I don't understand why you, and others, believe someone must be a fanboy to disagree with this article. Can't it just be that they disagree?
Digital Foundry -- Halo 4 Tech Analysis
- Thread starter adamsapple
- Start date
Better performance. Unless you're a developer from Sony Santa Monica, is there anything you would like to share?
How can you disagree with the DF article? You think Halo 4 doesn't reach the level of PS3's best visually?
I do, I was asking why it's so hard to believe others wouldn't. It just irritates me that people feel like if someone doesn't agree, they're blinded by brand allegiance.
The_Hitcher89
Member
I know. You just can't say anything subjective these days without somebody disagreeing and trying to debate it with you...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qu56m4WOS7E is a similar thing to what I guess you were trying to show in Gears which was not what I was talking about. I actually think Gears 3 looks better. KZ2 I feel just does more on screen. Even more than KZ3 ever did.
iamshadowlark
Banned
Please explain why you think this.
So the fact that a game maintains a certain level of performance somehow directly correlates with the choice of camera? Just trying to understand your rationale.
Correct. Both UC3 and Gears 3 are using volumetric smoke. In order for having a scenario like that in that KZ2 vid multiple people will have to be shooting each other at the same time. Having more players in KZ2 makes it easier to accomplish.
If the camera is more straight forward you have to deal with LOD pop in. If the camera is at an angle you don't. What part of that is hard to understand?
So what do you think? Developer magic instead?
Where are you going with this?
There are other factors: lighting intensity, shadows.
All of them play a part in getting that target framerate. The game doesn't just go to a higher framerate just because.
Dont bother. There is no point trying to get this message across to fanboys who believe there is some conspiracy when some people do not think that Halo 4 is the best looking console game ever.
Didnt you know. According to the real fanboys in this thread you must be a Sony fanboy.
iamshadowlark
Banned
Where I'm going is that you really don't seem to have a clue about what you're going on about. The camera in GOW3 isn't fixed at all, there are very distinct differences between a fixed camera and a scripted one.
SniperHunter
Banned
what the fuck is going on in here? I was wondering why this thread is still on the first page??
XtremeXpider
Member
and a lot of those things are in Halo 4, not at the same level, but Halo 4 do other things that KZ's and UC's don't. The work of 343 is as good as PS3 devs.
Why are you posting links to videos with factual errors? There's no volumetric smoke to be seen in Killzone 2.
So if you're playing at an angle and can't turn the camera, it isn't fixed... Right...
I'm not saying the game does it all the time. But it seems to me you're creating an argument over nothing.
Foliorum Viridum
Banned
Played through all of this last night in a 4 player co-op session.
It loosk EXTREMELY good for a console game. Hell, for a game period, in places. There are clearly areas where the crap hardware is holding it back, but there were several areas that truly looked amazing. The most impressive console game I've seen since Uncharted 2, I think.
With that said, technically, it had a lot of hiccups. The framerate dipped below 30 quite frequently and, when the game got really busy, it was in single digits for all of us.
I've been told in the |OT| this is an issue with it being a co-op game, but to me that makes no difference as it's a feature of the game and doesn't excuse that type of performance.
Thankfully, it wasn't that often, and the good vastly outweighed the bad when it came to performance.
I think Uncharted 2 is still the best looking console game, but this has the number two spot.
It loosk EXTREMELY good for a console game. Hell, for a game period, in places. There are clearly areas where the crap hardware is holding it back, but there were several areas that truly looked amazing. The most impressive console game I've seen since Uncharted 2, I think.
With that said, technically, it had a lot of hiccups. The framerate dipped below 30 quite frequently and, when the game got really busy, it was in single digits for all of us.
I've been told in the |OT| this is an issue with it being a co-op game, but to me that makes no difference as it's a feature of the game and doesn't excuse that type of performance.
Thankfully, it wasn't that often, and the good vastly outweighed the bad when it came to performance.
I think Uncharted 2 is still the best looking console game, but this has the number two spot.
It does give you greater control over what happens in any scene, and more memory to devote to what's viewable rather than all that might be if someone were to spin the camera around.
That goes for a "scripted" camera too.
God of War 3 is older than Halo Reach, we should certainly see a significant boost with GoW:A, almost certainly not a Reach to Halo 4 style boost though, of course.
EDIT: The performance in Halo 4 solo is pretty much faultless beyond the trivial hangs during loading/saving.
Exactly.
And this is what many absolutely unbiaised people don't want to acknowledge.
Kudos to them, they delivered a breathtakingly beautiful game.
There is no doubt that Ascension is going to be mind-blowing visually, I don't think it's unreasonable to expect a jump similar to that of UC1-UC2.
The biggest jump is the move to a fully deferred renderer.
The framerate drop wasn't the game, it's the connection. There's been problems here and there with it. I was in a 4-player co-op and it was smooth for all of us, and another time there was just two of us and the framerate stuttered. There's some drops, like in the first Warthog fight in Mission 2, but nowhere like what you're describing.
