Support NeoGAF

[i-Lo]

I have been meaning to make this thread for a while now. I am surprised that not many people are talking about how exceptional shadowing is in TLoU. It's not the quality of a shadow itself, rather the elements that lend it that added realism. For example:

1. The diffusing in shadows pertaining to both opacity and detail, depends on the distance between the object and the surface on which the shadow is cast

2. Umbra and Penumbra are perhaps the central concepts behind this

Watch the extended trailer at these times: PAX Demo

4:06-4:19

5:14-5:18

6:03-6:32

6:57-7:02

9:52-10:00

etc. You get the idea. Here Digital Foundry did a great job articulating this facet of the game.

I don't know if there is even a PC game that does feature this comprehensive of shadowing system. I have seen shadows in BF3 on PC on the highest setting and while the quality of the shadow itself is wonderful it lacks features. Also in BF3, latest MoH (and I have seen it in other PC versions of other games such as DE:HR, etc), and I am not familiar with the technical term, there is this soft shadow that hangs around the perimeter like a halo and shows up when the player gets too close to a surface. It looks like the shadow is being cast against thin air without any distortions to account for surface and the angle between it and the object casting the shadow. The result looks very inaccurate.

I wonder whether other devs will follow this method of generating shadows after using TLoU as a reference, because honestly, this is the new benchmark (in terms of features).

EDIT: I just realized the technical term I was looking for is called, "Ambient Occlusion".

 

[Littlegator]

It looks good, but there's no way I'd call it a new benchmark.

 

[i-Lo]

It looks good, but there's no way I'd call it a new benchmark.

Actually on the account features, it stands apart (look at the article). In terms of outright quality of shadows cast there are better ones out there, esp. on PC.

 

[Littlegator]

Actually on the account features, it stands apart (look at the article). In terms of outright quality of shadows cast there are better ones out there, esp. on PC.

Err, not really. The article admits that the environmental lighting is prebaked (which is obvious). The DF article applauds the dynamic shadows, but they're not THAT good. Yeah, they look good, but it's hardly even noticeable unless you're actually examining a screenshot. It's in no way enough of an improvement to be "the new benchmark."

 

[i-Lo]

Err, not really. The article admits that the environmental lighting is prebaked (which is obvious). The DF article applauds the dynamic shadows, but they're not THAT good. Yeah, they look good, but it's hardly even noticeable unless you're actually examining a screenshot. It's in no way enough of an improvement to be "the new benchmark."

I didn't mention environment at all. Of course they are pre-baked (almost all games are. It's one thing we should see change with next gen HW). But if you can show me another game that delves this much creative efforts towards creating realistic dynamic shadows (this is a legitimate question) for its characters.

 

[thuway]

It looks good, but there's no way I'd call it a new benchmark.

On PC, individual elements are done better. However, when you take everything in as a whole, Naughty Dog truly outclass the competition.

The sheer amount of assets, raw technical prowess, and believable art direction are something only very few developer's are able to accomplish.

 

[TheExodu5]

It looks good, but there's no way I'd call it a new benchmark.

It's looking like a mighty fine benchmark to me. As a PC gamer, the Uncharted games are some of the few games that do impress me visually on consoles. So far, The Last of Us just seems to be on a whole other level.

On PC, individual elements are done better. However, when you take everything in as a whole, Naughty Dog truly outclass the competition.

I'll agree with that as well.

 

[Littlegator]

I didn't mention environment at all. Of course they are pre-baked (almost all games are. It's one thing we should see change with next gen HW). But if you can show me another game that delves this much creative efforts towards creating realistic dynamic shadows (this is a legitimate question) for its characters.

I'm not saying it's rivaled. It's just not that impressive.

The article you posted, from DF, dedicated at most 2 paragraphs of an entire article to the lighting, and almost all of it isn't talking about the global illumination. It does say the crown achievement is the dynamic shadows, but they're not nearly as enthusiastic about it as you are.

It's just not that impressive.

 

[i-Lo]

On PC, individual elements are done better. However, when you take everything in as a whole, Naughty Dog truly outclass the competition.

Exactly. Here's DF's own take:

The jagged low-resolution dynamic shadows from Uncharted have been replaced with a far smoother effect that seems to be using multiple penumbra. Ambient occlusion, serving to add depth to the environments in the nooks and crannies, is a touch heavy in places (especially when characters move close to surfaces) but it generally looks a class apart

I'm not saying it's rivaled. It's just not that impressive.

