Digital Foundry -- Halo 4 Tech Analysis
- Thread starter adamsapple
- Start date
The point of the matter is that Halo 4 is doing less than those games on a technical level. What makes it look great is the art style, and that's ok. Is there paralax mapping, SSAO, MB, heavy use of dynamic shadows, High frequency texturing, destructible environments?
I'm not arguing the results, or how it got there, just what the article says about it compared to it's peers, and to me, the Reach article implies basically the same thing this one does.
nelsonroyale
Member
Thats not really true at all...There are games such as Witcher 2 on PC that are quite abit more impressive than stuff like Halo 4 from a technical perspective, but that doesnt stop console games from still being very impressive. Personally, I think the best games shown next gen, not the most visually impressive, but the most innovative and best rated games next year will be on this gen consoles. The Last of Us in particular is going to be pretty hard to beat from a critical stand point. Visually, I reckon first gen games for next gen consoles will be a mixed bag. Stuff that is a clear leap and a lot of quick cash ins as per usual at launch
higherARC05
Banned
HALO 4 is doing alot of things that make it technically amazing. Dynamic ltighting and shadows, HDR, high frequency texturing, character models super detailed, large number of AI, particles that interact with normals, high poly environments, etc with 4 player coop.
All 99% 30fps vsync and zero tears on screen.
Is this a joke?
And yet all you've added is:
I shouldn't have to inform you that claiming to have insider info can be a shortcut to being banned, but perhaps you know this and are playing coy for the fun of it.
metareferential
Member
Wait, what?
K2 and 3 huge landscapes?
Did I get the wrong games?
The only thing missing in Halo 4 is a big battle with Scarabs. Other than that, it's Halo at its finest. I've yet to touch Spartan Ops, so maybe the enemy count on screen will be higher.
K2 and 3 huge landscapes?
Did I get the wrong games?
The only thing missing in Halo 4 is a big battle with Scarabs. Other than that, it's Halo at its finest. I've yet to touch Spartan Ops, so maybe the enemy count on screen will be higher.
higherARC05
Banned
The first episode is easily one of the largest levels in HALOs history.
Do you have anything to back this up ?
Despite being a PC gamer primarily I have not been impressed by TW 2 and its atrocious shadow dithering at all.
Good artstyle but nothing amasing visually.
Windom Earle
Member
In cutscenes, yes. Many ingame models do not look good (e.g. Marines or MC armor when using a gun in 3rd person.)
higherARC05
Banned
MC is covered in high frequency mapping. With so many armor pieces on him.
Not only that the sciencetists in mission 7 are really detailed esp on their faces. Some of the best ingame faces around.
Windom Earle
Member
HollovVpo1nt
Banned
Not even close.
higherARC05
Banned
Done talking to you.
Baconsammy
Banned
MC's armor looks amazing in-game.
metareferential
Member
Are we talking about levels or areas?
Because in Halo 4 levels are segmented, with walls/doors/whatever preventing the player from backtracking.
But the actual spaces where battles are fought are as big as ever, with the exception of the scarab battles in Halo 3.
same for both sides.
but the power of the cell produces alot of games the can be considered best looking console games.
and the ps3 still has games coming that can claim that.
so its one exception....
Poor Bizzare Creations... That's fucked up.
yurinka
Member
Here you have some screens and videos to compare :
Halo 3 http://www.gamersyde.com/game_2311_en.html
Killzone 3 http://www.gamersyde.com/news_gsy_review_killzone_3-10562_en.html
Killzone 2 http://www.gamersyde.com/game_1306_en.html
God of War 3 http://www.gamersyde.com/game_1708_en.html
Uncharted 3 http://www.gamersyde.com/game_2182_en.html
Uncharted 2 http://www.gamersyde.com/game_1769_en.html
higherARC05
Banned
some shots from the MP
How you get theae pics on pc?
metareferential
Member
God of War 3?
The biggest thing you get in Gow3 is as big as my apartment.
The fact you climb onto a giant doesn't count. It's just a character filling up the screen with a really small Kratos running around. Yes, it's stunning, but it really can't compare.
And in Kz2 and 3 there virtually nothing going on on screen. During the vehicle sections of kz3 you can't even properly drive the vehicle.
UC has some nice vast environments. Even though there's less going on at once.
Just to be clear: I think UC2 and Kz2 look better then Halo 4. Not incredibly better, but still.
yurinka
Member
Not just for the environments, I posted the other games because they are constantly mentioned here. So I think that to check some pics and videos may help to the conversation.
So climbing on a giant, massively larger than a scarab, walking through an enormous environment doesn't count, why exactly?
metareferential
Member
Because it's not an actual environment? And you have a fixed camera? And there's no one else on screen besides Kratos?
Take shadow of the colossus: giants in a big open world environment. That's something.
God of War 3 is incredible looking, but I firmly believe something like Halo 3's double scarab battle is more taxing on the hardware (and that's why neither Halo 4 nor any other visually impressive game has something that can compare).
Pong could be more 'taxing on the hardware' if it's not developed well. Being 'more taxing on the hardware' is not necessarily a good thing. And even if what you said did make sense, how are you to know?