Foliorum Viridum
Banned
Which is good to those who play solo, but considering co-op is such a large part of the product I don't find it acceptable that it has Blighttown-esque moments on pretty much every level. Thankfully they are moments, and not entire levels like Blighttown itself
Foliorum Viridum
Banned
Hmm... I suppose the connection could be the cause of it.
Some areas were seriously bad, like the level with the Mammoth.
Why are you using phrases that have no actual meaning?
AltogetherAndrews
Banned
I don't think you understand the concept of creativity.
Anyway, damn this game looks good. Getting that old Uncharted 2 vibe from it, in that it really doesn't feel all that hampered by the console, like they were actually designing the game around all limitations. Also feels closer related to Ratchet and Metroid than it does your typical shooter so that works in its favor.
Indeed, in fact, I think this is why some people have a hard time believing the game looks as good as it does. Sony have had developers thrashing the PS3 from day one. Gears 1 looked great, but from UC1 onwards, Sony have visually produced more impressive results than anything on the 360. It was often debated on GAF why this was, if it was a technical limitation, or a question of motivations/intent of the 360 exclusive projects. The people who believed the former haven't had to question that at all really. As bad as it sounds, it feels like no one else was even trying.
How something like Gears 3 ships with no AA while Halo 4 is such a huge leap is really strange to me.
Baconsammy
Banned
That's your connection. The framerate is fine. The network code...not so much.
iamshadowlark
Banned
A fixed camera is one that is literally fixed on a viewpoint and doesn't move. The camera in GOW3 is highly dynamic and will pan, tilt, zoom, boom, etc based on where the player is and where the enemies are. Because of this you can't really make many assumptions at all about what you are going to need to render and trying to precompile every possible movement and position is impractical.
Just because you can't control the camera with your analog or triggers doesn't mean everything is automatically static.
See above.
Also I don't know if you knew but even uncharted's camera is scripted..
Uncharted 3 and killzone 3 does. Cept uncharted 3 uses a different form of post process aa.
That's not the problem. Halo 4 is gorgeous. Its when people undermine other technically advanced games. Fact is there are games thay does more than Halo 4, on both platforms. What holds Halo 4 together is it's art style.
Halo 4 is definitely the most impressive 360 title I've seen. I'm just commenting on some posts that stood out to me.
(Tried to find the best halo 4 explosion examples in this thread)
KZ2 still has the best effects and overall CG feel in my opinion. Halo 4 went for a different style that is inherently a little more game-ey but I think they did a fantastic job and it represents top tier talent.
The environment effects here are stunning
Nope.
SSAO in Killzone 3 is for cutscenes (Recorded video). The PPAA in UC3 doesn't compare to MLAA.
Of course. But it seems to me you're having an argument about free controlled cameras and fixed cameras. Yes it can be dynamic, but I can't swing the camera to take in the entire environment in some parts like Uncharted. What God of War 3 is doing is nothing new. They did it on PS2.
Another one that loves throwing around meaningless phrases.
ss_lemonade
Member
Reminds me of Crysis
The environment effects here are stunning
lol did you just make this shit up to cause more unrest? What you just wrote is nonsensical.
Tha gif is ridiculous
...?
Not really. Real time games and pre-rendered animation tend to feel different visually because of their inherent qualities. KZ2 covers up a lot of the consequences of realtime rendering (low polygon counts etc) with post processing and blur effects. Halo goes for a sharper look, which can look great when the asset/effect is well crafted but can also break the illusion because it's easier to see the flawed assets. I think both are valid approaches and both have advantages and disadvantages.
Part of the reason why my jaw dropped while playing KZ2 and why KZ3 while pretty did not have that effect on me.
Yup.
Halo 4 is on hill of its own. It stands alone just as other graphically advanced titles have before it. What it achieves it mind boggling. As you can see from this thread.
The only thing that hides Killzone's visual deficiencies are post stamp sized GIFs posted here. The phrases you use like 'cg-like' or 'gamey' can mean absolutely anything, thus are meaningless.
HollovVpo1nt
Banned
Just explained what they mean, bud.
higherARC05
Banned
Ahh no.
HALO 4 is easily one of the most techinical games out there. This with the art makes it look gorgeous.
The_Hitcher89
Member
I want an Xbox 360 
From what I've seen, the work behind Halo4 is undoubtedly at least equal to that which went into GoW3, UC2/3 and KZ2/3. I haven't seen enough (haven't seen anytthing first-hand) to say whether its graphically better or worse though
From what I've seen, the work behind Halo4 is undoubtedly at least equal to that which went into GoW3, UC2/3 and KZ2/3. I haven't seen enough (haven't seen anytthing first-hand) to say whether its graphically better or worse though
Diprosalic
Banned
coming from playing pc exclusively for the last year the game doesn't look good at all to me. it stutters and has jaggies and runs in 720p. for a 7 yeard old console it looks fine though but the UI is goddamn terrible and the MP is a travesty. so for that guy who asked if we remember bungie, yes i do and i miss them dearly now that i have played 4.
i haven't touched SP yet.
i haven't touched SP yet.