Digital Foundry -- Halo 4 Tech Analysis

Ya know, I would say that Resident Evil 6 actually comes damn close to offering the most impressive cutscenes. The faces are a bit more stylized than Halo 4, but the level of detail is very high. The thing that elevates them for me is some of the impressive post processing effects I've seen. Love or hate the game, the cutscenes are very impressive to behold. A lot of people even believed them to be pre-rendered scenes (even suggesting that it was disappointing that Capcom used pre-rendered scenes) despite the fact that 99% of them are realtime.

The faces of Halo 4 are definitely among if not THE best I've seen.

Resident-Evil-6-1.jpg

Resident-Evil-6-Demo-06.jpg

Resident-Evil-6-Demo-03.jpg
Click to expand...

Artifacts in those shots come from shot compression, by the way. I wasn't even convinced they were realtime at first either, but after close examination and comparison between the two versions, it's clear that they are (there are minor rendering differences present between the two). When the PC version is released it will become even more clear.
 
If I'm not impressed by Halo4 graphics(but great presentation) means that I really need next gen, NOW!

Congratulations to 343i for the great job though!
 
enzo_gt said:
Gonna try split screen later today but how is it compared to Reach?

Lower LOD is to be expected though, I can't imagine possibilities otherwise.
Click to expand...

horrible framerate drops on complex (mp map). tiny unreadable allcaps text in matchmaking.

bad pop-in on sp.

other than that just the usual sacrifices.
 
It's great that the 360 finally has a game that looks as good as a 2010 game on a console with a crap GPU, weird CPU, and stupid split memory pool.
 
Yeah, the game looks good, but it's the CG and character models that really give you a tease of what could be. In which case, Cortana is not the only thing that deteriorates after 7 years... so do consoles, lol.
 
The technical requirements for Halo 4 are completely different than the other games people are comparing it to. To maintain that kind of graphics quality with the scope and battles Halo offers is a completely different kind of challenge and achievement.
 
meta4 said:
Great looking game. Not enough to top GOW3 and UC3 though.



Lol. Here we go.
Click to expand...

His choice of words is suspect, but you're acting like another opinion is not allowed after stating your own.

Having said that, I still think GOW3 and U2 are indeed at the top. From what I've played (on the Forerunner stage), the game looks great but still not there yet when compared to the big 2 on PS3.
 
Mastperf said:
The technical requirements for Halo 4 are completely different than the other games people are comparing it to. To maintain that kind of graphics quality with the scope and battles Halo offers is a completely different kind of challenge and achievement.
Click to expand...
The demands don't seem that far removed from something like Killzone 2 or 3 which both (especially 3) offer some rather large environments for the battles to take place in.
 
gaming_noob said:
His choice of words is suspect, but you're acting like another opinion is not allowed after stating your own.

Having said that, I still think GOW3 and U2 are indeed at the top.
Click to expand...

No I never said it is not allowed. I just found the hyperbole that they cannot even compete etc funny. To feel Halo 4 is better is one thing but to say the others dont even compete is well...
 
CrunchinJelly said:
AI
Click to expand...
I don't think the AI in Halo is demanding to the point that it would significantly reduce what could be done visually. The AI hasn't evolved that much from the original Halo days, after all. It's still the best in the business, but that's more a result of good work on the developers not hardware muscle.
 
dark10x said:
The demands don't seem that far removed from something like Killzone 2 or 3 which both (especially 3) offer some rather large environments for the battles to take place in.
Click to expand...
I don't recall the playable areas in KZ2/3 ever getting to Halo scale. Even the walker area felt relatively restrictive. The scale of the views was on par though.
 
Stallion Free said:
I don't recall the playable areas in KZ2/3 ever getting to Halo scale. Even the walker area felt relatively restrictive. The scale of the views was on par though.
Click to expand...
I don't think it really ever reaches the size of Halo's largest areas, but there are definitely some pretty open battlegrounds. That snowy area present in the demo was pretty large and open, for instance.
 
Killzone 2 has really good AI no doubt there, my favorite game in the franchise, weird controls be damned.

Both it, KZ3 and U3 operate on a somewhat smaller scale than H4 though.