The article you posted, from DF, dedicated at most 2 paragraphs of an entire article to the lighting, and almost all of it isn't talking about the global illumination. It does say the crown achievement is the dynamic shadows, but they're not nearly as enthusiastic about it as you are.

It's just not that impressive.

And shadows are precisely what the topic is about. SMH

 

[Littlegator]

And shadows are precisely what the topic is about. SMH

Rofl, "smh"? I'm responding to your topic. What did you expect?

My initial point was that the shadows aren't that impressive. The tech is impressive. The result is better than most if not all that's out there. However, it's still not THAT impressive. I'm saying that what you get out of it isn't all that much.

EDIT: Or to put it a different way, the "feat" is not so exceptional.

 

[thuway]

Err, not really. The article admits that the environmental lighting is prebaked (which is obvious). The DF article applauds the dynamic shadows, but they're not THAT good. Yeah, they look good, but it's hardly even noticeable unless you're actually examining a screenshot. It's in no way enough of an improvement to be "the new benchmark."

Frankly speaking, what about this game doesn't look "that impressive". I have a gaming PC. I own all the multiplatform games on PC, including exclusives like Witcher 2. I honestly think this game blows them all away when you take everything in as a whole.

Yes, better resolution could help, and a bump in AA is much needed. However, there is no comparison in terms of textures, animation, etc.

 

[i-Lo]

Rofl, "smh"? I'm responding to your topic. What did you expect?

My initial point was that the shadows aren't that impressive. The tech is impressive. The result is better than most if not all that's out there. However, it's still not THAT impressive. I'm saying that what you get out of it isn't all that much.

Well the point is if this same feat was achieved on a PC it would be the crown jewel of graphical fidelity for shadows in general. I think people overlooked this facet of TLoU because it's on a console where like thuway said, the individual aspects aren't of the highest fidelity. It is this reason why other devs must recognize what ND has done to move the dynamic shadow system to a whole new level and improve upon it. In my first post I have already mentioned how horribly frostbite 2.0 utilizes Ambient Occlusion. Developers who pride themselves on pushing the envelope should take a look at what ND has done and truly give it form on a platform that is uninhibited by 6 year old tech.

Also, I love Dafoe and what movie is that?

 

[hateradio]

It's looking like a mighty fine benchmark to me. As a PC gamer, the Uncharted games are some of the few games that do impress me visually on consoles. So far, The Last of Us just seems to be on a whole other level.

I have to agree. Although I don't like TPS's, the games look great on consoles and even better than some PC games.

 

[pramath]

On PC, individual elements are done better. However, when you take everything in as a whole, Naughty Dog truly outclass the competition.

The sheer amount of assets, raw technical prowess, and believable art direction are something only very few developer's are able to accomplish.

I'm not as impressed with ND as I am with what I have seen of 343's work, but they are definitely up there.

 

[Littlegator]

Frankly speaking, what about this game doesn't look "that impressive". I have a gaming PC. I own all the multiplatform games on PC, including exclusives like Witcher 2. I honestly think this game blows them all away when you take everything in as a whole.

Yes, better resolution could help, and a bump in AA is much needed. However, there is no comparison in terms of textures, animation, etc.

Oh, the game does look impressive. The composition and art direction is incredible. The use of assets to create a cohesive image is phenomenal.

This topic is about shadows. Namely, that the shadow tech in this game is an exceptional feat of technology, and is a new benchmark for video games. I'm saying that the improvements over current shadow tech isn't that impressive.

Well the point is if this same feat was achieved on a PC it would be the crown jewel of graphical fidelity for shadows in general. I think people overlooked this facet of TLoU because it's on a console where like thuway said, the individual aspects aren't of the highest fidelity. It is this reason why other devs must recognize what ND has done to move the dynamic shadow system to a whole new level and improve upon it. In my first post I have already mentioned how horribly frostbite 2.0 utilizes Ambient Occlusion. Developers who pride themselves on pushing the envelope should take a look at what ND has done and truly give it form on a platform that is uninhibited by 6 year old tech.

Also, I love Dafoe and what movie is that?

Yes, it would be the crown jewel. My point is simply that the crown jewel is not much better than the previous crown jewel.

and it's The Life Aquatic

 

[i-Lo]

I'm not as impressed with ND as I am with what I have seen of 343's work, but they are definitely up there.

