E3: The Xbox corner

[embargiel]

Of course the shots in the cutscenes are such that these models look their best, but that is hardly surprising.

Then what's the big deal if the cutscenes look better than that of in-game? There's not, or is there?

So the difference is purely in your mind, subjective (ie. your blatant anti-XBox sentiment).

God, how could I be told an Xbox-haters just by stating on what I saw from the trailer. It is not only me who said that, someone has said that also earlier in this thread.

Yes that would be obvious, that is if those differences were really there. In this case they aren't...

Well, I've told you that my premise only that blurry video.

 

[Qroach]

Perhaps they are focusing on this because the difference between cut-scenes and in-game is quite noticable.

Like i said before, there isn't any difference. I went to that demo so I could have a real good lookat twhat they are doing with the game. In fact, Chris Millar (warcraft designer) is buddies with Bungies main designer. I asked Chris the same things before I went to see it myself. Is everything performed in game, and he said yes.

Well perhaps you could list this differences you're talking about, if you really can notice them, becuase seeing this thing up close showed none of the differences people keep referring to.

In fact, didn't the MGS2 cutscenes or the GT3 replays look better due to some added effects? Who is anyone but the developers to say that no added effects are being used to make the cutscenes stand out even more?

Yup those titles in fact did. However those are also completely different games on completly different hardware. Hadly somehting to use a good reference.

Uncontrolled up to the degree that the game evolves around the player. A cutscene is scripted, that means, everything is controlled and everything will happen they way it was planned. There are no unexpected scenarios.

Yes it is scripted, and that's why they are called cutscenes. You cut away from the main view point of first person, to show the story unfold from a different angle/viewpoint. However this doesn't automatically mean there's a difference in "quality" between the cutscene and the regular game.

In a in-game scenario, you have to limit the amount of events that may occur or else slowdowns will occur in masses. A dev might limit the amount of events by either scripting soldiers and/or simply reducing the amount of characters you'll see on screen (or their activity).

Well since these cutscenes are not a simple video playing back, you still have to worry about similar framerate issues when showing everything you want to player to see. Either way this is a moot point, this doesn't necessarily mean the quality of the cutscene is higher. In this case the graphics still look the same. The textures still look the same, the models still look the same. So I really fail to see the point you're making.

Bungie has told us before that the cutscenes use in game models and graphics. Any added effects you see, are effects you'll see during gameplay as well.

I'm still curious what these difference people ar talking about? What do you think it is, the lighitng? the textures? the models? Antialiasing? depth of field? I really curious what people here are talking about. I mean obviously the difference between a cutscene in gameplay and out of gameplay is that the player only see what bungies wants.

 

[Qroach]

Well, I've told you that my premise only that blurry video.

Ok I understand that. There's so much detail missing from the video since it was of such crappy quality. However I'm still curious, what differences to you "think" you see? Is it the lighitng? The textures? The models? Antialiasing? depth of field? It has to be one of those? I'm not going to put up framerate, since that can't be properly gauged while watching a video (unless it's really poor) sicne these video clips alway run at X fps anyways.

 

[Phil]

Qroach:

I never stated that there are quality differences in every cutscene - I specifically stated that potentially, cutscenes may allow for a better and more impressive representation of a game because everything is scripted. The developer decides specifically what is seen and what not, being able to eliminate the slightest appearance of slowdown. Heck, I wasn't even talking about the Halo 2 video, go figure...

Like i said before, there isn't any difference. I went to that demo so I could have a real good lookat twhat they are doing with the game. In fact, Chris Millar (warcraft designer) is buddies with Bungies main designer. I asked Chris the same things before I went to see it myself. Is everything performed in game, and he said yes.

Well perhaps you could list this differences you're talking about, if you really can notice them, becuase seeing this thing up close showed none of the differences people keep referring to.

As I repeatedly stated already, I wasn't commenting on the Halo 2 trailer but just pointing out that cutscenes do have the potential of looking better.

Yup those titles in fact did. However those are also completely different games on completly different hardware. Hadly somehting to use a good reference.

