Digital Foundry Article Technical Discussion Archive [2012]

[KKRT]

How well it's actually painted and finetuned with the shader and the rest of the environment is completely irrelevant to you.

Why it would be relevant for me in tech discussion? Its not like other games doesnt do the same? Its about resolution in the end as a tech goes, not about artistic fit.


In terms of art i think that Halo 4 is a huge step forward. Its getting much closer to what CG and TV ads were in terms of dark, greety SF, instead of colorful and cartoony game with lasers and power ranger suits. Reach was already a step up, but Halo 4 is much better in that regard.

 

[N2O]

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.

Actually i didn't really read any DF non-face off article since pretty long time ago(include Halo4 one) because they're lazy right now

 

[Laa-Yosh]

Why it would be relevant for me in tech discussion? Its not like other games doesnt do the same? Its about resolution in the end as a tech goes, not about artistic fit.

Technology exists to serve the artwork and not the other way. High texel resolution on its own won't make a game any better.

Also, unless the game specifically relies on such mechanics, most of the times the player isn't interested in extreme close-up looks. And Halo especially is about large vistas where the engine seems to really shine.

 

[SteelOak]

Why it would be relevant for me in tech discussion? Its not like other games doesnt do the same? Its about resolution in the end as a tech goes, not about artistic fit.


In terms of art i think that Halo 4 is a huge step forward. Its getting much closer to what CG and TV ads were in terms of dark, greety SF, instead of colorful and cartoony game with lasers and power ranger suits. Reach was already a step up, but Halo 4 is much better in that regard.

No it's not, there are also other things to consider when talking about textures but if I'm not mistaken in one the earlier threads on gaf you argued that Reach doesn't have high poly models because it uses LOD system so it seems you just have trouble looking at things objectively.

 

[Laa-Yosh]

It's also worth mentioning that the actual texel density is probably the same for the main texture channels on all environment elements; but some have a tiled 'detail' normal map layer on top of that. Works well on rocks and dirt but usually not used on Covenant and Forerunner structures, for example.

It is a very cheap trick, usually a single 512 map with just 2 channels, but it can give the illusion of a very detailed texture. And, funnily enough, has more to do with good artists and less to do with engine tech...

 

[kots]

It's also worth mentioning that the actual texel density is probably the same for the main texture channels on all environment elements; but some have a tiled 'detail' normal map layer on top of that. Works well on rocks and dirt but usually not used on Covenant and Forerunner structures, for example.

It is a very cheap trick, usually a single 512 map with just 2 channels, but it can give the illusion of a very detailed texture. And, funnily enough, has more to do with good artists and less to do with engine tech...

I admire your patience for answering to him when it's very obvious that the guy is on a mission ....

 

[nightshade]

It's hilarious that you mention that the IQ is "horrible" , for a 720p image with only FXAA this game is surprisingly clean. I do agree that the shadows are bad and I do miss Reach's deferred solution for lights and I don't really find the new HDR all that nice. But at it's core this game has a good blend of art and tech.

Overall on a whole, the game does appears to be better than Halo Reach (not on a technical level) because they went for a different style of look compared to previous Halo games and I believe the foremost reason why it looks so good is because the art compliments the tech far more efficiently here than it did in any Halo game previously.

 

[Delta9]

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

So the cutscenes are subhd? What resolution is 1280x544?

 

[Devious]

So the cutscenes are subhd? What resolution is 1280x544?

AIStrong managed to answer my question about that.

http://forum.beyond3d.com/showpost.php?p=1647484&postcount=292

 

[(((interference)))]

I don't understand why people think they got rid of the deferred lighting?
AFAIK they still kept the light-prepass that Reach had and the engine still seems to be able to render dozens of light sources without any issue, so that would seem to indicate they haven't taken it out.

 

[ultragpu]

I think it's safe to say DF is not the be all and end all tech analysis detective since it's pretty obvious we can spot tons of things that they have missed, or

Spoiler

intentionally not to cover

? But I always give credit to where it's due, I still humbly appreciate their effort for the analysis and what not.

That said, I'm surprised people are acting rather sarcastically towards KKRT when he's the one who's actually trying to be objective here by pointing out the facts for discussion.
Yeah, the prebaked environment shadows are disappointing Especially the Jungle level looked very dated compared to today's standard, it should not be hard for DF to pick out the completely prebaked tree shadows or the non interactive vegetation when you walk pass them.
The way I see it, Halo 4 traded in a lot more tech features than Reach but gained more with superior art and design, thus "appears" to be better looking overall.

 

[nightshade]

I don't understand why people think they got rid of the deferred lighting?
AFAIK they still kept the light-prepass that Reach had and the engine still seems to be able to render dozens of light sources without any issue, so that would seem to indicate they haven't taken it out.

I don't think the light sources you are talking about are actually light sources but rather glows, which appear to be lightsources but aren't (easiest way to tell this is to walk up to them and see if they light up your weapon).

 

[SteelOak]

Looks like light sources to me

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=nn89_AXCRUY#t=28s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HK6HqiFwuqg&feature=player_detailpage#t=184s

Even DF article says that thing that is different from Reach is radius of illumination from light sources.

 

[nightshade]

Looks like light sources to me

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=nn89_AXCRUY#t=28s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HK6HqiFwuqg&feature=player_detailpage#t=184s

Even DF article says that thing that is different from Reach is radius of illumination from light sources.

I don't know what you want me to look at in those videos.

 

[NotTarts]

Yeah, the prebaked environment shadows are disappointing Especially the Jungle level looked very dated compared to today's standard, it should not be hard for DF to pick out the completely prebaked tree shadows or the non interactive vegetation when you walk pass them.

I'm fairly certain that dynamic environment shadows are the exception for most games - certainly not the "standard". Reach had prebaked shadows for vegetation as well, as do the majority of games out there.

 

[nightshade]

Yup majority of games go for prebaked environment shadows or a mix of prebaked and real time, games like Uncharted, Farcry and Crysis that use 100% or close to 100% realtime shadows are far and few.

 

[Nesh]

Why are you guys so deffensive? Regardless of Halo4's overall looks its only natural to expect from the DF technical analysis to cover in more detail all areas of the game's visuals including a detailed comparison berween what was done before vs what they have done now to achieve a certain result.

The article leaves too much to be desired just like the U3 tech analysis.

Its lackluster indeed compared to other articles on big titles

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Environment shadows tend to be really blocky too, which can be as much a distraction and added realism.

 

[kots]

I don't think the light sources you are talking about are actually light sources but rather glows, which appear to be lightsources but aren't (easiest way to tell this is to walk up to them and see if they light up your weapon).

Ofcourse some of them are glows , just like every other game . But the majority of them do illuminate the environment .

Also the guns , grenades , particles etc. still light up the environment , just like Reach , but not to the same degree .
Some nice things i notice is that sparks interact with your guns , ... also when you shoot with the assalt rifle in the ground it lights up around the hole it makes .... small tidbits but nice .

 

[nightshade]

Ofcourse some of them are glows , just like every other game . But the majority of them do illuminate the environment .

The keyword here being some, it's some light sources and many glows in case of Halo 4.
Not in case of games that go the deferred approach, where you have fewer glows and more actual lights, the rendering approach makes sure that it just cannot compete with them in this area. My point being that it's very easy to see that Reach had much more dynamic light sources compared to this game. It's also interesting how the average gamer who isn't technically informed mistakes the haloed glows and 2D sun shafts as proof for having superior lighting effects than Reach, makes you wonder.