Uncharted 3 is the only console game I would say looks better than H4, but that game is nearly on rails by comparison.
 
dark10x said:
The demands don't seem that far removed from something like Killzone 2 or 3 which both (especially 3) offer some rather large environments for the battles to take place in.
Click to expand...
Halo battles are considerably larger with both aerial and multiple types of ground vehicles. You can be in a tank one second and then be in the air having a dog fight the next.
 
Mastperf said:
The technical requirements for Halo 4 are completely different than the other games people are comparing it to. To maintain that kind of graphics quality with the scope and battles Halo offers is a completely different kind of challenge and achievement.
Click to expand...

That has nothing to do with how good a game looks. By that logic GTA4 does way more than Halo 4 and therfore should be crowned best looking game of this gen. Can you compare GTA4 and Halo 4 technically? Maybe you are qualified enough to but that still does not change the fact that Halo 4 looks better than GTA4 on consoles. Halo 4 texture quality is not as good as GOW3 or UC3. Hell at times some GOW3 sequences look like CG. Again this has nothing to do with which tech is doing more.

dark10x said:
The demands don't seem that far removed from something like Killzone 2 or 3 which both (especially 3) offer some rather large environments for the battles to take place in.
Click to expand...

You got to agree Halo is much more open in certain areas though. But again KZ2/3 is much better than Halo in terms of rag doll physics. Shoot a hig in KZ2 and shoot any enemy type in Halo. Poles apart. The higs actually react to every bullet shot. They twitch and shake their body. The muzzle flash and the enemy models look much better. The amount of dust, smoke, particle effects that are there for eg in the bridge sequence in KZ2 is much more than any sequence I have seen in Halo 4. Granted it could be because Halo is more open but which is more tecnically accomplished? I dont know - All I can go by is how a game looks on screen and I dont think Halo 4 looks as good as the games like GOW or UC3.
 
Dresden said:
Gears.
Click to expand...

With the lack of anti-alaising, I never considered Gears 3 being part of the running. Halo 4 is the only worthwhile contender for the title.

dark10x said:
Ya know, I would say that Resident Evil 6 actually comes damn close to offering the most impressive cutscenes. The faces are a bit more stylized than Halo 4, but the level of detail is very high. The thing that elevates them for me is some of the impressive post processing effects I've seen. Love or hate the game, the cutscenes are very impressive to behold. A lot of people even believed them to be pre-rendered scenes (even suggesting that it was disappointing that Capcom used pre-rendered scenes) despite the fact that 99% of them are realtime.
Click to expand...

Though I haven't played RE6...RE5's cutscenes were the most impressive thing to me on the 360 previously.
 
dark10x said:
Ya know, I would say that Resident Evil 6 actually comes damn close to offering the most impressive cutscenes. The faces are a bit more stylized than Halo 4, but the level of detail is very high. The thing that elevates them for me is some of the impressive post processing effects I've seen. Love or hate the game, the cutscenes are very impressive to behold. A lot of people even believed them to be pre-rendered scenes (even suggesting that it was disappointing that Capcom used pre-rendered scenes) despite the fact that 99% of them are realtime.

The faces of Halo 4 are definitely among if not THE best I've seen.



Artifacts in those shots come from shot compression, by the way. I wasn't even convinced they were realtime at first either, but after close examination and comparison between the two versions, it's clear that they are (there are minor rendering differences present between the two). When the PC version is released it will become even more clear.
Click to expand...

While most them are real-time, two are in fact pre-rendered:
the plane crash into the city and the C-virus missile attack
.
 
I think it looks nice, but maybe I'm too out of touch with consoles or something to really be wowed by the game. A lot of the geometry looks super simplistic to me.
 
Why people need to comparate to ps3 game every time? Freud? :/ Troll post about cell puah are really idiot, cell is really a good cpu, what is the reason to troll it?
 
dimb said:
I think it looks nice, but maybe I'm too out of touch with consoles or something to really be wowed by the game. A lot of the geometry looks super simplistic to me.
Click to expand...

This is one of the reasons I prefer the look of Reach over 4. Also the backgrounds.
 
meta4 said:
That has nothing to do with how good a game looks. By that logic GTA4 does way more than Halo 4 and therfore should be crowned best looking game of this gen. Can you compare GTA4 and Halo 4 technically? Maybe you are qualified enough to but that still does not change the fact that Halo 4 looks better than GTA4 on consoles. Halo 4 texture quality is not as good as GOW3 or UC3. Hell at times some GOW3 sequences look like CG. Again this has nothing to do with the tech.



