So CG-like means 'blur the hell out of everything'?
Digital Foundry -- Halo 4 Tech Analysis
- Thread starter adamsapple
- Start date
So CG-like means 'blur the hell out of everything'?
iamshadowlark
Banned
So yeah its not fixed. And no, there is no camera on any game on PS2 as advanced as GOW3's camera.
I don't really understand why you miss Bungie based on your list of complaints there. Reach had performance issues, and far worse image quality. I've only played about ten games online so far, had no performance issues at all, not that I doubt you have though.
Whike you are correct in saying that KZ 3 had SSAO in cutscenes, it was also present in realtime(by mistake). During the snow level when Sevs intruder crashed, the engine for some reason enabled it. So my mistake, Killzone 3 was the only game on ps3 to have all effects running.
Ahhh... But Killzone 3 is also missing full HDR. Which is in Uncharted.
There's always a tradeoff.
Reach was'nt an ugly game by any stretch of the imagination, but it looks so drab compared to 4. That wierd ghost effect along with the muted colors were no good.( i like my Halo colorful) That said there were some great looking levels in Reach, my favorites being that night time sniper level , Oni Sword Base and New Alexandria.
Yeah KZ3 looked very harsh in a lot of places which in turn completely prevented the AA solution from being effective. UC3 is a step above KZ3 in rendering, only thing I like better are the nice lighting and lens flare effects (JJ Abrams)
You're going to interpret anything I say with your fanboy filter so I'm not sure why I bother. But it's plain fact that CG animation uses a lot of post processing effects, including blur, because they don't have to render real time and it makes for a more dynamic composition - motion blur also emulates the natural blur you get in film. They could choose not to to add these effects, but then CG animation would look more like games typically do.... which would be counterproductive. There's a reason game visuals are going in the direction of CG and not the other way around. (Note: the way we experience games could very well affect the direction things go -- but for now, we're playing games on TVs like we do film)
You're going to paint the blur as a purely negative thing and ignore the fact that it is obviously desirable (otherwise nobody would use it) so that you can posit that halo's sharper look is the most correct approach.
I wonder how these games look on old TVs. I remember when Halo 3 came out, I was still using a CRT, and thought it looked incredible, you get all the benefits of that crazy lighting, without the downside of the relatively shitty resolution, because everything has shitty resolution. It looked better than Gears/Uncharted on a CRT.
It must be strange for the people still playing in SD, they probably have completely different opinions of which games look the nicest.
EDIT: I realized that post seems completely out the blue. It was because those Reach gifs look insane, but the game looks pretty rough in person.
It must be strange for the people still playing in SD, they probably have completely different opinions of which games look the nicest.
EDIT: I realized that post seems completely out the blue. It was because those Reach gifs look insane, but the game looks pretty rough in person.
Yep. Fixed pixel displays and sub HD doesn't go well together.
Someone playing on a CRT HDTV or Plasma will get a different experience than someone playing Halo 3 on a huge 1080p LCD HDTV.
In fact... The only way I can tell a game is sub HD is by playing it on my LCD. I can't tell at all on a CRT HDTV. The image scales like it should. More importantly when upscaling 480p games like Ninja Gaiden Black.
Static screenshots aren't necessarily the correct format to judge MOTION blur
Well I posted a Crysis 2 gif earlier where it's very blatant
Static screenshots aren't necessarily the correct format to judge MOTION blur
Our brain interprets things differently in motion
Temporal AA. It ruined crysis 2 too.
Yeah KZ3 looked very harsh in a lot of places which in turn completely prevented the AA solution from being effective. UC3 is a step above KZ3 in rendering, only thing I like better are the nice lighting and lens flare effects (JJ Abrams)
I never liked the look of killzone 3. Cant really pinpoint why exactly, Maybe its too harsh or the IQ is too noisy.
Killzone 2 looked a lot better.
I love motion blur but it really needs to be used properly. It needs to be subtle and not turn the entire object out of focus. It needs to be applied only to certain areas so it can add proper smoothness without impacting image quality. I think that next-gen we'll really see it come into its own as a quality effect that should be in most 30fps games. 60fps games don't really need it, although it can look cool stylistically. God of War 3's motion blur was really great, as is Crysis 2's and Killzone 2's.
It do agree that it tends to look awful in screenshots, especially when it's camera based. Looks fine in motion though.
Yep. It really makes Crysis 2 on consoles look worse than it should and it was incredibly distracting in Reach. Anyone that uses that is on my shitlist.
There is no unified thing that CG animation does, other than, well, typically spending a lot of time animating every little detail, both artist- and computing-wise. Killzone games (or any other for that matter) look very, very crude compared to modern CG animations, that's why I find the term "CG-like" meaningless and laughable. There's no fooling anyone.
It's actually more of a combo of QAA + Motion blur that creates the "CG look".
I get what people mean by it but I do agree that it's the wrong term. It's a nebulous, intangible quality so it's hard to express.
