures again, with a 32 inch monitor from 2 ft away the best 16:9 resolution that you'd expect to discern detail on is 6656x3774 - a little over 3x the resolution of 4K! ;)
* The above should read "6656x3744", not "3774". Whilst I'm here I want to add for correctness that the trig is actually slightly off there, and I ignore that pixels are mostly not square-on to the viewer. The effect of contrast matters too amongst other caveats no doubt, though I think it's all negligible stuff here and in this context.
I'll be disappointed if the final product dips below 900p. With those graphics, it has to be at or above 900p at 60fps.
Yeah I wasn't all that impressed with the raw visual fidelity but damn that art style is sick . Tbh, I'll be happy with 60fps 900p. Look at Bloodborne for instance. That game's visuals aren't really impressive and its frame rate is not a smooth 30fps. But its art style makes up for its shortcomings.
@Septic The art style is indeed a step above from what we've seen in a Halo game before. The opening few seconds in the E3 stage demo looked really good. I'll be happy with 900p @ 60fps as well.
The beta was 30fps and it was fantastic! So addictive. So even if it doesn't hit 60fps I'm still gonna enjoy the hell out of this game.
The beta was 720p @ 60fps, was it not?
@Genuine I recall them saying the beta was 30fps and that they hope to target 60fps for launch.... I could be wrong... And if so then it could explain the crispy gameplay i experienced cause it was amazingly smooth.
It varied between 35 and 55 fps and hit 60 very occasionally. I'm surprised nobody noticed as a choppy framerate is so off-putting according to so many here. http://www.eurogamer.net/ar...
Halo 5 runs below 40fps on sub 720p resolution with an absolute last gen like graphics, how can they achieve 900p 60fps ? it's almost imposible
care to show me an analysis showing it running at that low of frames at that low of a resolution? Or are we just pulling numbers from our underpants now and calling it fact finding?
https://www.youtube.com/wat... This is last gen?
Yep don't care about res, play on my 60" TV and haven't noticed any issues on games that were 900p or dynamic. Just want a solid good looking game with responsive controls.
shhh. Resolution whores will ask you to have your eyes check.
The same ones that played the majority of last gen games at 640p upscale r up....
I would say they will likely stick to their correct setup of dropping res but maybe not as often as now because of time to optimize more. I say this because dropping res is something you do on PC if were a game is gpu-bound to increase framerate. I did this with dark souls on intel hd graphics to get a good 30fps refresh. If they were CPU-bound then dropping res wouldn't help too much you can test this with PC games that are cpu-bound.
The beta was running at 720P @ 60fps and it actually looked incredible. So even if it's 900P it won't matter much to me. I think if they had used Win10/ DX12 there's no doubt it would be 1080P. Since they are still using the old API, it likely will be 900P. I already have my limited edition game preordered. Can't wait to play this game when it's released in Oct.
35-55fps (so called unlocked 60fps), it kind of makes a mockery of those saying framerate is so important (nobody seems to have noticed anything wrong with the beta). Check the latest DF analysis, it still doesn't run at 60fps.
Angeljuice - that's why it's a...BETA
I agree the game looked well and played decent I hope they have it locked at 60fps doe graphics come second
@Angeljuice There's really no FPS on the PS4 or XB1 that is 1080P and runs at a locked 60fps. Every games on these systems that are 1080P 60fps have some kind of frame rate drop during gameplay. If it is 1080P, I'll be very surprised if it's locked, but we'll see what happens.
Exactly. This is the interactive medium. We have direct input on what goes on on the screen. They should always be aiming for the smoothest, best feeling experience; over what is simply an argument of visuals. Hell, having a game in 60fps still arguably looks better than the choppiness provided at 30fps, if that helps anything. Consoles should always be pushing performance. If you are looking for the best of the best in visuals, you shouldn't be looking at consoles in the first place. Just get the games to run as well as possible, I say.
I'm guessing 1080PR aka dyanmic resolution and won't reach 1080p nor 900p most of the time in actual gameplay scenarios. I won't mind as long as it's solid 60.
halo4 is running 1080p 60 fps on XO and it does look amazing. 60fps makes it look much better than most current gen titles.
Are any of those Halo games in the Halo Collection "locked" at 60fps? I wonder the same thing with TLOU and all those other remastered games. They are all last gen (or beyond) games, so it might be possible.