Firstly, it is an actual environment. If you can physically get to the floor or not is irrelevant, the floor is there.
Secondly, the fixed camera is a cop-out excuse that's been debunked by Santa Monica technical staff when this debate has appeared previously, the camera is dynamic, and actions the player can do causes the camera to zoom, and pivot, and shift radically at any given time.
Finally, there are other things on screen, have you played GoW3? You fight lots of enemies while on the Titans.
metareferential
Member
You know that wasn't my point. I was comparing the visual fidelity of Halo 4 and Halo 3 (and other games).
Big open environments with lots of dynamic objects (complete with AI, vehicles, etc.) is not something you see every day. Especially not in those highly spectacular games like Halo 4, UC2/3, etc.
Why? Cause these consoles can't do it.
It should answer stuburns' reply too.
Nothing against Gow3 or any other game. But saying Gow3 has environments as big as Halo 3 or any other similar game is just wrong.
Halo 4 seems to me like the best compromise between open-ended gameplay, big environments and attractive graphics.
If it's just wrong, provide some sort of evidence, you didn't even think there were enemies on the Titans, your uninformed guess work is worthless.
....
Yeah, it's clear they were running into memory issues. Which may explain why we see more doors locking behind you here. That aspect surprises me though. It's obvious that the pre-caching, streaming, and loading is handled very similarly, so why can't they just load the last section?
same for both sides.
but the power of the cell produces alot of games the can be considered best looking console games.
and the ps3 still has games coming that can claim that.
They'll look great as well sure. I just don't think we can compare these games. At this point of the Gen, big leaps in tech won't happen with these systems. Instead it's going to be tweaks and optimizations, along with better art, that push these games towards the graphical ceiling of this generation.
The one thing in common with all these top-tier games is each will have it's own set of trade offs.
The fixed camera is there for performance and not for cutting corners in graphics. It's the same trick used to preserve performance in the PS2 titles also. So dynamically the engine only has to render what the camera is showing.
Games only ever render what the camera is showing. We don't have ray tracing engines, yet.
But compared to something like Uncharted which has a free camera, GOW can render less... Especially when you come to sections on an angle. I would say only when the camera goes center and you're moving forward (up) the engine dynamically renders more things on screen like most third person action games.
The GOW camera system works well because you don't see glaring stuff like LOD pop in.
And you can manage resources more efficiently with a limited camera. You don't need anything from behind the camera in memory when you know it's not going to turn around.
XtremeXpider
Member
Yes, but is not the same that the developer always know where the player will see, and player can't see more than this, than a free camera as in a FPS.
we have 22 pages of people saying absolutely nothing. There's no in depth analysis going on to even remotely compare halo 4 with any ps3 exclusive unless "i think my console exclusives look better than your console exclusives" counts.
what we are seeing with halo 4 is what developers like john carmack been saying for 6 years now
what we are seeing with halo 4 is what developers like john carmack been saying for 6 years now
The developer always knows that a player will see. The GoW3 camera is dynamic, it changes based on the player's movements. While you can't see the 'back' of objects, you can't see them when you're facing the other way in any other game, it's not rendering some object you can't see. The only thing that GoW has as an advantage is they don't have to make the back of those objects, rendering wise, I don't see any advantage at all. You can have less stored in RAM, but it's not like the texture work is what's impressive about GoW3, at all.
XtremeXpider
Member
Is there a transcription?
You can't see "back" of objects, you can't see "back" from you (you can't move the camera), you can't see any object to any distance.
Oh man. I remember those. Halo 4 really needs a PC version.
Dion Blaster
Member
So is there really any difference between the power of the PS3 and 360? Halo 4 looks about as good as anything on the PS3.
It looks the same, from the same angle, minus the DoF blur.
Baconsammy
Banned
Nope, not much of a difference at all. I assume next gen will be similar.
They seem about the same, one has a better CPU, one a better GPU, one larger storage, one faster loading, etc.
Dictator93
Member
this is not even true. Draw calls do not work this way at all
Unless you are using a hardware or software based culling algorithm, you will render things outside of view or at least have their data sitting around. Most games use visportals to cull geometry. Not every game (crysis 2 is one of the few I think) only renders geometry present on the screen.
XtremeXpider
Member
There are differences, but both are powerful. Better CPU in PS3, but weaker GPU, faster ram for video, but only 256mb, slower ram in 360, but easyer to use and it have edram.
And how does that not apply to GoW3?
What I meant was, it's not as if a game is rendering an entire simulation, and showing you a window of it, so the 'backs' of scenes being missing doesn't mean you are simulating half, and just rendering that 'window', the calls are only based on where the camera currently is, which is equally true in GoW as it is in Halo, you just have more freedom to choose that camera position in Halo.
Dictator93
Member
I am not talking about gow 3. I was merely saying that your statement trying to contradict someone was completely incorrect.
Who cares about gow 3. I was talking about your statement.
Screw this console warrior stuff. I dont even own any of these systems. I was merely pointing out false information.
I am out of this thread.