Halo 3 IQ discussion * - Stay civil and polite folks!

[AlNom]

Ya, I really liked that level introducing the Flood. What really caught me off-guard was the Flood converting people into combat forms. That part with the

Spoiler

marine holding the gun to his head and talking about suicide was really creepy. It reminded me of the character back in Halo 1, also when the flood were introduced half-way through the game

. It was a good level, and the huge number of spores that get ejected from the carriers was freaky. I guess that's where they can cite "large scale"

The lighting is really nice there with the flamethrower going (even if it sucks as a weapon), and nearer the end when you actually get some decent lightsources... it was like a dream-sequence...or a nightmare if you take the Flood into context. Very nice.

For a new plasma, I heard it's best not to play games immediately... and that it's better to "break it in". Is that true? I was thinking of getting a plasma display, but I don't really do anything other than play games on TVs (barely watch digi cable or movies).

 

[RobertR1]

For a new plasma, I heard it's best not to play games immediately... and that it's better to "break it in". Is that true? I was thinking of getting a plasma display, but I don't really do anything other than play games on TVs (barely watch digi cable or movies).

I do all my gaming on the Pio 5070. No burn in or IR. Not even a hint of it. I did break it in for a bit when I got it.

The 8th gen Pioneer's are the king of the hill. Look for one

 

[AlNom]

Thanks for the reply. I was looking at Pioneer and Panasonic actually. Pio is the way to go?

What would you say is a decent break-in time? Lord of the Rings Trilogy (extended editions)?

 

[Acert93]

No display technology is going to compensate for the low rendering resolution, lack of any AA, and crappy texture filtering

Yet, as I see joker's point, a Plasma -- which has a much higher contrast than LCDs -- really brings out the lighting. If you are on a crappy LCD with poor black levels the main thrust of the Halo 3 engine, lighting, is going to be significantly diminished.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Hmmm. Is that something devs ought to worry about? Consider the sort of minimum, average spec TV that players might be using and target that? eg. If you're game is heavy on the moody black levels, design it a bit on the brighter side? Perhaps the only really consideration is what reviews are seeing your game on. If they've all got expensive plasmas or whatever good tech, make your game look awesome to them and they score it highly. If Joe Public can't see a thing because their non-bank-breaking set can't resolve parts of the screen well enough, that doesn't affect the word of mouth on your game.

I suppose this is one of those concerns that just make life too complicated and the devs response is 'I can't be arsed with this rubbish!'

 

[AlNom]

Yet, as I see joker's point, a Plasma -- which has a much higher contrast than LCDs -- really brings out the lighting. If you are on a crappy LCD with poor black levels the main thrust of the Halo 3 engine, lighting, is going to be significantly diminished.

I wonder then if the choices they made with their HDR method were a bit too forward looking (and maybe not right at all) as I expect the vast majority of players to have not so great televisions...

 

[Todd33]

Yet, as I see joker's point, a Plasma -- which has a much higher contrast than LCDs -- really brings out the lighting. If you are on a crappy LCD with poor black levels the main thrust of the Halo 3 engine, lighting, is going to be significantly diminished.

High contrast is also what accentuates aliasing. So your plasma should make things worse, but this discussion is now bordering on absurd with the "you have to play Halo 3 on my TV to appreciate it".

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Good equipment is always going to improve the experience over less-than-hot equipment. It's actually an irrelevant discussion point though. You don't need to see H3 on a particular screen to be able to determine it's IQ relative to other titles. All we need are direct grabs of it and other games, and then we can compare and contrast all on our own monitors set up how we want. That keeps the discussion objective. AA, resolution, filtering, texture-res, and presence of lighting effects, are what Image Quality is about. The look of the lighting is a matter of artistry, dependent on what you're viewing on, but not the topic of this thread. So we don't need to discuss what equipment people have and what they're seeing. We can all examine the direct-feed grabs and pick up on the IQ factors in play.

