Forums / Games / Halo 5: Guardians

Why does Halo 5 have bad graphics?

OP total war1402

  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. ...
  4. 2
I am not an expert on this.

But, I don't get how they can reskin Halo 2 Anniversary and have it look much better than Halo 5. Especially the environments and texturing. But Halo 5 has really small maps and bad textures despite being a newer game. How can you have issues running big maps if you can reskin Halo 2 and have it run on the Xbox 1? What exactly are they doing that eats up so much of the engine?

Is this something to do with the engine and technology they are using? Shouldn't Microsoft have given 343 the resources to keep pace with their competitors? I mean I just assumed Microsoft gave them a blank cheque. But Halo 5 is really far behind other triple A titles.
Well, Halo 5 runs at 60fps. That's not typical for the Xbox One (until recently). I honestly think the game looks fine though.
Halo 4 says hi.

To me Halo 5 is the best looking Halo game graphics wise, the reason it may look bad is just because of the textures they use.
PurityGuy wrote:
Well, Halo 5 runs at 60fps. That's not typical for the Xbox One (until recently). I honestly think the game looks fine though.
Don't COD, Battlefront, Battlefield and all other big games have that as standard now?

I really disagree. Some levels (The Breaking) looked awful and even simple stuff like rendering individual Spartan models in multi looked real bad.
Ya there isn't really anything wrong with the graphics
Halo 2A doesn't have better textures . I agree that Halo 5 isn't very good and there are better games out there (Overwatch is gorgeous) but the thing you said is wrong. Battlefront is not solid-60 fps and it runs at 720p all the time , same COD (single player) .
Halo 5 is really ugly at times.

I mean look at the grass. This is literally a Halo game in 2015-2016. Wtf is going on with that grass?
jayman567 wrote:
Halo 4 says hi.

To me Halo 5 is the best looking Halo game graphics wise, the reason it may look bad is just because of the textures they use.
I disagree, Halo 2A looks so much better IMO
Halo 2A doesn't have better textures . I agree that Halo 5 isn't very good and there are better games out there (Overwatch is gorgeous) but the thing you said is wrong. Battlefront is not solid-60 fps and it runs at 720p all the time , same COD (single player) .
Why make a big deal about 60fps if none of your major competitors have it? Aren't graphics higher in the rankings of importance? I am sure extra credits did a video where they said that most producers were pretty adamant that fps should not compromise the games graphics.

Compare the Breaking to High Charity or some of Halo 4 Forerunner stuff. Halo 5 has bad textures. Some stuff like the Meridian mining equipment, some Genesis fauna and Sanghelios cliffs look good. But a lot of it is still patchy and very limited in scope compared to the huge Halo 2 maps.
Didn't halo 5 beta have different graphics? I think someone speculated that 343 changed the art style in very late point of the game development and therefore it's not as good as it could be.

I personally don't mind the graphics but I really hate many of their graphical decisions like how the Covenant tech looks like.
I think it's more the style than graphics.
I don't think it is the graphics that are bad... they are actually pretty good. It's the art that is complete -Yoink-. The colors are too vibrant for my taste, the multiplayer maps especially have no texture, and I'm particularly not a fan of the Promethean character's design. They don't look very menacing. I think especially with FPS, a darker (not necessarily dark as in color but the art in general) design would have been more aesthetically pleasing.
I mean, it's no Halo 4, one of, if not the, best looking video games I've ever seen but, it's not bad either. It's probably the fact that they were working on a new engine while at the same time working on new hardware. I bet Halo 6 will look amazing.
Pretty sure it was the decision to use PBR alongside the push for 60fps that lead to downscaling of the texture resolutions.

You will see this a lot on "next gen" games as PBR is popular among artists who like more control over their materials.

Fallout 4 is ugly...
Halo 5 graphics looks great, I don't really know what you mean.
Janfles wrote:
Halo 5 graphics looks great, I don't really know what you mean.
This grass looks great?
Do you want a game that has consistent 60 FPS or do you want a game that drops FPS because textures matter so much even tho we grew up playing PS1 and PS2 games?

Besides, if you want graphics make sure to let 343 know that you want 30FPS with the next halo because i'm not sure if you missed the memo, but if you want 60 fps you have to sacrifice graphics. Look at Forza 6 vs Driveclub for example.
gethtones wrote:
Janfles wrote:
Halo 5 graphics looks great, I don't really know what you mean.
This grass looks great?
Do you want bad looking grass or a game that repeats itself twice a year (COD)? Graphics can be better, they can always be better. But the gameplay is what matters.
Probably so they can run 60 fps idk really tbh.
It's really cluttering to have highly detailed textures on multiplayer maps. Simple vibrant backgrounds that make your enemy pop out are what you want in an art style and it's not just halo that's been following this trend.
Remember ghosts? It was impossible to see anyone online with all the junk cluttering the screen.
  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. ...
  4. 2