Hardware is not the issue. The potential cutscenes have of looking better is not limited to the hardware. If you had payed any attention to the example I had listed, it'd be pretty clear how cutscenes can make for a more impressive appearance.

WEll since these cutscenes are not a simple video playing back, you still have to worry about similar framerate issues when showing everything you want to player to see. Either way this is a moot point, this doesn't necessarily mean the quality of the cutscene is higher. In this case the graphics still look the same. The textures still look the same, the models still look the same. So I really fail to see the point you're making.

Bungie has told us before that the cutscenes use in game models and graphics. Any added effects you see are effects you'll see during gameplay.

As I already said, framerate issues can be avoided in cut-scenes due the developer deciding what the player can see and what not. Also for the record, I never stated anything about better textures, better models and what not. In fact, since it's using the exact same engine, it's safe to say that textures and geometry on objects remain stable without any differences. That however does not mean that blur or other effects could be added to make it more impressive (ie MGS2). Please re-read my example to see 'why cutscenes have the potential of looking better'.

In case you haven't noticed - no one is discrediting Xbox in belief of those cut-scenes not running in real time. In fact, no one is argueing it's not realtime.

 

[Qroach]

Phil,

If you noticed, just about everyone in this thread has been talking specifically about Halo2. I've consistantly mentioned Halo 2 in each post I've made. I wasn't talking about PS2 games and what other titles have done until you brought those into you post, so I replied to that. I assumed you were keeping to the topic others were discussing. Obviously I was wrong on that point.

As a note, I haven't once said that in game/in engine cutscene can "not" be look better than in game graphics. I'm talking only about Halo2 and what they have done in that game. Other titles aren't relevant. That's completely up to the developer and or hardware the game is on. You say hardware is not the issue although it potentially could be. If that hardware in question can't perform the same effects used in a cutscene curing gameplay. Just like the games you mentioned, they used specific effects during cutscenes and not gameplay for the very reasons you mentioned, ( keeping a consistent framerate).

As stated before, I'm ONLY talking about Halo and what they have done.

In case you haven't noticed - no one is discrediting Xbox in belief of those cut-scenes not running in real time. In fact, no one is argueing it's not realtime.

Phil, I don't think you'e follwing what others in the thread are talking about very closely. We're not dicussing if they are real-time or not real time, we're dicussion if there's any differences between the cutscenes and the during gameplay graphics, which I've been telling people there isn't any difference.

 

[embargiel]

However I'm still curious, what differences to you "think" you see? Is it the lighitng? The textures? The models? Antialiasing? depth of field? It has to be one of those? I'm not going to put up framerate, since that can't be properly gauged while watching a video (unless it's really poor) sicne these video clips alway run at X fps anyways.

The models do look slightly different, maybe unnoticable, but is when you watch it carefully (the detail). I'm not really sure about the lighting (maybe it's due to the crappy trailer). And for the overall look, I felt that the cutscenes did look better and fell more cg-like. No, it's not like that I hate Xbox or something like that, but it's based on what I see. If you were to say something else, I would say that I don't know for everybody has a different opinion. Looking better isn't always due to the fidelity, but also can be due to much more variables, like camera position and something else.

 

[DeathKnight]

There's no difference in quality between cutscenes and gameplay. You're just seeing everything that's there to begin with at a different angle that you may not see much during gameplay (or things that you simply don't concentrate on while you're playing).

There was absolutely no quality difference between the two in the first Halo. The same thing goes for Halo 2.

 

[Qroach]

The models do look slightly different, maybe unnoticable, but is when you watch it carefully (the detail).

Well they actually aren't any different. It's not possible to notice the detail at a distance in the video since it was so crappy, but it's the same detail you see up close it the cutscene. This is caused by them using normal mapping on the characters, and this can hide the actual amount of polygons used. Just about everyhting in the game is covered with normal maps.

I'm not really sure about the lighting (maybe it's due to the crappy trailer). And for the overall look, I felt that the cutscenes did look better and fell more cg-like. No, it's not like that I hate Xbox or something like that, but it's based on what I see.