You got to agree Halo is much more open in certain areas though. But again KZ2/3 is much better than Halo in terms of rag doll physics. Shoot a hig in KZ2 and shoot any enemy type in Halo. Poles apart. The higs actually react to every bullet shot. They twitch and shake their body. The muzzle flash and the enemy models look much better. The amount of dust, smoke, particle effects that are there for eg in the bridge sequence in KZ2 is much more than any sequence I have seen in Halo 4. Granted it could be because Halo is more open but which is more tecnically accomplished? I dont know - All I can go by is how a game looks on screen and I dont think Halo 4 looks as good as the games like GOW or UC3.
Click to expand...
It's just a case of seeing things differently. It's funny you mention GTA 4 since it's an example of one of the most technically impressive games this gen but many would put other less technically demanding games ahead of it. I prefer to shy away from "best looking" debate since it's completely subjective and isn't a debate that can be won. I find that if you can at least ground the debate in some techical facts like "It's a great looking game considering the hardware has to...", you tend to get more than the usual system warrior responses. That's not to say people won't find debate with which technical achievement is better, but at least the discussion can be rooted in technical fact rather than opinion.
 
omonimo said:
Why people need to comparate to ps3 game every time? Freud? :/ Troll post about cell puah are really idiot, cell is really a good cpu, what is the reason to troll it?
Click to expand...
Most people don't view games in platform specific bubbles.

Plenty of people own multiple platforms too.
 
Stallion Free said:
Most people don't view games in platform specific bubbles.

Plenty of people own multiple platforms too.
Click to expand...

A game with a good graphic not needs claims like: "in my favourite console, this game have the best graphic of the counterpart", where are not childrens anymore to point something like this.
 
omonimo said:
Why people need to comparate to ps3 game every time? Freud? :/ Troll post about cell puah are really idiot, cell is really a good cpu, what is the reason to troll it?
Click to expand...

Because the big PS3 games that always get posted about are, right now, the top on consoles. When you come out with something new and flashy is it not common to compare it to the current best? Will we not do the same when last of us comes out?
 
Mastperf said:
It's just a case of seeing things differently. It's funny you mention GTA 4 since it's an example of one of the most technically impressive games this gen but many would put other less technically demanding games ahead of it. I prefer to shy away from "best looking" debate since it's completely subjective and isn't a debate that can be won. I find that if you can at least ground the debate in some techical facts like "It's a great looking game considering the hardware has to...", you tend to get more than the usual system warrior responses. That's not to say people won't find debate with which technical achievement is better, but at least the discussion can be rooted in technical fact rather than opinion.
Click to expand...

I agree and I would love to know how technically game 1 engine is better than game 2 engine etc but how do you compare engines when they are designed for a specific individual goal. For eg I say KZ2 has more particle effects ( dust, smoke, debris etc ) at any given moment then any sequence in Halo. Another one can say who cares Halo is more of an orchestrated sandbox experience and so is technically superior. How can anyone determine which engine is better. Throw a grenade in KZ2 and then in Halo 4 and see the difference in volumetric smoke.Again that could be a consequence of KZ2 being less open and more focussed in its approach. I do not know. With so many small details like this it is difficult to objectively state one engine is better than the other. The next best thing one can go by is how the actual visuals look on screen and forget every number crunching detail that is behind the screen and say - wow that looks beautiful. Which is why I said to me UC3 and GOW3 looks better. Halo 4 has great lighting but I can see the plainness of the textures. They just dont look rich enough and looks ordinary at times. If there are any industry standard parameters to grade engines by then sure we can say objectively one engine is better than the other. Are there?

TheExodu5 said:
How is GTA4 one of the most technically impressive games of the gen, exactly?
Click to expand...

I dont know. Since people were saying Halo 4 is more open and therfore by default technically superior to the games it was being compared to I assumed we could extend that logic and say - GTA4 is more impressive than Halo 4 because its more open ,More no of vehicles, NPC's etc each with its own AI subroutine etc etc etc. I really think arguing about the technical merits of a game and the visual aspects of a game should be two separate debates.
 
