Digital Foundry Article Technical Discussion Archive [2012]

Me too. I mean, they are talking too of worse texture resolution & grass on ps3 but they don't show any shot to prove this. I'm not saying they are liars but what is the point to argue of something without shows it Would been more interesting to see a deeper comparison.

 

I'm confused, when did I ever say otherwise?

 

Richard and Alex, may I request you guys do a Halo 3-to-Halo Reach-to-Halo 4 evolution piece? That would be more interesting and useful as seeing most recent games are less about getting new techniques to work but finding the right budgets and compromises to get the most out of the visuals.

Getting an evolution of the franchise on the 360 would be very cool.

 

I'm more confused than you are by accused of not knowing what I am talking about in regards to shadows.

So what's so silly about it?

 

You've stated that is if it were an exception. It's like saying: look, this human has two legs and both are of equal length! But we've clearly seen people with one leg shorter than the other: Nathan Drake had one for example.

And yeah, this example sucks - having two legs of equal length is actually beneficial. But you should get the idea that it's not about whether lack of CSMs is factually correct or not but whether it's so extraordinary to point it out. It's like saying: oh yeah? And Halo 4 is not ray-traced! Or: look, this game does some effects in screen space! Yeah, most games do. It also uses textures and models made out of triangles. What should be pointed out in technical discussions are things that are interesting and unique. Complete lack of shadows would be unique (and would probably suck). 100% real time shadows would be something people would point out. That's the thing you're not getting.

 

^ yup, not to mention the shadowing works similarly to prior Halo games, so why focus so much on them when it's been a characteristic of the engine for years.

 

oh oh oh easy question can I answer sir
(jump)
(jump)
(jump hands up)
- you may answer
yes as kagemaru saiz its been behind (rugby analogy) well retarded (looked it up in the dictionary) for years so why should we suddenly it chance now
(HAL we've moved on in the last 5 years+)
- no fair, LOGIC is not allowed!

 

Between the three major releases this Gen, the renderer has had three iterations by two different teams. Yet outside of some tweaks and minor improvements, the shadows have similar drawbacks in all three games. IMO there are reasons why this is the case and there's no telling what may have to be compromised to switch from this "retarded" (seriously?) shadowing. So with all this said, you actually think it's logical to assume changing the techniques used would be so easy or even the smartest choice on the same hardware? Or are you one of the people here who's real issue with the game is the team and the hardware the game is running on?

 

Franchise shitting and the constant, misplaced trumpeting about Uncharted et al by Zealot class* Elite* console warriors reaches fever pitch around the release of Halo games. It's really not helping anyone to do or understand anything.

The reason why Digital Foundry haven't done face-offs between heavily scripted on-rails platform shooters and a 4 player co-op FPS with large semi-sandbox areas featuring many classes of enemies and vehicles is probably the same reason why less talented people shouldn't try and do it here.

*Yes, a Halo reference! I couldn't think how to slip in an Arbiter reference though.

 

Black Ops 2: Xbox 360 or PlayStation 3?

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-black-ops-2-on-console

/ Ken

 

That blur on the PS3 version is ridiculous.

 

heard someone posted on gaf that the blur shows up after the patch, it wasnt blurry before patch.

 

Treyarch AA tech seems great

 

That would explain the NowGamer comparison I just watched, which shows two versions of the game that look almost exactly alike (though the 360 version there has the wrong color gamut settings for that capture card)

 

It being a bug makes some sense of a truly ghastly blur. It's similar to a gaussian blur applied indiscriminately to the whole image. You don't need a fancy AA algorithm to do that.

 

Article was updated:

Unpatched:

Patched:

 

How does that even happen? Was it intentional to reduce aliasing?

Also, is the pre-patch shot still using PP AA, or is that the horrible blurriness that was added to the patch?

 

I don't understand why everytime Treyarch has so many problems to develop on the ps3 version... last BLOPS has the same issue in the netcode & now this AA, why?

 

Simple... they're lazy devs...