Riky
$MSFT
Yeah they are not as good as R* and other devs at open world visuals. But it still looks good, especially at 60fps
Plus 120fps on console, no other developer is getting anywhere near those visuals at that framerate at the moment, nobody.
Yeah they are not as good as R* and other devs at open world visuals. But it still looks good, especially at 60fps
There was nothing to perceive. It was quite obvious. Ars Technia is also not thrilled with it. Perhaps your bias is getting in the way a bit? Just a bit.Actual words are probably more important than your perceived tone.
There was nothing to perceive. It was quite obvious. Ars Technia is also not thrilled with it. Perhaps your bias is getting in the way a bit? Just a bit.
Those "visuals" are mostly empty landscapes with a single biome and repeating corridors.Plus 120fps on console, no other developer is getting anywhere near those visuals at that framerate at the moment, nobody.
Plus 120fps on console, no other developer is getting anywhere near those visuals at that framerate at the moment, nobody.
Don't wanna watch for the sake of media blackout but wasnt the half frame rate thing also a thing in Halo 5?
I agree while the terrain and foliage look really good albiet not the deformation, the lack of AO is just too obvious. Lets hope we can inject it via ENB and then some few tweaks and mods on PC and this will come out great. The interiors looks stunning though. I am only disappointed about the lack of biomes. I will wait before playing, memory leaks are a serious issue with microsoft releases this year Windows 11 has it, Forza has it and now apparently Halo has it. I don't know whats going on with memory issues.Inject RTXGI and/or AO and this game will look amazing.
Those "visuals" are mostly empty landscapes with a single biome and repeating corridors.
Is the xbox one S version confirmed to be 30fps on the campaign?
Because if its 60fps on the 1S that changes the conversation.
My mistake then. Digital Foundry is the word of gospel above all others. I've seen a number of reviews today and I've clearly got them mixed up."I do think the world is generally attractive thanks to its huge vistas and unique terrain design. It's certainly more inspired than the typical open world environment and there are some features designed to improve the overall look. Volumetric fog is used throughout, lending the environment some additional depth - especially evident during sunset. Meanwhile, the skyboxes impress thanks to 343's use of some kind of procedural system that allows for dynamic, constantly changing cloud cover. The rest of the skybox is attractive with a starry expanse, ships and the halo ring itself filling the horizon. In addition, a cloud shadow layer is used across the terrain - this at least helps offset the lack of typical distance shadows and breathes additional life into the environment."
"There's a real density to the environments but also legibility - it's easy to parse each scene but it never feels sparse"
DF say otherwise.
arstechnica.com
My mistake then. Digital Foundry is the word of gospel above all others. I've seen a number of reviews today and I've clearly got them mixed up.
![]()
Review: Halo Infinite’s campaign finishes the fight—but arrives in tatters
Great balance between classic and new ideas marred by serious technical issues.arstechnica.com
I don't thinks is a cross gem problem. Just poor management at 343.True but not every game costs hundreds of millions of dollars. Developers have done more with less. Crossgen is a killer.
Seems obvious they are playing on the "120FPS" mode?My mistake then. Digital Foundry is the word of gospel above all others. I've seen a number of reviews today and I've clearly got them mixed up.
![]()
Review: Halo Infinite’s campaign finishes the fight—but arrives in tatters
Great balance between classic and new ideas marred by serious technical issues.arstechnica.com
Riky, this honestly reads like someone reaching for words to say anything at all. It hardly feels like they strongly believe what they are writing. "Generally attractive"? High praise indeed."I do think the world is generally attractive thanks to its huge vistas and unique terrain design. It's certainly more inspired than the typical open world environment and there are some features designed to improve the overall look. Volumetric fog is used throughout, lending the environment some additional depth - especially evident during sunset. Meanwhile, the skyboxes impress thanks to 343's use of some kind of procedural system that allows for dynamic, constantly changing cloud cover. The rest of the skybox is attractive with a starry expanse, ships and the halo ring itself filling the horizon. In addition, a cloud shadow layer is used across the terrain - this at least helps offset the lack of typical distance shadows and breathes additional life into the environment."
