Digital Foundry Article Technical Discussion [2024]

[Scott_Arm]

My initial thought at the start of the video was actually - thank god, this looks so much better than some of the previews! While I think that largely remains true of most of the indoor stuff they showed, the outdoor stuff is rough IMO. Not just the shadows, the GI basically disappears or becomes so low res that it is functionally gone. See for instance all of the shots starting around here in the review:

I'm not sure from the narration in the video if these are meant to be impressive, but they are all extremely flat. Probably a combination of very low res BVH and low res sampling/probes.

...

Ha, that's one of the exact scenes I was thinking of. There's no shadowing under the benches at all. Everything looks disconnected from the ground. The lighting is directional coming from windows above, but the entire room looks like it's lit exactly the same.

 

[Scott_Arm]

It might be a configuration issue with your display.
He says the HDR implementation is almost perfect. But it takes some tweaking.

My display is almost spot-on calibrated SDR. Definitely an issue in game.

 

[Cyan]

Includes a quick comparison with PC RT settings at the end.

the game running on a laptop RTX 3050 4GB videocard. 1080p DLSS quality, 39fps average.

Indiana Jones and The Great Circle | RTX 3050 Laptop | I5 12500H | 16GB Ram

 

[Cyan]

given the performance on consoles, even on a weak console like the XSS and how it performs on weak computers with RT on, I have to say that the rest of the developers should have to be reported to the police

 

[arandomguy]

This isn't a negative cricism about the game but where I hope we might invest more going forward.

The side by sides with the game and the live action movie shows the glaring issue still with games in realtime in that we've kind of been stuck in terms of physics, simulation and dynamism. The objects including the characters are just so rigid and stiff even when static and especially with motion compared the movie. Details in a static scene in terms of still screen shots so much better now but it feels like the above has barely changed over the decades now.

 

[Scott_Arm]

This isn't a negative cricism about the game but where I hope we might invest more going forward.

The side by sides with the game and the live action movie shows the glaring issue still with games in realtime in that we've kind of been stuck in terms of physics, simulation and dynamism. The objects including the characters are just so rigid and stiff even when static and especially with motion compared the movie. Details in a static scene in terms of still screen shots so much better now but it feels like the above has barely changed over the decades now.

I'm really interested to see what the "full" ray-tracing option looks like. There's still miles between the film and the game in terms of lighting and materials. I was also just reading this thread from Timothy Lottes, and couldn't agree more.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1865114423930528221

 

[trinibwoy]

This isn't a negative cricism about the game but where I hope we might invest more going forward.

The side by sides with the game and the live action movie shows the glaring issue still with games in realtime in that we've kind of been stuck in terms of physics, simulation and dynamism. The objects including the characters are just so rigid and stiff even when static and especially with motion compared the movie. Details in a static scene in terms of still screen shots so much better now but it feels like the above has barely changed over the decades now.

That was my reaction too during the scene with the German soldier. The guy with the glasses is wearing a tie but the tie looks painted on. The soldier’s shirt collar looks stiff as cardboard. A few years ago when cloth physics was all the rage I had hoped we would be well beyond those limitations by now. Oh well.

The game looks amazing though for something running locked 60fps on consoles.

The huge difference in GI shadowing on PC implies PC is using a much higher density probe grid. Can’t wait to see what per pixel GI adds on top of that. Is it fair to assume “full raytracing” covers shadows and reflections too?

 

[DavidGraham]

Is it fair to assume “full raytracing” covers shadows and reflections too?

More details about the path tracing coming to Indiana Jones on Dec 9. Thanks to NVIDIA for the info. This sounds great.
Full ray traced global illumination
Full ray traced subsurface scattering on foliage
Full res RT reflections
Fully ray traced sun shadows

https://twitter.com/x/status/1864895846212341802

 

[techuse]

Curious to see Indiana on PC. I think it’s a nice looking game on Xbox, but it doesn’t present as anything particularly current gen. Geometry comes off as being fairly low. 1800p at 60 fps is just too high for these consoles. I think 1800p being the target for a 30 fps mode would have resulted in a notably better visual experience. Given the PC benchmarks, even at max settings, the RT seems very minimal which is probably why the lighting looks so flat. Baked lighting would have been much better. Given how long the development was it seems like they should have had the time. Hopefully the full RT has a Cyberpunk or Metro EE level of visual transformation.

 

[Below2D]

I don’t think the RT will make the game look great. Character models are unimpressive and the geometric density of the game just isn’t there. I really wish they had targeted 30fps with much better visuals on consoles and let the game shine on a powerful PC. Ray tracing will enhance the look, but this game still won’t look all that good with it because it has many visual shortcomings outside of lighting.

 

[Jupiter]

Avatar is also visually very impressive on the Xbox and it runs at 60 fps with RT GI.

I wouldn't just judge Indiana Jones from the video, I'd play it myself. Only bits and pieces from a few scenes are shown. Compared to most console games the lighting is superior in Indiana Jones because without some significant RT games mostly have the typical last-gen look. RT GI just helps a lot.

 

[troyan]

I don’t think the RT will make the game look great. Character models are unimpressive and the geometric density of the game just isn’t there. I really wish they had targeted 30fps with much better visuals on consoles and let the game shine on a powerful PC. Ray tracing will enhance the look, but this game still won’t look all that good with it because it has many visual shortcomings outside of lighting.