IMO, God of War 3 is still the best looking console game up until now. People are still comparing games to it and it came out two years ago. The use of MLAA makes it the cleanest looking game with virtually no jaggies whatsoever. It also has a variable framerate between 45 to 60, IIRC.

Not to take anything away from Halo 4 - it shines with its use of brilliant lighting and art direction. If the game had better AA... easily the best looking console game.
 
meta4 said:
I agree and I would love to know how technically game 1 engine is better than game 2 engine etc but how do you compare engines when they are designed for a specific individual goal. For eg I say KZ2 has more particle effects ( dust, smoke, debris etc ) at any given moment then any sequence in Halo. Another one can say who cares Halo is more of an orchestrated sandbox experience and so is technically superior. How can anyone determine which engine is better. Throw a grenade in KZ2 and then in Halo 4 and see the difference in volumetric smoke.Again that could be a consequence of KZ2 being less open and more focussed in its approach. I do not know. With so many small details like this it is difficult to objectively state one engine is better than the other. The next best thing one can go by is how the actual visuals look on screen and forget every number crunching detail that is behind the screen and say - wow that looks beautiful. Which is why I said to me UC3 and GOW3 looks better. Halo 4 has great lighting but I can see the plainness of the textures. They just dont look rich enough and looks ordinary at times. If there are any industry standard parameters to grade engines by then sure we can say objectively one engine is better than the other. Are there?
Click to expand...
No, there's really no way to say which is better as the developers had completely different goals in mind, and in the case of KZ2 and Halo 4, I would say the programmers and artists achieved their vision wonderfully. I'm sure we'd agree that's all that really matters when all is said and done.
 
meta4 said:
I agree and I would love to know how technically game 1 engine is better than game 2 engine etc but how do you compare engines when they are designed for a specific individual goal. For eg I say KZ2 has more particle effects ( dust, smoke, debris etc ) at any given moment then any sequence in Halo. Another one can say who cares Halo is more of an orchestrated sandbox experience and so is technically superior. How can anyone determine which engine is better. Throw a grenade in KZ2 and then in Halo 4 and see the difference in volumetric smoke.Again that could be a consequence of KZ2 being less open and more focussed in its approach. I do not know. With so many small details like this it is difficult to objectively state one engine is better than the other. The next best thing one can go by is how the actual visuals look on screen and forget every number crunching detail that is behind the screen and say - wow that looks beautiful. Which is why I said to me UC3 and GOW3 looks better. Halo 4 has great lighting but I can see the plainness of the textures. They just dont look rich enough and looks ordinary at times. If there are any industry standard parameters to grade engines by then sure we can say objectively one engine is better than the other. Are there?



I dont know. Since people were saying Halo 4 is more open and therfore by default technically superior to the games it was being compared to I assumed we could extend that logic and say - GTA4 is more impressive than Halo 4 because its more open ,More no of vehicles, NPC's etc each with its own AI subroutine etc etc etc. I really think arguing about the technical merits of a game and the visual aspects of a game should be two separate debates.
Click to expand...

Particle effect esp alphas have been more prevelant in HALO then any killzone. Killzone alphas render at 1/16 of the resolution. Compare the explosions seen in HALO 4 or the past 2 games and you see way more detail in the explosions and particle effects. *Cough* Scarab exloplosion *Cough*

HALO 4 has as much detaiedl textures as Reach. I have encountered many high frequency mapping on many of the surfaces. Did you even look at the ground, cliff, rocks, etc on the environments?

Nothing in Reach or 3 had detailed rocks and ground textures just from the second level of HALO 4. Character modelss HALO 4 >> past HALO games. The marines are more detailed and faces are crazy nice.

One thing I love about the particle tech in HALO is the ability for them to interact with bump mapping. No other game does that and it's such a compuational intensive feature. To calculate physics update on every particle on screen, 1000s of them, and have more data on textures to store the bump mapping for physics. Impressive stuff.

Every game has weaknesses. As you mention GOW3 looks great, but I can post pics of the character models of the npcs which were poor poly, detail.
 
higherARC05 said:
Particle effect esp alphas have been more prevelant in HALO then any killzone. Killzone alphas render at 1/16 of the resolution. Compare the explosions seen in HALO 4 or the past 2 games and you see way more detail in the explosions and particle effects. *Cough* Scarab exloplosion *Cough*

HALO 4 has as much detaiedl textures as Reach. I have encountered many high frequency mapping on many of the surfaces. Did you even look at the ground, cliff, rocks, etc on the environments?

