Halo 5

Patxo escribió:Una pregunta que no he seguido demasiado el hilo

Este bichote grande blanco es un nuevo tipo de enemigo no?

Es una imagen del multi pero imagino que también saldrán en la historia.Es una nueva raza o algo?

borj1ta escribió:

Patxo escribió:Una pregunta que no he seguido demasiado el hilo

Este bichote grande blanco es un nuevo tipo de enemigo no?

Es una imagen del multi pero imagino que también saldrán en la historia.Es una nueva raza o algo?

Parece un boss de warzone, no? Un caballero lancer no sé, no creo, en todo caso es un tipo de caballero prometeo.

Grinch escribió:Una preguntilla. La warzone es un campo de batalla de dos equipos que se unen terceros para dar por culo no? Los "bosses" como decis que hacen ahi ? dar por culo ? dar premios si los matas? o como va. Perdonad si ya se contesto

Patxo escribió:Pues tiene una pinta brutal el bicho ese

Aunque la idea de que los dos equipos rivales se tengan que unir para matarlo no lo acabo de ver...los francos se van a poner las botas.Y bueno ya no los francos,si los dos equipos se juntan en el punto del boss...ahí solo puede haber pena,lágrimas y lamentos

oilyjarl escribió:

Grinch escribió:Una preguntilla. La warzone es un campo de batalla de dos equipos que se unen terceros para dar por culo no? Los "bosses" como decis que hacen ahi ? dar por culo ? dar premios si los matas? o como va. Perdonad si ya se contesto

Ya se hablo,pero te hago un pequeño recordatorio.Son dos equipos de 12 spartans los que se enfrentan más las i.as rivales covenant/prometeos y los sub jefes/jefes.Hay 2 maneras de ganar:conquistar las bases enemigas y así poder acceder al núcleo para destruirlo(vía complicada) y la otra sería conseguir una puntuación determinada,es ahí donde entran los sub jefes y jefes,los cuales van apareciendo a lo largo de la partida de manera aleatoria y dan una gran cantidad de puntos,algunos son realmente duros y necesitan de un pequeño grupo de spartans para ser destruidos(no es obligatorio matarlos)

Grinch escribió:

oilyjarl escribió:

Grinch escribió:Una preguntilla. La warzone es un campo de batalla de dos equipos que se unen terceros para dar por culo no? Los "bosses" como decis que hacen ahi ? dar por culo ? dar premios si los matas? o como va. Perdonad si ya se contesto

Ya se hablo,pero te hago un pequeño recordatorio.Son dos equipos de 12 spartans los que se enfrentan más las i.as rivales covenant/prometeos y los sub jefes/jefes.Hay 2 maneras de ganar:conquistar las bases enemigas y así poder acceder al núcleo para destruirlo(vía complicada) y la otra sería conseguir una puntuación determinada,es ahí donde entran los sub jefes y jefes,los cuales van apareciendo a lo largo de la partida de manera aleatoria y dan una gran cantidad de puntos,algunos son realmente duros y necesitan de un pequeño grupo de spartans para ser destruidos(no es obligatorio matarlos)

Madre mia. Va a ser una fiesta la warzone xD

The Prophet escribió:

diegoobiwan escribió:Al final se esta consiguiendo que estemos paginas y paginas hablando de la resolución, yo creo que deberíamos pasar de esos temas y hablar sólo del juego,yo voy a disfrutar de su jugabilidad, los gráficos me parecen increíbles y lo que más me importa es lo grandioso que es el universo Halo y lo que te sumerges en el, las horas de diversión que pocos juegos te dan como este, hay que quedarse con esas cosas y dejar al lado los píxeles, resoluciones y demás chorradas.

El tema lo han traido los de la secta de siempre, que despues de ver el analisis de DF se sienten aireados y claro, vienen a provocar al personal, y que yo recuerde el hilo estaba tranquilisimo. Ahora DF mola, los haters estan llorando y el Coregroup esta celebrando con champan que el juego baile a 1152x810.

Otro hilo que dejo apartado, hasta que se pueda hablar del juego.

A locked 60fps does not come cheap and it's clear that image quality is compromised in order to deliver this objective. This feels like an acceptable solution in this case as it benefits gameplay but those sensitive to image quality issues may be disappointed. The post-process anti-aliasing solution employed here works well enough at full 1080p but, as the resolution begins to dip, it can also result in a rather muddy-looking image.

Texture filtering also suffers greatly from this design choice. We're still not entirely clear how much of a toll texture filtering takes on the hardware generally but clearly, it was deemed too costly for Halo 5. More than the dynamic resolution, this setting has a significant impact on image quality, leading to a lot of highly blurry textures during normal gameplay. The open areas visible in the Warzone footage can look decidedly last-gen in places with blurry, shimmering foliage and poor texture filtering recalling the African plains of Halo 3.