"There's a real density to the environments but also legibility - it's easy to parse each scene but it never feels sparse"
DF say otherwise.
The video was great, John knows how to do this job - even if it was a bit long^^
It's 30 on the One S, 30 and 60 on One X/Series S.Is the xbox one S version confirmed to be 30fps on the campaign?
Because if its 60fps on the 1S that changes the conversation.
Well, I'm in the camp 30 vs. 60 who gives a shit, so if there are other graphical bells and whistles the Series S could do that the XOX could not, then I'd probably lean more towards the Series S. Either way, they both seem totally acceptable.It's 30 on the One S, 30 and 60 on One X/Series S.
(Haven't watched the vid yet, just going by the pics in this).![]()
Halo Infinite campaign: the Digital Foundry analysis
Tech issues aside, this is a simply brilliant gamewww.eurogamer.net
Performance is mostly sound, then. However, perceptual performance in cutscenes and with in-game animations was an issue in the preview build and has not been corrected for the final game. Also bizarre is that while the game runs at 60fps or 120fps on Series X, facial animations seem to run at half-rate, creating a serious visual continuity. Let's be clear, the composition and detail in the cutscenes is excellent, but their choppiness in motion is seriously off-putting. Put simply, camera and character movement doesn't appear fluid, while facial animations look off. The renderer is updating as it should, but there's something seriously wrong in the update of the content itself. Thankfully, 343 has contacted us via Microsoft PR to tell us that this is being addressed in an upcoming, post-launch patch but it is surprising to see it at all, especially as reviewing Halo Infinite marketing materials from the controversial 2020 gameplay trailer and even earlier cutscene showcases reveals none of these issues.
In-game, there are other puzzling technical problems. We've talked in the past about reloading and mantling animations running at lower frame-rates (again, not present in the 2020 gameplay reveal) but also strange is how lighting interacts with dynamic objects. Playing through many scenes, you get the impression that enemies don't fully blend in with the environment - so an enemy character in a red room appears to be lit white by an invisible light source. Going back to prior Halo games, I didn't see any equivalent issue, to the point where I wonder if this is an attempt to improve visibility. Also curious is how the view weapon and Master Chief's hands warp in motion - but only in the open world. This one is interesting in that it can also be observed in older Halo titles.
Other issues? I wonder if there are some memory management problems 343 need to address. Several time during my gameplay experience, Halo Infinite would freeze for a short while for seemingly no reason. It looks and feels like a crash, only the game comes back and works just fine several second later. It's very, very bizarre when it happens but it seems like something that could be fixed. Also, after extended play, I started to notice textures visibly loading and unloading when simply turning the camera.
I think the Series S had better textures in places, but the One X is a much higher res overall.Well, I'm in the camp 30 vs. 60 who gives a shit, so if there are other graphical bells and whistles the Series S could do that the XOX could not, then I'd probably lean more towards the Series S. Either way, they both seem totally acceptable.
Rdr2 on x1 surprised me. 900p, but otherwise identical settings compared to ps4. Looked great though a bit blurry on bigger screens.Analista has a full comparison up and tbh Xbox One doesn't look like TOTAL ass given how demanding this game seems to be and how shit tier the Xbox One is
I brought this up in another thread recently but why would they draw, animate and render those wildlife herds and different biomes if they didn't plan on using them? It was a real time trailer running on Xbox one x so clearly all the work was done already. Why downgrade it 3 years into the dev cycle?Is there really only one biome? That's really disappointing, and seems quite a departure from the original pitch if true
I brought this up in another thread recently but why would they draw, animate and render those wildlife herds and different biomes if they didn't plan on using them? It was a real time trailer running on Xbox one x so clearly all the work was done already. Why downgrade it 3 years into the dev cycle?