Nothing in Reach or 3 had detailed rocks and ground textures just from the second level of HALO 4. Character modelss HALO 4 >> past HALO games. The marines are more detailed and faces are crazy nice.

One thing I love about the particle tech in HALO is the ability for them to interact with bump mapping. No other game does that and it's such a compuational intensive feature. To calculate physics update on every particle on screen, 1000s of them, and have more data on textures to store the bump mapping for physics. Impressive stuff.

Every game has weaknesses. As you mention GOW3 looks great, but I can post pics of the character models of the npcs which were poor poly, detail.
Click to expand...
Isn't it the same in Halo 4? I though it was low buffer too.
 
higherARC05 said:
Particle effect esp alphas have been more prevelant in HALO then any killzone. Killzone alphas render at 1/16 of the resolution. Compare the explosions seen in HALO 4 or the past 2 games and you see way more detail in the explosions and particle effects. *Cough* Scarab exloplosion *Cough*.
Click to expand...

Hmm? 640x360 is not 1/16 of 720p. It's not even 1/16 of 1080p.
 
higherARC05 said:
Particle effect esp alphas have been more prevelant in HALO then any killzone. Killzone alphas render at 1/16 of the resolution. Compare the explosions seen in HALO 4 or the past 2 games and you see way more detail in the explosions and particle effects. *Cough* Scarab exloplosion *Cough*

HALO 4 has as much detaiedl textures as Reach. I have encountered many high frequency mapping on many of the surfaces. Did you even look at the ground, cliff, rocks, etc on the environments?

Nothing in Reach or 3 had detailed rocks and ground textures just from the second level of HALO 4. Character modelss HALO 4 >> past HALO games. The marines are more detailed and faces are crazy nice.

One thing I love about the particle tech in HALO is the ability for them to interact with bump mapping. No other game does that and it's such a compuational intensive feature. To calculate physics update on every particle on screen, 1000s of them, and have more data on textures to store the bump mapping for physics. Impressive stuff.

Every game has weaknesses. As you mention GOW3 looks great, but I can post pics of the character models of the npcs which were poor poly, detail.
Click to expand...


I never said Halo 4 was not better looking than Reach. Regarding the explosions and particle effects just no.

Show me one Halo 4 sequence that has as much going on at a time. Throw a grenade in Halo 4 and KZ2 and see the difference. - This video includes multiplayer footage btw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENILnw_abd8&feature=relmfu

Sorry for the non hd footage.

You can barely see stuff in KZ2 because of the amount of dust, smoke and debris. It looks absolutely brutal.

Mastperf said:
No, there's really no way to say which is better as the developers had completely different goals in mind, and in the case of KZ2 and Halo 4, I would say the programmers and artists achieved their vision wonderfully. I'm sure we'd agree that's all that really matters when all is said and done.
Click to expand...
Oh I agree.
 
Halo 4 benefits alot from incredibly well done environmental art design. some of the interior sections look insanely high production and extremely dense in detail.

and the vistas and skyboxes are simply breathtaking.
 
Router said:
True, but I'd put money on them being the central studio for next generation working on multiple projects and have other studios branching off.

The talent pool in 343i is amazing.
Click to expand...

That's Microsoft Game Studios.

343 is the Halo division.

343 will never make anything that is not Halo.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

The Witcher 4 Unreal Engine 5 Tech Demo: Digital Foundry Reaction!
41
147
YeulEmeralda replied
[Digital Foundry] Doom: The Dark Ages - DF Deep Dive Review - The id Tech 8 Engine Is Stunning
Analysis Review 
15
347
AMC124c41 replied
Digital Foundry: Elden Ring Nightreign Tech Review: No PS5 Pro Support, Core Tech Has Not Improved
2 3 4
156
249
darrylgorn replied
ID tech8 deep dive. Digital foundry
2
84
545
The_Observer replied
  • Locked
[Digital Foundry] Assassin's Creed Shadows - PS5/Series X/S Tech Review - A Big Visual Leap For the Series
Analysis Review 
0
575
Draugoth replied
Top Bottom