Have to disagree when it comes to in-game dynamic shadow. The rest however, looks fantastic (esp. the lighting).

 

[sp3000]

I have been meaning to make this thread for a while now. I am surprised that not many people are talking about how exceptional shadowing is in TLoU. It's not the quality of a shadow itself, rather the elements that lend it that added realism. For example:

1. The diffusing in shadows pertaining to both opacity and detail, depends on the distance between the object and the surface on which the shadow is cast

2. Umbra and Penumbra are perhaps the central concepts behind this

Watch the extended trailer at these times: PAX Demo

4:06-4:19

5:14-5:18

6:03-6:32

6:57-7:02

9:52-10:00

etc. You get the idea. Here Digital Foundry did a great job articulating this facet of the game.

I don't know if there is even a PC game that does feature this comprehensive of shadowing system. I have seen shadows in BF3 on PC on the highest setting and while the quality of the shadow itself is wonderful it lacks features. Also in BF3, latest MoH (and I have seen it in other PC versions of other games such as DE:HR, etc), and I am not familiar with the technical term, there is this soft shadow that hangs around the perimeter like a halo and shows up when the player gets too close to a surface. It looks like the shadow is being cast against thin air without any distortions to account for surface and the angle between it and the object casting the shadow. The result looks highly inaccurate.

I wonder whether other devs will follow this method of generating shadows after using TLoU as a reference, because honestly, this is the new benchmark (in terms of features).

EDIT: I just realized the technical term I was looking for is called, "Ambient Occlusion".

I think Crysis 2 DX11 does this as well.

Also combines it with SSDO to get rid of that low precision AO that your talking about

 

[Phonomezer]

Alan Wake.

 

[i-Lo]

I think Crysis 2 DX11 does this as well.

Also combines it with SSDO to get rid of that low precision AO that your talking about

Yup, now we are getting somewhere. This looks impressive but still a touch too uniform. Pretty sure in the next 5 years we'll see proper evolution of dynamic shadows.

 

[TheExodu5]

I don't know if there is even a PC game that does feature this comprehensive of shadowing system. I have seen shadows in BF3 on PC on the highest setting and while the quality of the shadow itself is wonderful it lacks features. Also in BF3, latest MoH (and I have seen it in other PC versions of other games such as DE:HR, etc), and I am not familiar with the technical term, there is this soft shadow that hangs around the perimeter like a halo and shows up when the player gets too close to a surface. It looks like the shadow is being cast against thin air without any distortions to account for surface and the angle between it and the object casting the shadow. The result looks highly inaccurate.

EDIT: I just realized the technical term I was looking for is called, "Ambient Occlusion".

Yes, that's ambient occlusion, and The Last of Us has the same issues. Watch the video where Ellie climbs up the wall. The ambient occlusion is a little too heavy. Devs tend to set it a bit high, because properly done, ambient occlusion is so subtle that you barely notice it.

 

[i-Lo]

Yes, that's ambient occlusion, and The Last of Us has the same issues. Watch the video where Ellie climbs up the wall. The ambient occlusion is a little too heavy. Devs tend to set it a bit high, because properly done, ambient occlusion is so subtle that you barely notice it.

At least it's against a solid surface. The way games on PC use it (as aforementioned, BF3 and MoH) is just over the top. Look here from 6:50-6:54 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zw8SmsovJc&hd=1/

I hope with time they sort the "over" usage out.

 

[CyclopsRock]

EDIT: I just realized the technical term I was looking for is called, "Ambient Occlusion".

I'm not sure it is. Or, rather, it's only part of it.

The "penumbra" thing is a bit of a weird name for what are basically area lights - that is, lights that aren't an infinitely small point of light, but have an area to them. In real life, everything is an area light, but in terms of CG lighting, it requires a lot, lot more samples to calculate even than standard raytraced shadows, let alone shadow maps. Originally the key to this was getting shadows with soft edges (a result, in real life, of lights having area - if there were such things IRL as infinitely small light sources, or 'point lights' as they're known in CG, then we would have razor sharp shadows).