Alpha effects also continue to operate at a lower quality, as we discovered in previous looks at the game. Explosions and weapon effects are rendered at a reduced resolution throughout, leading to some pretty noticeable pixilation during particularly heated sequences. Shadow quality also feels a bit hit or miss with the juxtaposition between real-time shadows and shadow-maps often a little jarring. In many ways, this feels like a visual evolution of Halo 4 at 60fps.

While these issues are significant, this is the reality of aiming for 60fps in a game like Halo 5. Dialling up frame-rate at the expense of image quality is a brave move and one that is sure to stir up controversy bearing in mind the visual trade-offs, but arguably, this is the best choice for a shooter - it's a decision that puts the quality of the gameplay first. Based on some of its marketing, we also suspect that Microsoft is aiming to position the new Halo as a major eSports franchise, where a rock-solid 60fps is absolutely crucial in a console title. Whether this can be sustained across the entire game remains to be seen, but based on the campaign stages and multiplayer modes we've tested so far, it's looking good. We'll have more on Halo 5 when it launches this October but for the time being, 343's efforts are shaping up nicely. We'll report back with a more detailed tech analysis as soon as we have access to final code.

Grinch escribió:Eurogamer y digital no cuentan son pro ms

ÓscarSG escribió:

A locked 60fps does not come cheap and it's clear that image quality is compromised in order to deliver this objective. This feels like an acceptable solution in this case as it benefits gameplay but those sensitive to image quality issues may be disappointed. The post-process anti-aliasing solution employed here works well enough at full 1080p but, as the resolution begins to dip, it can also result in a rather muddy-looking image.

Texture filtering also suffers greatly from this design choice. We're still not entirely clear how much of a toll texture filtering takes on the hardware generally but clearly, it was deemed too costly for Halo 5. More than the dynamic resolution, this setting has a significant impact on image quality, leading to a lot of highly blurry textures during normal gameplay. The open areas visible in the Warzone footage can look decidedly last-gen in places with blurry, shimmering foliage and poor texture filtering recalling the African plains of Halo 3.

Alpha effects also continue to operate at a lower quality, as we discovered in previous looks at the game. Explosions and weapon effects are rendered at a reduced resolution throughout, leading to some pretty noticeable pixilation during particularly heated sequences. Shadow quality also feels a bit hit or miss with the juxtaposition between real-time shadows and shadow-maps often a little jarring. In many ways, this feels like a visual evolution of Halo 4 at 60fps.

While these issues are significant, this is the reality of aiming for 60fps in a game like Halo 5. Dialling up frame-rate at the expense of image quality is a brave move and one that is sure to stir up controversy bearing in mind the visual trade-offs, but arguably, this is the best choice for a shooter - it's a decision that puts the quality of the gameplay first. Based on some of its marketing, we also suspect that Microsoft is aiming to position the new Halo as a major eSports franchise, where a rock-solid 60fps is absolutely crucial in a console title. Whether this can be sustained across the entire game remains to be seen, but based on the campaign stages and multiplayer modes we've tested so far, it's looking good. We'll have more on Halo 5 when it launches this October but for the time being, 343's efforts are shaping up nicely. We'll report back with a more detailed tech analysis as soon as we have access to final code.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digit ... -guardians

xhakarr escribió:El hype me puede xD al final me quedare con la coleccionista, os odio infinitamente xD

Grinch escribió:Eurogamer y digital no cuentan son pro ms

ÓscarSG escribió:

A locked 60fps does not come cheap and it's clear that image quality is compromised in order to deliver this objective. This feels like an acceptable solution in this case as it benefits gameplay but those sensitive to image quality issues may be disappointed. The post-process anti-aliasing solution employed here works well enough at full 1080p but, as the resolution begins to dip, it can also result in a rather muddy-looking image.

Texture filtering also suffers greatly from this design choice. We're still not entirely clear how much of a toll texture filtering takes on the hardware generally but clearly, it was deemed too costly for Halo 5. More than the dynamic resolution, this setting has a significant impact on image quality, leading to a lot of highly blurry textures during normal gameplay. The open areas visible in the Warzone footage can look decidedly last-gen in places with blurry, shimmering foliage and poor texture filtering recalling the African plains of Halo 3.

Alpha effects also continue to operate at a lower quality, as we discovered in previous looks at the game. Explosions and weapon effects are rendered at a reduced resolution throughout, leading to some pretty noticeable pixilation during particularly heated sequences. Shadow quality also feels a bit hit or miss with the juxtaposition between real-time shadows and shadow-maps often a little jarring. In many ways, this feels like a visual evolution of Halo 4 at 60fps.

While these issues are significant, this is the reality of aiming for 60fps in a game like Halo 5. Dialling up frame-rate at the expense of image quality is a brave move and one that is sure to stir up controversy bearing in mind the visual trade-offs, but arguably, this is the best choice for a shooter - it's a decision that puts the quality of the gameplay first. Based on some of its marketing, we also suspect that Microsoft is aiming to position the new Halo as a major eSports franchise, where a rock-solid 60fps is absolutely crucial in a console title. Whether this can be sustained across the entire game remains to be seen, but based on the campaign stages and multiplayer modes we've tested so far, it's looking good. We'll have more on Halo 5 when it launches this October but for the time being, 343's efforts are shaping up nicely. We'll report back with a more detailed tech analysis as soon as we have access to final code.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digit ... -guardians

manmartin escribió:

Grinch escribió:Eurogamer y digital no cuentan son pro ms

Pues no lo dejan muy bien.

