Digital Foundry Article Technical Discussion Archive [2012]

[KKRT]

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-vs-halo-4

What kind of analysis is this?

Game lacks SSAO, but its fine, its better than in Reach.
Particles arent light sources anymore, but who cares its better than in Reach, even those there was whole section in Reach article about it.

Why there isnt even mentioned how shadows disappear 5-10m from Your point of view?
Like here
http://i.imgur.com/wV9rt.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/T6edq.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/K8Y0i.jpg

Or here
http://i.minus.com/i0STdtiesrHrP.gif

How about shadows that are mostly baked in environments and dont even interact properly with geometry, but instead they change whole object from light to darker and dark or vice versa, like in Gears of War 2.
http://i.minus.com/ibzsloJU9CuofO.gif

And image quality is good? Its not a tragedy as in GeoW 3, but its decent at best
http://i.imgur.com/gVKwE.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/k7Frs.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/4HVYt.jpg

Shadows examples
http://i.imgur.com/l5HFk.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/aofX6.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/f1BNw.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/P0fKv.jpg

--
What about low res particles? Why it wasnt metioned, when Reach had full res alpha.
Where is lag input analysis? Where is Coop analysis?
Why they havent mentioned how water physics quality degraded?
http://i.imgur.com/P8WyU.jpg

 

[Gitaroo]

what was wrong with reach ssao? I thought it was nice addition. Seems like this game lacks many techs that was used on modern AAA games and even previous halo games, but gains some back in others, like the global god ray or whatever you call it. I haven't play mine yet should be in the mail today. Does it even have camera based motion blur or object base motion blur? I think its save to say that the game is a work of art, but not necessary a tech juggernaut now days?

 

[KKRT]

what was wrong with reach ssao? I thought it was nice addition. Seems like this game lacks many techs that was used on modern AAA games and even previous halo games, but gains some back in others, like the global god ray or whatever you call it. I haven't play mine yet should be in the mail today. Does it even have camera based motion blur or object base motion blur? I think its save to say that the game is a work of art, but not necessary a tech juggernaut now days?

Nothing wrong with Reach SSAO, but how can they say it, like its not big deal and still improvement in terms of lighting engine

"Curiously though, screen-space ambient occlusion (SSAO) - a subtle, but well implemented effect in Reach is seemingly gone in Halo 4, while elsewhere the radius of illumination from light sources appears to have been significantly dialled back. Overall though, the new lighting scheme transforms the look of the game."

Hey, we dont have ssao, our shadows arent fully dynamic and we dont have light sources from particles like we had, but its an improvement!

 

[Laa-Yosh]

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-vs-halo-4
What kind of analysis is this?

Well, they certainly haven't spent as much time as you did to find the absolutely worst case scenarios possible with the engine...


(although the shadows fading out so closely is quite bad, I agree with that part)

 

[Laa-Yosh]

I think its save to say that the game is a work of art, but not necessary a tech juggernaut now days?

They are making different trade-offs compared to... 'modern' games. The current consoles aren't powerful enough to do everything and so every developer has to prioritize features.

343 felt that SSAO or motion blur isn't as important to them as detail normal maps, or (AFAIK) energy conserving shading and lighting, or certain other post effects, or 720p... the list goes on.

 

[Laa-Yosh]

SSAO is a hack, a cheat, and even AO itself is a hack and a cheat, so it's far from a mandatory feature.

It also gives a certain dirty look to games and I think it would not have worked well with some of the environment art design in the game, but I'd rather play it first before going further...

 

[kots]

(although the shadows fading out so closely is quite bad, I agree with that part)

It doesn't happen everytime , and obviously it's not as bad as that guy is making out to be ...

Oh , and since when motion blur must be a feature in every game ? It's not missing here , Halo is almost always rock solid and pretty smooth , OMB wouldn't make it any better .

 

[Laa-Yosh]

Perhaps sebbi can shed some light on this but I suppose the reason is that motion blur would have to be accommodated in the post processing budget; but that's also used by a lot of lighting and flare effects and also FXAA. So it probably just didn't fit in and 343 didn't want to trade of any other post effects for something that has less to add to overall image quality. SSAO is probably a similar case as it's another post effect AFAIK.

