Jump to content
CyReN

Halo 5: Guardians Discussion

Recommended Posts

I feel like that news was intentionally interpreted in the worst way possible. It’s not a selling point for the 1X, it’s a nice plus. Yes, it could create an advantage for those on the new hardware, but the degree of the advantage is unknown. The bottom line is that the experience for the game was upgraded. Anyone choosing to interpret this news as bad probably doesn’t still play the game seriously enough to even be affected by this perceived disadvantage. You just want to bitch about something.Theres no shortage of 343 related things to bitch about. This is not one of them. Please use some discretion. You’re complaining about an improvement.

  • Upvote (+1) 3

Share this post


Link to post

I feel like that news was intentionally interpreted in the worst way possible. It’s not a selling point for the 1X, it’s a nice plus. Yes, it could create an advantage for those on the new hardware, but the degree of the advantage is unknown. The bottom line is that the experience for the game was upgraded. Anyone choosing to interpret this news as bad probably doesn’t still play the game seriously enough to even be affected by this perceived disadvantage. You just want to bitch about something.Theres no shortage of 343 related things to bitch about. This is not one of them. Please use some discretion. You’re complaining about an improvement.

I mean, locking bug fixes behind a paywall is a bit fucky.

 

Not that that’s what this is but the concept of a hardware advantage on consoles is kinda dumb.

Share this post


Link to post

Talk about an extreme version of pay to win lmao.

its already like this lol, the xbone S runs the game waay better than the gen 1

Share this post


Link to post

its already like this lol, the xbone S runs the game waay better than the gen 1

Halo 5 still runs like shit on my One S.

  • Upvote (+1) 5

Share this post


Link to post

*snip*

 

On the latter half though, I agree. I highly doubt it will resemble the PC version in any way.

 

Granted, I understand everyone's skeptical in handing out their confidence in H5 things at this point, but I'm curious what you say that specifically.  I'm still holding out hope that there was a performance bottleneck on the bone, or that the dynamic resolution system was the major cause of the disparity between the console and pc aim feel.  Something is the root of the difference, and I'd honestly be surprised is there were vast engine implementation differences between console H5 and H5:F, so I'm leaning more on the hardware.

Share this post


Link to post

I feel like that news was intentionally interpreted in the worst way possible. It’s not a selling point for the 1X, it’s a nice plus. Yes, it could create an advantage for those on the new hardware, but the degree of the advantage is unknown. The bottom line is that the experience for the game was upgraded. Anyone choosing to interpret this news as bad probably doesn’t still play the game seriously enough to even be affected by this perceived disadvantage. You just want to bitch about something.Theres no shortage of 343 related things to bitch about. This is not one of them. Please use some discretion. You’re complaining about an improvement.

 

I don't really care about people having an advantage, I mean there is a good possibility that I regularly play against people using a keyboard + mouse adapter in Matchmaking and I don't really care about that either. What really grinds my gears here is that 343 has seemingly given up on fixing the aiming, but hey! If you play on our overlords newest console, the Xbox One X, the aiming might just be a little better. Problem solved!

 

The fact they still haven't managed to revert back to H4 or H5 Beta aiming is baffling, and telling people that one of the biggest bugs/issues in the game is alleviated by investing 500$ in new hardware is dumb af. No it's not "bad news" per se, but it's just the daily reminder of why people still don't have faith in this developer and this franchise.

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

Every post that 343 makes about heavy aim insults my intelligence a little further.

 

It's programmed into the game. Stop pretending like it isn't. The aiming was fine in the beta, and then it was deliberately changed.

 

The H5 aiming problems were not fixed by the acceleration and deadzone options. It's further under the hood, and it is not a hardware problem.

 

The aim of all the previous Halos are exactly consistent with their MCC counterparts, including Halo 3's garbage slippery aim.

 

God I fucking hate these people.

I’m inclined to believe it is a hardware limitation when the controller aiming is as good as it is on PC. Plus I don’t think he’d just make up something like this. Why even bring up heavy aim at all if it doesn’t in fact feel better on 1X?