This reminds me of the Mass effect Andromeda expose by Jason. He said the team was given 5 years to reboot Mass effect. They spent the First 3 years on prototyping procedurally generated planets before realizing that it won't work. Then they had 18 months to start from scratch and ship andromeda. I wonder if the same thing happened here and we are seeing something that was built in the last 2-3 years instead of the last 6 years.
This is different because the campaign will be expanded later, probably the other biomesI brought this up in another thread recently but why would they draw, animate and render those wildlife herds and different biomes if they didn't plan on using them? It was a real time trailer running on Xbox one x so clearly all the work was done already. Why downgrade it 3 years into the dev cycle?
This reminds me of the Mass effect Andromeda expose by Jason. He said the team was given 5 years to reboot Mass effect. They spent the First 3 years on prototyping procedurally generated planets before realizing that it won't work. Then they had 18 months to start from scratch and ship andromeda. I wonder if the same thing happened here and we are seeing something that was built in the last 2-3 years instead of the last 6 years.
Probably, but I am hoping those biomes will be releasing at a later time as campaign dlc. This is the next 10 years of Halo after all.
Well, Campaign DLC is the last thing I want. To have Halo tied to this game for a decade would be the worst case scenario. I want them to immediately start working on a next gen SKU and leave this game, this engine and last gen consoles behind. They are already a year late. It's time to move on.This is different because the campaign will be expanded later, probably the other biomes
Those "visuals" are mostly empty landscapes with a single biome and repeating corridors.
According to Staten, the gameplay encounters themselves weren't ready to ship and they went back and reworked the game, adding the custom boss battles, better utilisation of equipment, full marine pathing, and rescue missions. So I bet some of the polish simply got pushed back.I am surprised by all the technical issues. All of these seem to be bugs that can be ironed out which makes the year long delay even more puzzling. I thought the game was done last year and only needed to be pushed for bug fixing. How can you release something with this many bugs a year later?
It only affects the 120 fps mode. 60 fps mode is pretty much locked.VRR doesn't work?! What's wrong with them.. this would be the game that needs it the most lol
Apparently it's similar looking forest and dungeons repeating themselves for 20+ hours, which kinda goes against variety seen in other games. They shoud have at least included weather effects, but I guess 6 years of development wasn't enough for them. Artistically this game has nothing on Combat Evolved, Halo 3, ODST or Reach.Is there really only one biome? That's really disappointing, and seems quite a departure from the original pitch if true
Apparently it's similar looking forest and dungeons repeating themselves for 20+ hours, which kinda goes against variety seen in other games. They shoud have at least included weather effects, but I guess 6 years of development wasn't enough for them. Artistically this game has nothing on Combat Evolved, Halo 3, ODST or Reach.
It only affects the 120 fps mode. 60 fps mode is pretty much locked.
They probably had open world as a vision right from the start and then hit development hell and it was too late to scrap it. It really seems like they just ducktaped together whatever they could of that open world idea.this game is looking more and more half baked to me. It is surprising that it's scoring mid 80s to me
this game has been in development for an absurd length of time with huge financial resources. The open world looks entirely the same and pretty barren, what is the use of making it an open world ?
I'm the total opposite. Couldn't give a shit about the story is the gameplay is not good.They probably had open world as a vision right from the start and then hit development hell and it was too late to scrap it. It really seems like they just ducktaped together whatever they could of that open world idea.
I think it's scoring high because reviewers really enjoy gameplay and sandbox, aspects that seem to be carrying the game. I'm more of a story and variety kinda guy so I'm not that enthused by it, plus another meaningless open world is a big turn off for me.
I'm gonna give it a shot and see if gameplay alone can keep me engaged to the end, although I highly doubt it.
They probably had open world as a vision right from the start and then hit development hell and it was too late to scrap it. It really seems like they just ducktaped together whatever they could of that open world idea.
I think it's scoring high because reviewers really enjoy gameplay and sandbox, aspects that seem to be carrying the game. I'm more of a story and variety kinda guy so I'm not that enthused by it, plus another meaningless open world is a big turn off for me.