It looks good - but i'd rather not play my games looking like i'd just finished swimming in a pool with 100x the amount of chlorine in it.
I fucking despise bloom. It is the least attractive addition this gen.
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 don't see how that's different at all. If, for example, you consider UC3 to be the best looking PS3 game (I do not), and Halo 4 looks around that good, it's matching the best looking current PS3 game.
We have another God of War, and Naughty Dog game yet to come on PS3. MS is done with the 360, so it might be reasonable to say Halo 4 will remain the best looking 360 game, but there is a very good chance people see a better looking PS3 game.
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.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?
If you are waiting till next year, good luck. Next gen games will be shown and nothing will matter.
Going to be great.
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?
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
Inside source.
A game where it mostly took place in vast landscapes has been reduced to a corridor style fps game.
Yeah.
Meanwhile, Killzone 2 and 3 push that level of IQ in huge landscapes. I really wish Sony was the one who bought out Halo franchise sometimes.
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.
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
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.
In cutscenes, yes. Many ingame models do not look good (e.g. Marines or MC armor when using a gun in 3rd person.)
MC is covered in high frequency mapping. With so many armor pieces on him.
The first episode is easily one of the largest levels in HALOs history.
In cutscenes, yes. Many ingame models do not look good (e.g. Marines or MC armor when using a gun in 3rd person.)
Not even close.
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....
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.
some shots from the MP
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
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
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.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.
So climbing on a giant, massively larger than a scarab, walking through an enormous environment doesn't count, why exactly?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.
So climbing on a giant, massively larger than a scarab, walking through an enormous environment doesn't count, why exactly?
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).
Firstly, it is an actual environment. If you can physically get to the floor or not is irrelevant, the floor is there.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.
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?
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.But saying Gow3 has environments as big as Halo 3 or any other similar game is just wrong.
A game where it mostly took place in vast landscapes has been reduced to a corridor style fps game.
Yeah.
Meanwhile, Killzone 2 and 3 push that level of IQ in huge landscapes. I really wish Sony was the one who bought out Halo franchise sometimes.
Dropped weapons are disappearing. That's not very Halo.
For 5 on the nextbox, bring back the beautiful huge skyboxes of Halo 3 and Reach, and make the game less like Halo 2. Otherwise good job.
A few later levels are brilliant.
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....
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.
Games only ever render what the camera is showing. We don't have ray tracing engines, yet.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.
The GOW camera system works well because you don't see glaring stuff like LOD pop in.
Games only ever render what the camera is showing. We don't have ray tracing engines, yet.
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.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
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.
Was there ever a comparison to the first Halo 4 "screenshots"?
Was there ever a comparison to the first Halo 4 "screenshots"?
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.
They seem about the same, one has a better CPU, one a better GPU, one larger storage, one faster loading, etc.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.
Games only ever render what the camera is showing. We don't have ray tracing engines, yet.
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.
And how does that not apply to GoW3?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.
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.