The reason this happens is because, when a light has area, a part of the emitting object (say, a light bulb) might have its light reach the floor, where as (at the same point in time), another part of the same bulb will have this light hit your arm instead. Because this area is made up of almost infinitely small points, you end up with a blurring of the shaodw. However, it's more complex than just soft edges - they came around not long after hard-edged raytrace shadows. The complexity comes because, if you think above the above example, the closer your hand is to the light bulb, and the further from the floor it is, the more softened edges you're going to get. If you put your hand right next to the bulb, it's possible you'll hardly see a shadow on the floor, just a general darkening. This is about the ratio of your hands distance from the bulb vs its distance to the floor, as well as the size of the bulmb - it's why the moon always appears to have a very sharp light/dark divide ("terminator"), because although the moon is quite far from earth, compared to the distance between us and the sun, it's practically on our door step - thus the shadow appears very sharp. This is shown above in the Crysis gif - the "penumbra off" shot shows all the shadows equally blurry and soft at the edges. When penumbra is turned on, some things get sharper and others get blurrier still - the shadow falling off the sign gets sharper (though the further away from the sign the shadow falls, the blurrier it gets), and the tree - which is much further away than the sign - gets blurrier. This is computationally tough, but looks sexy.

This is different to ambient occlusion, though. Ambient occlusion actually has nothing to do ith the specific lighting in a given scene. Indeed, that's why it's called "ambient". Ambient occlusion is just the darkening of surfaces that are near other surfaces. This is a real life phenomina (though in theory, a fully realised global illumination solution will simulate this by nature of its physical realism) - next time you're in a room (ideally one without any direct light sources, like sun coming in the window, light bulbs etc but that is nontheless still light) take a look at the cracks in the corners beteween walls - you'll notice they get darker as they get to the crease. This is what ambient occlusion seeks to emulate, and is a different thing entirely to the "penumbra"/area shadows. It does, however, impact the over all look, and because it shades based on distance from geometry, is very useful for "grounding" objects in the scene.

 

[UrbanRats]

Yes, that's ambient occlusion, and The Last of Us has the same issues. Watch the video where Ellie climbs up the wall. The ambient occlusion is a little too heavy. Devs tend to set it a bit high, because properly done, ambient occlusion is so subtle that you barely notice it.

Sleeping Dogs' is atrocious, almost like an outline.

 

[LightOfTruth]

It already looks like its going to be the best looking game on consoles.

 

[i-Lo]

I'm not sure it is. Or, rather, it's only part of it.

The "penumbra" thing is a bit of a weird name for what are basically area lights - that is, lights that aren't an infinitely small point of light, but have an area to them. In real life, everything is an area light, but in terms of CG lighting, it requires a lot, lot more samples to calculate even than standard raytraced shadows, let alone shadow maps. Originally the key to this was getting shadows with soft edges (a result, in real life, of lights having area - if there were such things IRL as infinitely small light sources, or 'point lights' as they're known in CG, then we would have razor sharp shadows).

The reason this happens is because, when a light has area, a part of the emitting object (say, a light bulb) might have its light reach the floor, where as (at the same point in time), another part of the same bulb will have this light hit your arm instead. Because this area is made up of almost infinitely small points, you end up with a blurring of the shaodw. However, it's more complex than just soft edges - they came around not long after hard-edged raytrace shadows. The complexity comes because, if you think above the above example, the closer your hand is to the light bulb, and the further from the floor it is, the more softened edges you're going to get. If you put your hand right next to the bulb, it's possible you'll hardly see a shadow on the floor, just a general darkening. This is about the ratio of your hands distance from the bulb vs its distance to the floor, as well as the size of the bulmb - it's why the moon always appears to have a very sharp light/dark divide ("terminator"), because although the moon is quite far from earth, compared to the distance between us and the sun, it's practically on our door step - thus the shadow appears very sharp. This is shown above in the Crysis gif - the "penumbra off" shot shows all the shadows equally blurry and soft at the edges. When penumbra is turned on, some things get sharper and others get blurrier still - the shadow falling off the sign gets sharper (though the further away from the sign the shadow falls, the blurrier it gets), and the tree - which is much further away than the sign - gets blurrier. This is computationally tough, but looks sexy.