900P is fine, I can not tell the difference at all. I don't know if its my tv or my eye sight which has been taking a hit lately. Just give me a fun, smooth game with 4 player coop to enjoy with friends.
900P at a locked 60FPS is what I'm predicting for the single player.
Have never been a resolution junky , but am a FPS advocate cause we all know which is a must have of the 2 . So if this game ships 900,972 & 60FPS am happy as hell.
So glad finally seeing a dev prioritizing fps over resolution. Gameplay >>>>> eye candy any day of the week.
So where are the misterxmedia's people going on about the secret ultra powerful second gpu?? Jks jks! I'm actually not a huge fan of halo (don't shoot me I'm just not into futuristic shooters) but I hope this turns out to be a solid stable game for all the xbox fans out there :)
....... second GPU? I haven't heard that since early 2014. Give it a break.
So you're a follower of mrx then? It was clearly a joke so I'm going to assume you are.
Wow, such buthurt over a jab at misterxmedia..? Damn ppl, chill
How come you don't get marked for trolling, with the Mr.X 2nd GPU, but I get marked for making fun at secret sauce? You are obviously trolling, and I was throwing SS comments back in the face of trolls. I really doesn't matter much, but I would like a bit more balance on this site, so I know how to avoid loosing bubbles or can understand it when it happens.
I have to agree with most of the comments here. Sure, most would prefer 1080p and a smooth 60fps frame rate, but if that is not possible, I'd take Sub 1080p with a rock solid 60fps or 30fps (depending on the game requirements) any day of the week. Halo 5 seems demanding, so if 343i cannot achieve it in SP, maybe they'll target 1080p/60fps for MP? Just Speculating.
Halo MCC games are running at 60 FPS. I enjoyed it a lot more because of it.
The same people on here moaning about 1080p are the same people I've seen on Batlefront threads who are praising that game, which is also going to be 900p, strange that...
the game wont be 900p on XboxOne...
@tim Don't you get it? It only matters if the competition has a lower res. That's all that matters to some
@timotim @septic Both well said. As for Jumper . . . So. The. Hell. What. My three year old PC runs laps around the PS4. That doesn't mean I don't think consoles offer fantastic experiences in themselves. Stop being a baby about things. Start being a gamer.
@Timo The order didn't run in 800P though. It actually ran higher than 900P specifically 1920 by 800. Which essentially is 1920 by 1080 but chopping off the top and the bottom to add those black bars. In other words it's not 1080P but it contains the same pixel density as a 1080P image. Nothing will change how the game turned out but it isn't correct to spread misinformation about it. http://www.eurogamer.net/ar... From Eurogamer. "Clean image quality is a key factor in delivering a strong filmic look and The Order: 1886 turns in a solid performance here. One of the first controversies surrounding the game is its 2.40:1 aspect ratio which renders fewer pixels while maintaining 1:1 pixel mapping on native 1080p displays. With its accompanying, rather heavy post-processing pipeline, there are compelling arguments that this approach doesn't produce results substantially better than sub-native titles like Ryse at 900p but, in motion, finer details are visible and fewer subpixel artefacts interfere with the image. The image is predominately soft, but more subtle sharp details still manage to shine through, creating a nice contrast. It may not be to everyone's taste but The Order: 1886 features some of the best image quality you'll find on console at the moment. Ready at Dawn has previously noted that it is using 4x multi-sampling anti-aliasing (MSAA) which, at 1920x800, is more demanding on the GPU than a full HD framebuffer using post-process AA."
MasterCornholio, I get what you're saying and I have no gripe with RADs res choice but timotim isnt exactly wrong either even your qoute from eurogamer says: "its 2.40:1 aspect ratio which renders fewer pixels"= it sacrifices a portion of the top & bottom of the screen WHERE PIXELS WOULD NORMALLY BE, so they can have a higher res while making it obviously less taxing on the hardware vs actually *rendering those pixels...but you knew that already, right? Its simple math if I use a extreme example by saying if a dev cut out half the screen and to up the res to 4k they without a doubt sacrificed pixel count from full screen to do that. Now you can call it a design choice, more cinematic or whatever but its NOT the standard full screen 1080p that everyone acts like is so important.
@SlapHappyJesus Or better yet, he should consider a new hobby since gaming just isn't working out for him...
Just keep it how it was in the beta, it ran and looked brilliant.