  • Upvote (+1) 4

Share this post


Link to post

I’m inclined to believe it is a hardware limitation when the controller aiming is as good as it is on PC. Plus I don’t think he’d just make up something like this. Why even bring up heavy aim at all if it doesn’t in fact feel better on 1X?

 

Why would the hardware requirements have changed between the beta and the full release for the exact same game/maps/whatever? There is also the matter of there being no legitimate explanation as to why hardware stress would create spazzy input behavior. When you stress test your graphics card and/or CPU, your mouse responsiveness doesn't change, and if it was some other nonspecified hardware hiccup, well the other Halos work fine on the XB1, or rather they work as the originals specified. That means 343 changed something, and won't change it back. As far as the PC aiming goes, there is no reason that the PC and the console versions of H5 have to use the same aiming programming. What they're actually doing back there is anyone's guess, but it's absolutely feasible that the PC got something closer to the beta aiming (I've never played it, don't even know if the aiming is actually better or not). 

 

As far as why he'd bring it up, placebo is bae, and if you're asking me, "why would 343 lie/mislead", well...

  • Upvote (+1) 4

Share this post


Link to post

I’m inclined to believe it is a hardware limitation when the controller aiming is as good as it is on PC. Plus I don’t think he’d just make up something like this. Why even bring up heavy aim at all if it doesn’t in fact feel better on 1X?

Because he’s selling people on the new console. “Hey you know this unquantifiable element that some people were unhappy about? It MAY be fixed if you buy an Xbox One X.”

 

He never said it was fixed. He said it feels better. Even if it’s not better he never “lied”. It was just his opinion that it felt better.

 

Buy an Xbox one x.

Share this post


Link to post

I mean, locking bug fixes behind a paywall is a bit fucky.

 

Not that that’s what this is but the concept of a hardware advantage on consoles is kinda dumb.

It’s not a big fix. If the controller response issue is a result of poor performance, then better performance is going to help alleviate the issue.

Share this post


Link to post

Why would the hardware requirements have changed between the beta and the full release for the exact same game/maps/whatever? There is also the matter of there being no legitimate explanation as to why hardware stress would create spazzy input behavior. When you stress test your graphics card and/or CPU, your mouse responsiveness doesn't change, and if it was some other nonspecified hardware hiccup, well the other Halos work fine on the XB1, or rather they work as the originals specified. That means 343 changed something, and won't change it back. As far as the PC aiming goes, there is no reason that the PC and the console versions of H5 have to use the same aiming programming. What they're actually doing back there is anyone's guess, but it's absolutely feasible that the PC got something closer to the beta aiming (I've never played it, don't even know if the aiming is actually better or not).

 

As far as why he'd bring it up, placebo is bae, and if you're asking me, "why would 343 lie/mislead", well...

Beta was locked 720p, no dynamic resolution. If the resolution system in h5 is a root cause of aiming issues, it actually makes complete sense that the difference is a hardware issue.

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

Beta was locked 720p, no dynamic resolution. If the resolution system in h5 is a root cause of aiming issues, it actually makes complete sense that the difference is a hardware issue.

There is zero correlation between what is happening on screen and the aiming responsiveness. It feels just as garbage running through an empty Forge pallette as it does in the most graphically intense campaign moments.

 

And again, I have never seen input response affected by load except when the system actually locks up.

  • Upvote (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post

Let's not forget that Ghost came in here and admitted that they changed the aiming system after the beta. It is 100% NOT only a hardware issue.

 

I played Halo 5: Forge on PC at 144+ Hz using cheatengine and the aiming still felt really bad. Not as bad, but still really bad.

  • Upvote (+1) 5

Share this post


Link to post

Granted, I understand everyone's skeptical in handing out their confidence in H5 things at this point, but I'm curious what you say that specifically.  I'm still holding out hope that there was a performance bottleneck on the bone, or that the dynamic resolution system was the major cause of the disparity between the console and pc aim feel.  Something is the root of the difference, and I'd honestly be surprised is there were vast engine implementation differences between console H5 and H5:F, so I'm leaning more on the hardware.

