Forums / Games / Halo 5: Guardians

why are the graphics so bad

OP ThexXx0MARxXx

  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 13
the maps have terrible textures, most surfaces are just bland smooth metal things, and they still couldn't get full hd. I mean look at grass or plants so watercolory. Other games achieved better image quality and lighting and higher resolutions. isn't this the flagship game the xbox was built for. and I'm only keeping arena in mind lol
The price of 1080p (*cough* 900p most of the time *cough*) 60 FPS, as well as somewhat outdated hardware.

Did you play the beta? It was in 720p but the lighting effects were gorgeous. I hate that they changed those for slightly better resolution.
343s goal of constant 60 fps takes away more then it is good for. past 60 fps is redundant anyways id be fine with 45 fps
sorry i just find it funny that we think these graphics are bad now. The jump graphics have made in the last 15 years is incredible. Fine its not up to your standard but they are not bad, just saying.
because 343 thinks they can forge all their problems away
The main reason the graphics aren't pushing boundaries is because they wanted to maintain 60fps. The other reason is that forge objects still look really bad and flat. Forge desperately needs some real texture options.
The main reason the graphics aren't pushing boundaries is because they wanted to maintain 60fps. The other reason is that forge objects still look really bad and flat. Forge desperately needs some real texture options.
the problem with increasing texture options is that the amount of object allowed to be used would be decreased. limiting the number of object on screen has the potential to limit what a forger could do. There are really creative maps that just could not have been made with a smaller item count and thats because the lack of texture allows for the number to rise.
I'm talking about arena dev maps. the beta had great graphics, eden and empire if they had more textures they would have been top notch. the final game has worse lighting and a 900p res which is not really adding up. Look at the division, look at blops 3 somewhat, forza 6, look at quantum break. what the hell half those games are 60 fps. and arena maps are so small as it is
As long as my game is fun and makes me return to it, I could care less if a game is at 1080p 60 FPS.

Example: Fallout 4
I would have been find if splitscreen was at 30fps
The forge maps are what kill me the most. I am fine with arena maps, but forge is just plain ugly. Looks worse than last gen. Wtf.
You know sometimes I play h3 on mcc and I look around on maps and can't help but think "Damn this looks better than h5, visually and artistically"
Then again, despite the fact that its 10 years old, h3 had perfect lighting, a more unique art style and everything wasn't so bright and 'frolic' as in h5.
As long as my game is fun and makes me return to it, I could care less if a game is at 1080p 60 FPS.

Example: Fallout 4
Don't compare s*** with chocolate. Fallout 4 is a technical mess with bugs and framerate drops so Bethesda deserve the hate in my opinion (7 god*amn years of development) .
sorry i just find it funny that we think these graphics are bad now. The jump graphics have made in the last 15 years is incredible. Fine its not up to your standard but they are not bad, just saying.
Halo 5 screenshots can EASILY be mistaken for Halo 4 screenshots.
As long as my game is fun and makes me return to it, I could care less if a game is at 1080p 60 FPS.

Example: Fallout 4
Don't compare s*** with chocolate. Fallout 4 is a technical mess with bugs and framerate drops so Bethesda deserve the hate in my opinion (7 god*amn years of development) .
Your opinion, just because you are a fps only player doesn't mean you need to hate.
Timmie wrote:
sorry i just find it funny that we think these graphics are bad now. The jump graphics have made in the last 15 years is incredible. Fine its not up to your standard but they are not bad, just saying.
Halo 5 screenshots can EASILY be mistaken for Halo 4 screenshots.
and halo 4 graphics were not bad. The main issue was the lens flare.
Minecraft yall
As long as my game is fun and makes me return to it, I could care less if a game is at 1080p 60 FPS.

Example: Fallout 4
Don't compare s*** with chocolate. Fallout 4 is a technical mess with bugs and framerate drops so Bethesda deserve the hate in my opinion (7 god*amn years of development) .
Your opinion, just because you are a fps only player doesn't mean you need to hate.
FPS only ? Fallout drops from 30 fps to 20 fps all the time , reaching ZERO in Diamond City , a very different situation from Halo 5. I am not judging the game , just graphics. You have to be blind if you don't see that...it affects gameplay.
nekrulz wrote:
You know sometimes I play h3 on mcc and I look around on maps and can't help but think "Damn this looks better than h5, visually and artistically"
Then again, despite the fac that its 10 years old, h3 had perfect lighting, a more unique art style and everything wasn't so bright and 'frolic' as in h5.
Now that we can see H3 in 1080p it is a real testament to step we took from H2 to H3. That art design is just plain sexy.
As long as my game is fun and makes me return to it, I could care less if a game is at 1080p 60 FPS.

Example: Fallout 4
Don't compare s*** with chocolate. Fallout 4 is a technical mess with bugs and framerate drops so Bethesda deserve the hate in my opinion (7 god*amn years of development) .
I have yet to encounter a bad experience in Fallout 4. So yea I will compare chocolate to chocolate. Both are fun games to play
  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 13