Especially on the Series S. This looks so bad. Dont know why people praise MachineGun for the result. At some point visual artefacts cant be ignored just because a game runs with 60FPS. Here is an example:

Just downscaling games from Series X to S doesnt really work.

 

[Dampf]

I don’t think the RT will make the game look great. Character models are unimpressive and the geometric density of the game just isn’t there. I really wish they had targeted 30fps with much better visuals on consoles and let the game shine on a powerful PC. Ray tracing will enhance the look, but this game still won’t look all that good with it because it has many visual shortcomings outside of lighting.

If you look at the reception of current UE5 titles, it's pretty clear to me that the general consensus is that gamer prefer performance over visual fidelity. Indiana Jones looks good enough while offering a stutter-free experience and running at 60 FPS on weaker hardware.

Sure, it's no Hellblade 2 on a graphical level, but it does look better than a last gen game and has great performance. Given the first person perspective and gameplay, I think the performance and visual target makes perfect sense.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

What a strange set of compromises! Are these all down to ID Tech limitations, or just their implementation and choices? I mean, constant shadow LOD pop-in, that just looks like a bug! And no GI, though 60 fps.

I wish there was a movie mode that targeted 24 fps. 2.5x the rendering budget per frame, how close to the movie could they get with better lighting?

 

[DavidGraham]

Indiana Jones on PC.

 

[Below2D]

Yeah, so they were overly ambitious with the res and frame-rate. The end result is a game that doesn't look good, has low-quality textures a lot of the time, low-res shadows, aggressive pop-in, and other shortcomings even on PC. I really wish they had targeted 30fps and something around 1300p on Xbox and then scaled it down for a 60fps mode. It's not a fast-paced game that requires 60fps at all cost in my opinion. The graphics suffered immensely for that resolution and frame-rate.

If you look at the reception of current UE5 titles, it's pretty clear to me that the general consensus is that gamer prefer performance over visual fidelity. Indiana Jones looks good enough while offering a stutter-free experience and running at 60 FPS on weaker hardware.

Sure, it's no Hellblade 2 on a graphical level, but it does look better than a last gen game and has great performance. Given the first person perspective and gameplay, I think the performance and visual target makes perfect sense.

I would have preferred if they had targeted 30fps and then try to downscale it to get 60fps. The game just isn't pretty to look at with those ugly shadows, poor LODs and questionable textures.

I’m also disappointed with how poorly it scales with PC’s Supreme setting. The shadows look terrible even on the highest preset.

 

[JPT]

Wrong thread.

 

[QPlayer]

It's funny what some overly technocratic individuals see (?) and think about how it looks... According to all internet forums and critical tests, the general opinion is that Indiana Jones is very, very good graphically. The character models, the environment and the animations are also CG movie-like. Personally, I've played several UE5 games, but my opinion, like the vast majority, is that this game is beautiful.

 

[Flappy Pannus]

.I really wish they had targeted 30fps and something around 1300p on Xbox and then scaled it down for a 60fps mode.

The problem is that we always hear 60fps is always achievable - if the game is designed for it from the outset. This was. They had 60fps as the target, and they certainly achieved it.

Now that being said, I agree that there are certain graphical degradations here that you don't normally see in big budget releases from this gen - the shadow cascade is pretty brutal and it's right in front of your face constantly. I think saying the game isn't attractive perhaps is an exaggeration, there's many elements which are great, but yeah, there are also elements that are almost anachronistic.

Perhaps a 30fps mode could be patched in later, or a 1080p 60fps mode with better GI on console and shadow casting. I have far more faith that you can take a 60fps game to 30fps with higher details than the other way around.

Just downscaling games from Series X to S doesnt really work.

Well that's been the problem for a while now across many titles. The S was sold, at least to the tech press, as simply another tier of Xbox that would be minimal disruption to developers - that hasn't been the case. Could this game look better if it was tailored more to the limitations of the S? Sure, but it's not like Machine Games is doing something wholly out of the ordinary compared with other AAA releases on the S. It's a far weaker console from a vendor that's a distant #2 to the main competition, cripes the PS5 Slim has been on sale recently and it's only $70 more than the S, and the X is only $100 more.

It made sense at launch, especially with all of the shortages - but it hasn't kept pace in terms of how it stacks up price/performance wise. It's a shit value compared to the competition, and it's never going to get the attention it needs from developers because of it.

 

[Below2D]

It's funny what some overly technocratic individuals see (?) and think about how it looks... According to all internet forums and critical tests, the general opinion is that Indiana Jones is very, very good graphically. The character models, the environment and the animations are also CG movie-like. Personally, I've played several UE5 games, but my opinion, like the vast majority, is that this game is beautiful.

I'm not sure what you mean by "CG-movie-like" since CG movies, like video games, are moving goalposts. CG movies from 2024 certainly don't like the ones from 1998 and no one would mistake Indiana Jones and the Great Circle for being a recent theatrical release.

I think the low-resolution shadows, terrible cascade, often inconsistent and poor texture work, along with the pop-ins and lack of geometric density make this a not particularly attractive game. "All internet forums" are free to disagree with, but I've pointed out what I don't like about the visuals in this game and you can certainly do better than drive-boy posting and laugh at someone's post for a having an opinion that they presented and defended.