This is different to ambient occlusion, though. Ambient occlusion actually has nothing to do ith the specific lighting in a given scene. Indeed, that's why it's called "ambient". Ambient occlusion is just the darkening of surfaces that are near other surfaces. This is a real life phenomina (though in theory, a fully realised global illumination solution will simulate this by nature of its physical realism) - next time you're in a room (ideally one without any direct light sources, like sun coming in the window, light bulbs etc but that is nontheless still light) take a look at the cracks in the corners beteween walls - you'll notice they get darker as they get to the crease. This is what ambient occlusion seeks to emulate, and is a different thing entirely to the "penumbra"/area shadows. It does, however, impact the over all look, and because it shades based on distance from geometry, is very useful for "grounding" objects in the scene.

Although I knew the physics behind real life light interaction, I thank you for posting this. It's informative and shows what greater processing power will contribute to achieve global illumination and purely physics based real time dynamic shadows. However, I am uncertain as to whether we'll see it with next gen consoles.

 

[Ranger X]

The guy just discovered SSAO ??

 

[i-Lo]

The guy just discovered SSAO ??

No, I just forgot the technical term (I mentioned it in OP) for it.

 

[Vulcano's assistant]

Although I knew the physics behind real life light interaction, I thank you for posting this. It's informative and shows what greater processing power will contribute to achieve global illumination and purely physics based real time dynamic shadows. However, I am uncertain as to whether we'll see it with next gen consoles.

We wont see real raytracing for years (I think), it is a real power hog, more than anything else.

 

[NBtoaster]

The AO is impressive but could be a little lighter. Though I'd prefer AF than more fancy shadowing...

 

[Vulcano's assistant]

There is some pretty fancy codding behind it, since it doesn't seem to get activated when there are regular dynamic shadows being cast. (like when there is sunlight)

 

[Boss Man]

It is always impressive to me to see what some developers can do with such limited hardware towards the end of console generations. Sometimes I wonder what kind of tricks someone like Santa Monica would have come up with if they had just continued making PS2 games for another 10 years. I honestly bet people would be surprised. There are some brilliant software engineers in game development.

I'm not sure it is. Or, rather, it's only part of it.

The "penumbra" thing is a bit of a weird name for what are basically area lights - that is, lights that aren't an infinitely small point of light, but have an area to them. In real life, everything is an area light, but in terms of CG lighting, it requires a lot, lot more samples to calculate even than standard raytraced shadows, let alone shadow maps. Originally the key to this was getting shadows with soft edges (a result, in real life, of lights having area - if there were such things IRL as infinitely small light sources, or 'point lights' as they're known in CG, then we would have razor sharp shadows).

The reason this happens is because, when a light has area, a part of the emitting object (say, a light bulb) might have its light reach the floor, where as (at the same point in time), another part of the same bulb will have this light hit your arm instead. Because this area is made up of almost infinitely small points, you end up with a blurring of the shaodw. However, it's more complex than just soft edges - they came around not long after hard-edged raytrace shadows. The complexity comes because, if you think above the above example, the closer your hand is to the light bulb, and the further from the floor it is, the more softened edges you're going to get. If you put your hand right next to the bulb, it's possible you'll hardly see a shadow on the floor, just a general darkening. This is about the ratio of your hands distance from the bulb vs its distance to the floor, as well as the size of the bulmb - it's why the moon always appears to have a very sharp light/dark divide ("terminator"), because although the moon is quite far from earth, compared to the distance between us and the sun, it's practically on our door step - thus the shadow appears very sharp. This is shown above in the Crysis gif - the "penumbra off" shot shows all the shadows equally blurry and soft at the edges. When penumbra is turned on, some things get sharper and others get blurrier still - the shadow falling off the sign gets sharper (though the further away from the sign the shadow falls, the blurrier it gets), and the tree - which is much further away than the sign - gets blurrier. This is computationally tough, but looks sexy.

This is different to ambient occlusion, though. Ambient occlusion actually has nothing to do ith the specific lighting in a given scene. Indeed, that's why it's called "ambient". Ambient occlusion is just the darkening of surfaces that are near other surfaces. This is a real life phenomina (though in theory, a fully realised global illumination solution will simulate this by nature of its physical realism) - next time you're in a room (ideally one without any direct light sources, like sun coming in the window, light bulbs etc but that is nontheless still light) take a look at the cracks in the corners beteween walls - you'll notice they get darker as they get to the crease. This is what ambient occlusion seeks to emulate, and is a different thing entirely to the "penumbra"/area shadows. It does, however, impact the over all look, and because it shades based on distance from geometry, is very useful for "grounding" objects in the scene.