 

I'm leaning on the hardware too, but it takes two to tango when it comes to software development. I can definitely speak from experience when I say you can have a plethora of performance issues, even on supercomputers. It's not that I don't believe the Xbox One X is capable of handling a good aiming system, but that would entail the game actually having a good aiming system, in which my trust in 343 is practically close to 0 at this point. That was the reasoning behind my thoughts, personally. That, and to piggyback off what Cursed Lemon just stated, it was fine in the beta and only after the squirrely aim change, did the aiming begin to feel like complete crap. So like I said, yeah, it could be the hardware, but the software needs to be programmed correctly.

 

It doesn't make any sense as to why I can aim properly in every other FPS on the console except Halo 5, and then lead me to believe that the console itself, is the issue. Especially when there are plenty of other 1080p/60fps games to play that all work perfectly fine.

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

Even if the resolution is the issue, which I am fairly certain it isn't, 343 actively made the decision to fuck the aiming between the beta and the full release - for no visible benefit, as I can't see any difference between beta footage of Eden and full release footage of the same map. And they refuse to acknowledge that they made the game unplayable for some people, or explain what the hell they did.

Share this post


Link to post

Even if the resolution is the issue, which I am fairly certain it isn't, 343 actively made the decision to fuck the aiming between the beta and the full release - for no visible benefit, as I can't see any difference between beta footage of Eden and full release footage of the same map. And they refuse to acknowledge that they made the game unplayable for some people, or explain what the hell they did.

I'm sure we'll get an explanation in about 1,107 days.

  • Upvote (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post

There is zero correlation between what is happening on screen and the aiming responsiveness. It feels just as garbage running through an empty Forge pallette as it does in the most graphically intense campaign moments.

 

And again, I have never seen input response affected by load except when the system actually locks up.

How can you tell what the load on the cpu and cpu is at any given time? The Forge maps and dev maps are all running in the same engine, so are subject to the same bottlenecks if the engine is the culprit.

 

All I know is, input response felt fine at locked 720p, and fucked when they implemented the dynamic res. It could be that the code for the dynamic res is inherently fucked, and bottlenecks the cpu even when the engine isn’t trying to down res.

 

I’m like 99% sure that when Ghost says they changed the aiming after the beta, he’s talking about the acceleration curves and assists. There’s no way he’s talking about input response. No one is going to intentionally make input response worse.

  • Upvote (+1) 4

Share this post


Link to post

How can you tell what the load on the cpu and cpu is at any given time? The Forge maps and dev maps are all running in the same engine, so are subject to the same bottlenecks if the engine is the culprit.

 

All I know is, input response felt fine at locked 720p, and fucked when they implemented the dynamic res. It could be that the code for the dynamic res is inherently fucked, and bottlenecks the cpu even when the engine isn’t trying to down res.

 

I’m like 99% sure that when Ghost says they changed the aiming after the beta, he’s talking about the acceleration curves and assists. There’s no way he’s talking about input response. No one is going to intentionally make input response worse.

This. Without being able to look at the source code there is really no way to know whether or not the dynamic resolution is effecting load on the cpu/gpu in a way that could effect input registration. I would say that based on evidence, and what we know has changed between the beta and now, including the fact that input tends to be more responsive on more powerful mediums, that there is at the very least a possibility that the dynamic resolution or whatever systems are handling the asset management for it, are effecting input responsiveness.

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

The best part about H5 is that there is nowhere to play HCS settings except in HCS. There's also no party restrictions so solo queue is the lottery if you can get a win. I haven't played in a couple months and I'm still matching Onyx 1800+ because there's no rank decay. It's actually amazing. The hardest Halo to pick up and play has no way to ease you back into the game. Just another reason casual gamers don't play this game.