To be honest when I saw the video last night it found the quality utterly horrible. There's so much that is missed with both video and sound that I think peopole should reserve judgement until the official video is released. You really ARE missing a lot of the detail.

 

[embargiel]

Well they actually aren't any different. It's not possible to notice the detail at a distance in the video since it was so crappy, but it's the same detail you see up close it the cutscene. This is caused by them using normal mapping on the characters, and this can hide the actual amount of polygons used. Just about everyhting in the game is covered with normal maps.

Well, if you want to say so, then ok. I wouldn't refute it again. What I meant by different was the detail, like there's a scene that showing a marine in an in-game scene and the cutscenes, maybe it's not noticable, but if you watch it closely, you would know. Maybe I have to wait till the better version of the trailer coming out.

 

[Phil]

Qroach:

If you noticed, just about everyone in this thread has been talking specifically about Halo2. I've consistantly mentioned Halo 2 in each post I've made. I wasn't talking about PS2 games and what other titles have done until you brought those into you post, so I replied to that. I assumed you were keeping to the topic others were discussing. Obviously I was wrong on that point.

I hate to say this, but I don't think you have been following what others in this thread have been talking about very closely either. I decided to post my input because of the arguement zurich had with thundermonkey on page 2.

As a note, I haven't once said that in game/in engine cutscene can "not" be look better than in game graphics. I'm talking only about Halo2 and what they have done in that game. Other titles aren't relevant. That's completely up to the developer and or hardware the game is on.

From what I am gathering in this thread, certain people feel that the cutscenes we're talking about in Halo 2 do look better than the rest of the in-game stuff. It might be because of the blury video, it might not - I guess we will find out once we've seen a better capture that does the game justice obviously. My post was just adding input on that the *potential* of it looking better is there. Nothing that you have said, other than your opinion on what you have seen, suggests that there is no difference.

You say hardware is not the issue although it potentially could be. If that hardware in question can't perform the same effects used in a cutscene curing gameplay. Just like the games you mentioned, they used specific effects during cutscenes and not gameplay for the very reasons you mentioned, ( keeping a consistent framerate).

No, they used effects to imerse the player into a more impressive movie-like experience (MGS2). Keeping a consistent framerate is the result of it being a cutscene and perfectly scripted. The added blur effects in MGS2 are obviously not used during in-game scenes due to bad playability and perhaps limited hardware resources. As I said, hardware is not the issue. Any game has the potential to look more impressive during cut-scenes regardless of the hardware it is on.

Phil, I don't think you'e follwing what others in the thread are talking about very closely. We're not dicussing if they are real-time or not real time, we're dicussion if there's any differences between the cutscenes and the during gameplay graphics, which I've been telling people there isn't any difference.

No we're not, you right. I added that comment because you at one time questioned why 'people are focusing on differences' going on to say that it 'sounds almost like they are trying to make an excuse for it looking so good'. With that, I wanted to clarify that we are not making excuses - we are questioning something we have observed while watching the trailer. I respect your input though and trust that there is no difference and will therefore preserve further judgement on the HALO 2 'differences' until I have seen better footage of the game.

 

[thundermonkey]

I have a 116MB vid of The Halo 2 demonstration.

There are differences between ingame and cutscenes. It is noticeable. The characters on screen in the cutscenes have harder shadows, and the what I'm guessing is specular highlights are much more pronounced.

The cutscenes look much better with a high quality vid. And you are right it could just be because the devs can choose what we see, but I don't think that's it. Everything looks much cleaner.

 

[Qroach]

I've got the same vid as you. Trust me on this one. the video is so bad that you can't see any detail onteh chracters until they are close to the screen. I think that happens since everything in the video is so dark.

Anyway, the only reason I'm able to say this is since I saw it closer. Anyway I'm waiting for an official vid from microsft.

 

[thundermonkey]

Bah, none of us are right.

I thought the vid was bright enough as is to see the details, but you don't think it is.