This guy doesn't think there's such a thing as a "CG look"
You're ignoring reality, sorry.
Sutton Dagger
Member
This. Except as Stu rightfully pointed out, it's not the fault of the studio that they are restrained by aging hardware.
That's another thing. The bloom is way too high. Almost Gears 1 bad. Turn it down.
I know you're a big fan of Gears 3. But wouldn't you say the IQ is a step up from that game?
not_so_special
Banned
people dont agreed with me = fanboys
sure dude
if anything son,i see a lot more xbox users here Trying Too Hard
I find the "IQ" of Gears 3 to be pretty similar actually.
In all seriousness, not even close. Gears 3 looked better. However, Halo 4 has more enemies on screen, plus much much larger levels. Gears 3 had less going on and more cramped environments. Plus, Epic is in the business of making graphics engines, while 343 isn't. No surprise that Epic can get more out of their own tech they've been making for years.
I still blame PC gaming though. I'm horrendously biased now. Console games don't impress me anymore, visually. I can appreciate great art direction, which Halo 4 has, for the most part, but it's tech is lacking
Gears 3 has no AA at all.
clutch.as.it.gets.
Member
That´s FXAA. Halo 4 really isn`t washed out, but the blurry FXAA filter over the picture smears the colours and make the picture/contrast fuzzy.
The strange thing with Halo 4 is that the weapons are very sharp, but the environments are very soft in comparision. Normally FXAA smears the entire picture including the hud, but somehow the weapons look sharp, but the enviroments very soft und fuzzy.
Overall i`m not satisfied with their custom FXAA implementation.
SMAA/ MSAA user here. FXAA is bad. SGSSAA isn't viable unless you just like making pretty screenshots and Wallpapers.
clutch.as.it.gets.
Member
No, Gears 3 is a lot sharper than Halo 4. Maybe Gears 3 has some more jaggies but at least the game is sharp.
For one we the HDR was never mention in the list of effects. Two, Killzone 3 never removed any effects like in Halo 4. And three, the lack of Hdr was a design choice for GG. When presented with the option to include it GG decided to go against it because it did not mesh with their renderer. In other words, they lost the hands-on control with the effect on. It kept trying to correct what was deliberate.
BigTnaples
Todd Howard's Secret GAF Account
Its funny to see how so many people see things differently.
I chalk most of it up to people not being able to tell art differences from graphical fidelity.
Also with IQ itself people not playing on nice enough displays, or viewing from different distances.
The remainder of people are just beyond help.
I chalk most of it up to people not being able to tell art differences from graphical fidelity.
Also with IQ itself people not playing on nice enough displays, or viewing from different distances.
The remainder of people are just beyond help.
The confusion between art and tech is something that will never cease to piss me off. Nothing on gaming side annoys me more, besides your run of the mill fanboy bullshit
HDR is one of the major things in console exclusives. It should be on the list.
Likewise, the removal of SSAO in Halo 4 a tradeoff and a design choice with the artstyle.
See? Every game has tradeoffs.
Yeah, it was that stupid obsession of orange lighting. To make matters worse, their engine pumped out more pronounced colors to begin with.Yeah KZ3 looked very harsh in a lot of places which in turn completely prevented the AA solution from being effective. UC3 is a step above KZ3 in rendering, only thing I like better are the nice lighting and lens flare effects (JJ Abrams)
But it's sharper which evens it out and makes the comparison similar to me.
What? Halo 4 has less jaggies but as a result it looks blurrier than Gears 3. It's a matter of taste. I don't even know what you're saying here.
AltogetherAndrews
Banned
I think I've lost touch with the video game side. Is it just because people must flaunt their favorites that this happens? Halo and KZ have nothing in common visually other than a basic shared perspective.
They both happen to be very successful at what they do, though.
They both happen to be very successful at what they do, though.
See the difference between what I said and your comment is that I can back that up. The point is they removed more than one effect for some reason while nd and gg did nothing but add.
So by that logic you think Gears 3 has better IQ than Uncharted 3?
Well for one thing... Both titles were already 720p. It's not like the effects were struggling on the engine.
So by that logic you think Gears 3 has better IQ than Uncharted 3?
If you look back at my post I said G3 and Halo 4 had similar IQ. I don't think UC3 had great IQ really - I preferred UC2's graphics to be honest. It's a matter of preference. Do you think slightly less jaggies is worth the smeared image and washed out colours? I don't.
Seriously. Gears 3 has some neat effects going on and I like the lighting in some areas, but no AA is very noticable.
Yeah thats some bullshit. IQ was such a setback in the Halo series(current consoles) and they absolutly nailed it in 4. All while improving the lighting.
I think that really depends on what TV you're playing on.
Having no AA is very apparent on a 1080p LCD HDTV.
Lion Heart
Banned
For those who finished Halo 4, is there any level that out does Icy Incursion from KZ3? I feel like that is one of the most impressive levels this gen.
Crysis 2?
That helicopter crash is scripted.