  • Upvote (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post

This. Without being able to look at the source code there is really no way to know whether or not the dynamic resolution is effecting load on the cpu/gpu in a way that could effect input registration. I would say that based on evidence, and what we know has changed between the beta and now, including the fact that input tends to be more responsive on more powerful mediums, that there is at the very least a possibility that the dynamic resolution or whatever systems are handling the asset management for it, are effecting input responsiveness.

This is a logical conclusion when eliminating the need to scale coincides with input response consistently hitting its target.

Share this post


Link to post

How can you tell what the load on the cpu and cpu is at any given time? The Forge maps and dev maps are all running in the same engine, so are subject to the same bottlenecks if the engine is the culprit.

 

All I know is, input response felt fine at locked 720p, and fucked when they implemented the dynamic res. It could be that the code for the dynamic res is inherently fucked, and bottlenecks the cpu even when the engine isn’t trying to down res.

 

First of all, Ghost said they specifically changed the aiming. I don't know why people are just throwing this out of the equation. He admitted it.

 

Secondly, the resolution thing is hearsay and completely unfalsifiable without a huge amount of testing so it hardly matters anyway, but I am going to go out on a limb and suggest that it's reasonable to assume 1) H5 did not start using a FAR greater amount of resources for the same maps on full release as even the worst graphics cards in history don't blow up when moving from 720 to sometimes not-even-quite-1080, 2) that if H5 is overloaded running a blank map and a skybox, then that's fucking hilarious, and 3) that something that's never happened before on any platform, the lagged response due to system stress, is probably not happening here as we would see frame drops before we saw a drop in reticule response. 

 

Keep in mind that the problem with the aiming is not necessarily lag. The problem is the mechanics of the aiming. 

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

Because he’s selling people on the new console. “Hey you know this unquantifiable element that some people were unhappy about? It MAY be fixed if you buy an Xbox One X.”

 

He never said it was fixed. He said it feels better. Even if it’s not better he never “lied”. It was just his opinion that it felt better.

 

Buy an Xbox one x.

It is not the community manager at 343’s job to sell 1X’s. His studio doesn’t even have a game slated for that console. He gains nothing from saying that. It’s almost like he actually feels that way or something.

Share this post


Link to post

First of all, Ghost said they specifically changed the aiming. I don't know why people are just throwing this out of the equation. He admitted it.

Who is throwing that out? Changing the aiming does not equal “increasing the input responce”. It means changing the acceleration curves and aiming assists.

 

Secondly, the resolution thing is hearsay and completely unfalsifiable without a huge amount of testing so it hardly matters anyway, but I am going to go out on a limb and suggest that it's reasonable to assume 1) H5 did not start using a FAR greater amount of resources for the same maps on full release as even the worst graphics cards in history don't blow up when moving from 720 to sometimes not-even-quite-1080, 2) that if H5 is overloaded running a blank map and a skybox, then that's fucking hilarious, and 3) that something that's never happened before on any platform, the lagged response due to system stress, is probably not happening here as we would see frame drops before we saw a drop in reticule response.

Again, a bottleneck that is caused by code can cripple the most powerful of systems. You are assuming that the issue would only arise in instances where the hardware is being taxed by the scene on display. I’m saying that that’s an irrational assumption.

 

The scenario you speak of WOULD NOT result in framedrops, because their system is designed to keep framerate static at the expense of the scene. But that doesn’t mean that other, invisible systems won’t start operating a below their target.

 

Keep in mind that the problem with the aiming is not necessarily lag. The problem is the mechanics of the aiming.

Well then you are conflating two different issues. He said the X might address heavy aim- which is the result of fluctuating input response.

 

He didn't say that the X would make the aiming mechanics feel better. Those will obviously stay fucked, regardless of the hardware, unless they change the mechanics.

 

There absolutely IS a lag component to the issue. Plug a controller into your PC and play H5 Forge and it feels 100 times more responsive than on console, despite the mechanics and framerate being identical.

  • Upvote (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.