 

[warb]

A disappointing trade-off in Halo 4 are the backgrounds. It might've been a good idea to disable zoom with none scoped weapons during some sections, like when the blast shields open up on the first level. My instinct is to click zoom for a better look. And here.

I've gotten used to the beautiful high-res skyscapes and distant 3D scenery in Halo.

 

[Gitaroo]

from what KKRT posted, the game seems to have lost more than what they have added into 4. Unless those new addition are much more demanding.

 

[N2O]

Because most people only care how it feels(visually),not zooming with Sharingan
And halo 4 make most people feel great,even visually

Well i understand,since no one care your same post in neogaf

 

[SedentaryJourney]

I'm not sure I get what's so special about light shafts in this game versus what you find in UE3 games. It also looks like the game dropped reach's deferred lighting solution.

My impression is the game trades a lot of little things for character and environment detail. There are a few bad textures and low detail objects that stand out in DF's article but I'm guessing these aren't that noticeable during gameplay. I've only ever seen them in still shots and never picked up on them in previous trailers and gameplay vids.

 

[warb]

Because most people only care how it feels(visually),not zooming with Sharingan
And halo 4 make most people feel great,even visually

Well i understand,since no one care your same post in neogaf

Is this aimed at me?

I liked the zoom friendly backgrounds in Reach. My suggestion was to somehow not let people destroy the illusion by enlarging background images too much in scenes that draw their attention, like the ones mentioned. I can't think of another solution to that. Blur?

 

[N2O]

Is this aimed at me?

Come on,why i would aim you?

 

[KKRT]

It doesn't happen everytime , and obviously it's not as bad as that guy is making out to be ...

I've got that part from first gamersyde video i've picked. It happens all the time.

--

Because most people only care how it feels(visually),not zooming with Sharingan
And halo 4 make most people feel great,even visually

Well i understand,since no one care your same post in neogaf

Yep, because its not a tech board and topic isnt about tech analysis. Whats a point of analysis when You make it so lackluster? Reach analysis had 4 pages, this have one sentence about texture filtering, particles, ssao and motion blur, really?

If ditching whole light source calculations from particles isnt big, i dont know what is. Shadows are low quality or prebacked most of the time and game lacks dynamic lighting, those are fundamental trade offs and werent even mentioned in article.
---

Well, they certainly haven't spent as much time as you did to find the absolutely worst case scenarios possible with the engine...


(although the shadows fading out so closely is quite bad, I agree with that part)

I've actually made bigger post on GAF where i included cutscenes and great textures, but this one was about lacks in DF article, not whole feature set. And those arent worst scenarios, just typical ones.

My post on GAF
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=44053917&postcount=96

 

[Gitaroo]

ya, if this is the same technical achievement as U2, KZ2 etc, I think it deserve a multi pages full tech analysis break down from level to level like the KZ2 one. I going to play it as soon and I get home and see for myself if the tech are really that impressive.

 

[Laa-Yosh]

My post on GAF
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=44053917&postcount=96

Apparently "good textures" for you means high resolution textures, and "bad" means lower texel density. How well it's actually painted and finetuned with the shader and the rest of the environment is completely irrelevant to you.

I personally couldn't care less if it gets a little pixelated when I push my nose as close to it as possible. I'm more concerned with the overall image.

So we haven't got much common ground here, certainly not enough for any meaningful discussion...

 

[N2O]

If ditching whole light source calculations from particles isnt big, i dont know what is.
-

Nothing is big if they can make people feels great,most people won't (suddenly) care about which effect are in use or not in use if they feel it's great
Well yeah,i'm not you and you're not me

 

[Gitaroo]

Nothing is big if they can make people feels great,most people won't (suddenly) care about which effect are in use or not in use if they feel it's great

yeah, like rez wire frame graphics that inspire many many indie games and lots of them looks great. The thing is DF = technical analysis, arts should be the second thing or minor thing they touch on. At least this one is not as bad as uncharted 3 one which is almost like a game review than a tech analysis.

 

[Billy Idol]

What is this shit DF...boooo! One of the biggest console releases this year and all we get is half assed bla bla bla. Seems that DF has no real interest in analyzing the game...what a pitty, was really looking forward to a DF special like in the old days...