LanzaTM escribió:

ÓscarSG escribió:

A locked 60fps does not come cheap and it's clear that image quality is compromised in order to deliver this objective. This feels like an acceptable solution in this case as it benefits gameplay but those sensitive to image quality issues may be disappointed. The post-process anti-aliasing solution employed here works well enough at full 1080p but, as the resolution begins to dip, it can also result in a rather muddy-looking image.

Texture filtering also suffers greatly from this design choice. We're still not entirely clear how much of a toll texture filtering takes on the hardware generally but clearly, it was deemed too costly for Halo 5. More than the dynamic resolution, this setting has a significant impact on image quality, leading to a lot of highly blurry textures during normal gameplay. The open areas visible in the Warzone footage can look decidedly last-gen in places with blurry, shimmering foliage and poor texture filtering recalling the African plains of Halo 3.

Alpha effects also continue to operate at a lower quality, as we discovered in previous looks at the game. Explosions and weapon effects are rendered at a reduced resolution throughout, leading to some pretty noticeable pixilation during particularly heated sequences. Shadow quality also feels a bit hit or miss with the juxtaposition between real-time shadows and shadow-maps often a little jarring. In many ways, this feels like a visual evolution of Halo 4 at 60fps.

While these issues are significant, this is the reality of aiming for 60fps in a game like Halo 5. Dialling up frame-rate at the expense of image quality is a brave move and one that is sure to stir up controversy bearing in mind the visual trade-offs, but arguably, this is the best choice for a shooter - it's a decision that puts the quality of the gameplay first. Based on some of its marketing, we also suspect that Microsoft is aiming to position the new Halo as a major eSports franchise, where a rock-solid 60fps is absolutely crucial in a console title. Whether this can be sustained across the entire game remains to be seen, but based on the campaign stages and multiplayer modes we've tested so far, it's looking good. We'll have more on Halo 5 when it launches this October but for the time being, 343's efforts are shaping up nicely. We'll report back with a more detailed tech analysis as soon as we have access to final code.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digit ... -guardians

Resumen en castellano por favor?

The Prophet escribió:Y ahora DF deja de volver a molar.

Grinch escribió:

The Prophet escribió:Y ahora DF deja de volver a molar.

Df nunca ha molado ni ha dejado de molar. Eso si Lo de decir que siempre ha sido pro ms yo me eche unas risas

@Xhakarr

Por cierto al final cai y estoy en destiny ... cae tambien.... xD

manmartin escribió:Pues no lo dejan muy bien.

Grinch escribió:pero eso como en todo . df mola si xbox win
Df mola a otros si ps4 win
Df no mola siempre es pro ms
Df mola ( me ha enviado un maletin a casa)
etc etc etc


Yo sinceramente me la bufa xD. Yo veo los vídeos y la verdad me gusta mucho lo que veo. No sera ahora cuando un analisis me diga que me gusta y que no

The Prophet escribió:Una Beta de fin de semana del Warzone no vendría nada mal.

David Ricardo escribió:

manmartin escribió:Pues no lo dejan muy bien.

En la parte de opinión dicen que sacrificar gráficos por frame rate es la mejor opción para un shooter, que es una decisión que pone la calidad del gameplay por delante, que ya veremos al final pero de momento pinta bien... Toda la parte del final donde ya no hablan de hechos si no de opiniones, son opiniones positivas.

JhOnNY_HD escribió:Bueno si han tenido que hacer estos truquillos para mantener 60fps sólidos es una decisión respetable.

Pero pensaba que ya con dx12 se dejarían de ver estos inventos raros.

The Prophet escribió:Una Beta de fin de semana del Warzone no vendría nada mal.

manmartin escribió:

David Ricardo escribió:

manmartin escribió:Pues no lo dejan muy bien.

En la parte de opinión dicen que sacrificar gráficos por frame rate es la mejor opción para un shooter, que es una decisión que pone la calidad del gameplay por delante, que ya veremos al final pero de momento pinta bien... Toda la parte del final donde ya no hablan de hechos si no de opiniones, son opiniones positivas.

Si, te dicen,q la resolución cae,que se nota,q el render drlss explosiones es a distinta resolución,q el antialias no va muy allá, en muchos momentos es un halo 4 con vitaminas,que las texturas son borrosas y en modos como warzone recuerda a un juego de la generación pasada como halo 3, q creen que la opción de usar halo como esports ha pesado mucho en la configuración del juego y que le ha pasado factura a la campaña,pero que anteponer la experiencia jugable a la visual es una decisión valiente y a ellos les gusta. Muy bien,no lo dejan que digamos.
PD: Vamos que el juego en lo visual es una basura,pero que les gusta que hayan hecho una basura que se juega bien.