I want to subscribe to this thread now but I'm sure that with the current tone of GAF this will just turn into a console war + PC shitstorm.

 

[i-Lo]

We wont see real raytracing for years (I think), it is a real power hog, more than anything else.

I guess, pseudo global illumination will have to do for now. Really interested to see what kind of dynamic shadow related features will be featured in UE4 given they aim to make ALL the shadows real time.

 

[Lion Heart]

Cool stuff.

Thanks for the explanation, I can finally say I understand AO and Penumbra now. I was looking at the Crysis 2 gif thinking whatever its doing is probably a waste of resources but now I know what to look for, it is indeed cool stuff.

 

[Duffyside]

This is a perfect example of diminishing returns, for me. I take a look at that Crysis gif, and I honestly don't think either version looks "better" than the other. I hope developers start to use their resources to improve things other than "graphics."

 

[Tagg9]

This is a perfect example of diminishing returns, for me. I take a look at that Crysis gif, and I honestly don't think either version looks "better" than the other. I hope developers start to use their resources to improve things other than "graphics."

I have the exact same opinion. How much does this really add to the game? I doubt I'd be able to spot the difference, personally.

 

[Vulcano's assistant]

This is a perfect example of diminishing returns, for me. I take a look at that Crysis gif, and I honestly don't think either version looks "better" than the other. I hope developers start to use their resources to improve things other than "graphics."

Well yeah, a small increment indeed. But it is compared with the second best thing on the same game.

At least we can expect not to see this anymore next gen

 

[xJavonta]

Well yeah, a small increment indeed. But it is compared with the second best thing on the same game.

At least we can expect not to see this anymore next gen

You'd think that, but I wouldn't put it past the devs. If they can put in higher res textures at the cost of really nice shadows, I'm willing to bet they will.

 

[Spazznid]

Well yeah, a small increment indeed. But it is compared with the second best thing on the same game.

At least we can expect not to see this anymore next gen

Bethesda will find a way. Don't you worry.

 

[XtremeXpider]

Is this really impressive?

This is really impressive (to me):

The shadows are really great.

 

[Tagg9]

This is really impressive (to me):

The shadows are really great.

Is that real time?

 

[TheExodu5]

Is this really impressive?

Seems like ambient occlusion is only being applied to certain things? The plants on the right side of that shot don't have any ambient occlusion at all.

Or maybe it's not ambient occlusion at all. Probably simulated occlusion cast only by characters, and the rest of the occlusion in the world is pre-baked. That's my guess.

Artistically, it looks great. But technically, seems like this isn't really AO.

 

[xJavonta]

Is that real time?

Sure is

 

[Bornstellar]

Is this really impressive?
This is really impressive (to me):

The shadows are really great.

Can't unsee the guy in the back. His face.

 

[TheExodu5]

Lighting so great the guy in the back sprouts a shadow beard in the third frame.

 

[XtremeXpider]

Is that real time?

Yes it is.

The back guy have some kind of glitch, but it looks impressive IMO.

 

[TheExodu5]

Yes it is.

I have my doubts. The glitch in the background is pretty common in pre-rendered cinematics (see Killzone 2 E3 2005, for example).

There's also a suspicious lack of aliasing for a 360 game.

 

[Boss Man]

This is a perfect example of diminishing returns, for me. I take a look at that Crysis gif, and I honestly don't think either version looks "better" than the other. I hope developers start to use their resources to improve things other than "graphics."

So, what should those programmers who are developing that awesome lightning engine be working on instead? gameplay.cpp?

I can't place this screenshot as something that will be happening while I'm controlling Master Chief.

 

[XtremeXpider]

I have my doubts. The glitch in the background is pretty common in pre-rendered cinematics (see Killzone 2 E3 2005, for example).

There's also a suspicious lack of aliasing for a 360 game.

Realtime, confirmed.

EDIT: FXAA and 720p

 

[TheExodu5]

Realtime, confirmed.

Source? Keep in mind Killzone 2 E3 2005 was also "confirmed" to be real time (which was an outright lie).

 

[Bornstellar]

I have my doubts. The glitch in the background is pretty common in pre-rendered cinematics (see Killzone 2 E3 2005, for example).

There's also a suspicious lack of aliasing for a 360 game.

Check the bridge of the nose. Looks like aliasing blurred by the FXAA filter.

Confirmation given here.