Skip to main content

Forums / Games / Halo 5: Guardians

How are Halo 4's graphics better than Halo 5's?

OP Some dead cats

  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 10
  4. 11
  5. 12
  6. 13
  7. 14
  8. ...
  9. 15
I think Reach looks better than H4/H5 combined!

The graphics in Rach are "more realistic." Instead of the action figure spartans with spotless armor, you have gritty,battle-hardened armor that shows all the scratches, scrapes, and bumps the spartan has endured.

On top of that Reach had an overall gritty, dark art style. I know this has been said hundreds of times, but it's true,
I agree with that. Halo 3 had my favorite art style, but Reach does look very nice in comparison to 4 and 5
I think Reach looks better than H4/H5 combined!

The graphics in Rach are "more realistic." Instead of the action figure spartans with spotless armor, you have gritty,battle-hardened armor that shows all the scratches, scrapes, and bumps the spartan has endured.

On top of that Reach had an overall gritty, dark art style. I know this has been said hundreds of times, but it's true,
DOOM you could adjust damage and grime on your armor. You could either go spotless, or with over half of the paint scraped off and caked in dirt for the worn and battle damaged look. Halo could have used that. Your choice on what you wanted your armor to look like.
Meh, I don't know, Halo 4 looked very plastic to me. Halo 3 and Halo Reach were the prettiest Halos in my opinion. Halo 3 being incredibly photo realistic.
Justima wrote:
Screenshot 1...screenshot 2...screenshot 3.

Those shots are from the Halo 5 beta. The beta I believe ran at a consistent 720p 60 fps, but my god were the effects and lighting gorgeous. Far More Dynamic first person shadows, higher quality shield lights, better, smoother light fading, more crisp textures (within 720p of course).

I'm a 2k PC guy, but I play a lot on console with friends, and I look more for art style than I do resolution (within reason). 720p was fine with me. It was reasonably crisp, but the maps were drop dead gorgeous. Shadows rendered further, and more dynamic shadows were supported. It's what I thought a next gen Halo should look like.

Now we have a '1080p' dynamic engine that spends much more time at 900p unless you are looking at the sky or a wall, complete with poor grass and shadow render distance, too much brightness and saturation (especially on armor), reduced first person shading and shield effects, fairly bland textures especially on armor, and reduced AI and player frames of motion outside of what, 30-35 meters?

Was that worth 900p, or excuse me, 'dynamic 1080p'? The beta still had 60 fps down pat, at least in arena in the beta test. Hopefully the engine is optimized or altered so Halo 6 can look great AND perform well!
The beta was not running at consistent 60fps. There were moments that frame rate dropped to 50 or lower, but nobody cared. 343's persistence of consistent 60fps consumed all their development time. Seriously, who asked them to make Halo at 60fps.
Every gaming media site (IGN, Gamespot, Kotaku, etc.). They along with the commenters, due to the Xbox One's launch issues, just -Yoink- all over the Xbone over not being 1080p 60fps when the PS4 was for their games (which was a lie because almost all AAA PS4 games ran at sub 1080p and sub 60fps).
I think Reach looks better than H4/H5 combined!

The graphics in Rach are "more realistic." Instead of the action figure spartans with spotless armor, you have gritty,battle-hardened armor that shows all the scratches, scrapes, and bumps the spartan has endured.

On top of that Reach had an overall gritty, dark art style. I know this has been said hundreds of times, but it's true,
DOOM you could adjust damage and grime on your armor. You could either go spotless, or with over half of the paint scraped off and caked in dirt for the worn and battle damaged look. Halo could have used that. Your choice on what you wanted your armor to look like.
That feature would be amazing!
It really is a simple matter of 343 sacrificing graphics in areas to maintain a consistent 60 FPS quality. It is a small issue, but it is also not too bad as it's not the game's fault. The Xbox One was cheaply made as much as I hate to say that. But, with the next Xbox One coming out and the Scorpio, such limits of quality are no longer to be an issue.

I would love to see what Halo 5 would have looked like in 1080 if it were in it's prime.
This post has been edited by a moderator. Do not make non-constructive posts.

Spoiler:
Show
This is the state of the Halo community everyone! Complaining about sprint and whining about graphics.

Slow claps out of room.
"Wow this community sure is crazy! Complaining about completely valid criticisms in a game we paid $60 for! Haha people are so ridiculous!"
Halo 4's visuals were good, but the textures were WAY worse in that game than Halo 5, and it had similar issues with "going off the beaten path." I never understood why people thought Halo 4 was gorgeous or "pushed the 360" when it was up against games like Gears 3, Battlefield 3, and Crysis 2.

But I do believe it was artistically superior in many aspects, and vastly superior in terms of content over its life cycle.
Halo 4 looked pretty damn good for the aging console it released on especially in cut scenes but Halo 5 looks horrible.
Not only has it cheated to gain 60fps but the textures look down right awful up close on most vehicles and on certain objects especially in the campaign and the cut scenes seem to be a step back from Halo 4's but only slightly. If you dare to tread off the beaten path of the campaign you will see objects in the background disappear and the whole landscape change for some reason which happens far too much in the opening mission. Not to mention the Warzone map Raid on apex 7 is by far the ugliest looking thing in the entire series with its far too bright colour contrast and for some reason no water effects.
Not to mention the game is on an xbox one which is obviously far more powerful than the 360 so why is this? I honestly have no idea but if any of you do please explain

Edit: I've been informed the reason for these bad graphics is 343s attempt at getting the game to stay at 60fps at all times which they have managed to do but at the cost of split screen and the obvious graphics downgrade which is a terrible decision as one of the main reasons Halo is considered a game in which you can grab a friend and play some split screen is now gone because of 60fps which no one actually asked for.
It's due to the 60fps. They sacrificed Dynamic player shading, animation quality from any distance other than 15m, and in general anything good in the game for a Tournament Viable Framerate
Because clearly the MLG section of Halo was the LARGEST demographic of the Franchise, and it's not like this series's multiplayer gained it's popularity in LAN parties and College Dorms or anything.
now that you mention it... I still don't care. I haven't payed much attention to the textures since H4
I actually believe Halo 5 looks better than Halo 4 but I'm assuming most are referring to BTB and not the campaign or other aspects of the game but I due have high hopes for the future installment due to Project Scorpio which should give it a significant boost in graphics.
Did the guys from Retro Studios work on Halo 5's level design and art style? Because I don't see anything that makes me think it was the same people that made Halo 4 and the Metroid Prime Trilogy.
Was that worth 900p, or excuse me, 'dynamic 1080p'? Hopefully the engine is optimized or altered so Halo 6 can look great AND perform well!
Halo 5 didn't need all the great graphics in the world, they focused on one of the most important features, Frames per Second, it runs at a solid 60 fps (unlike Reach, even though I still love reach with all my heart). That is a good thing.
This is the state of the Halo community everyone! Complaining about sprint and whining about graphics.

Slow claps out of room.
I'm with you mate. I've been avoiding the Halo Community due to Complainers.
Say what now?
I don't understand, is that supposed to look bad or something?
????? ... well, I guess if you think it looks good, then that's great. To me, it's a blurry mess. Un-rendered.

Don't get me wrong, Halo 4 is a gorgeous game. And so is Halo 5. But don't confuse art direction with graphics. Also, I think we can fairly place the shortcomings squarely on the hardware here. The Xbox is not a PC. They can only do so much.
I for one am ecstatic for the scorpio. 4k60 with beautiful textures and splitscreen. Best of all worlds :)
Halo 5 beta was far better looking and more immersive than the final build. BUT people complained that everything was too bright, too gritty, too many distraction and people were like ''oooooh we don't care about the lens flare, the lights blah blah''. Now everyone complains about how bad the graphics are,, We can't really blame 343i for the downgrade.
Co signed, If you go and look at the BTB maps in Halo 4, they are stunning... no comparison... H5 looks plastic in comparison
Halo 5's BTB maps are all made in Forge vs the Arena and Warzone Maps. Halo 5 looks MUCH better than Halo 4, but BTB took a backseat in this game because of Warzone; which is superior to BTB in my opinion.
Co signed, If you go and look at the BTB maps in Halo 4, they are stunning... no comparison... H5 looks plastic in comparison
Halo 5's BTB maps are all made in Forge vs the Arena and Warzone Maps. Halo 5 looks MUCH better than Halo 4, but BTB took a backseat in this game because of Warzone; which is superior to BTB in my opinion.
BTB is ctf half the time. I want to kill not steal!
  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 10
  4. 11
  5. 12
  6. 13
  7. 14
  8. ...
  9. 15