 

[Acert93]

I wonder then if the choices they made with their HDR method were a bit too forward looking (and maybe not right at all) as I expect the vast majority of players to have not so great televisions...

Nah, most users have TV's with great contrast... CRT SDTVs!

I think in regards to IQ I think they made some compromises based on their design choices (this isn't an indoor shooter), didn't quite push the technical or artistic envelop as hard as a couple other companies are, and made some graphic choices a priority that may rub some people the wrong way... they may not be the best trade-offs graphically for the current hardware (although graphics are really there to serve your game design).

Lets say you got a budget of "100 magic graphics points", do you invest heavily in lighting and soft shadows (say, 75 points?), or in textures, or a combination 50/50? It seems good lighting costs more than good textures, so that might not be a 1-to-1 tradeoff. You may stick 75% of your budget into lighting, but get lower results for such.

I have long kevetched about low resolution shadow maps with really nasty artifacting -- and piss poor soft shadows -- but I am getting the drift from some that those aren't quite as important to others as they are to me? Most of the shadows (when there lol) are pretty good in Halo 3. I look at some of the titles with better graphics and the shadows drive me up the wall. Ditto ambient lighting that washes out contrast.

It doesn't change the MSAA and AF issues (the latter surely should have been budgeted in; and the former is a strength of the hardware when designed around), which I think underscores to a degree tradeoffs as well as technical execution. And there is no question some of the art should have been better.

But trading some texture resolution -- even render resolution -- for better lighting and shadowing is good to my eyes. I hope more titles go this approach... but I think that a lot of people here would rather see more high resolution textures maybe? I don't really care for 720p or 1080p and pretty textures when the world is so flat... Not that Halo solves that problem (see some of my previous posts where some of their PR shots have awful contrast), but I appreciate the effort.

 

[ihamoitc2005]

Contrast

Yet, as I see joker's point, a Plasma -- which has a much higher contrast than LCDs -- really brings out the lighting. If you are on a crappy LCD with poor black levels the main thrust of the Halo 3 engine, lighting, is going to be significantly diminished.

Some plasmas have higher contrast than some LCDS in some conditions.

Room light also has effect on black level and effective contrast of plasma/lcd. Dark room is great for plasma peak contrast because plasma has unlit "pixels" but bright room reduces effective plasma contrast because of internal reflection of outside light. Top class LCD has better contrast and better look in bright rooms. Best LCDs can have better more smooth black/grey transitions than plasmas. Plasma has better contrast in very dark room.

Best picture for full range of conditions is topclass LCD like XBR. Also LCD has no burn-in and can be repaired. Plasma has burn-in and other damages cannot be repaired 90% of the time. For either choice get extended warranty from big retailer. If you go to any big store like Best Buy you can see plasma next to LCD in medium light. Best LCD has much clearer and natural look.

 

[kyleb]

Thanks for the reply. I was looking at Pioneer and Panasonic actually. Pio is the way to go?

What would you say is a decent break-in time? Lord of the Rings Trilogy (extended editions)?

Nah, that would likely earn you a bit of image retention becuase those movies are letterboxed 2.35:1. You'd be far better off just playing Halo 3 right away, as while it does have a static HUD, that HUD is rather low contrast and partially tansparent which will keep the phosphor wear closer to even than running a letterboxed movies.

 

[Acert93]

High contrast is also what accentuates aliasing. So your plasma should make things worse

And, "High contrast is also what accentuates HDR and quality shadowing. So your plasma should make things better".

I don't see how your one point makes "things worse" -- it may make some aliasing more prominent... but I don't think that single point makes all things, or the overall image, worse. Quite vague.

The aliasing is already very clear on an LCD, especially LCD Computer Display, because LCDs tend to have a very sharp image.

But most LCDs have piss poor black levels and many have poor contrast--especially compared to a Plasma. Heck, a HUGE amount of LCDs don't even display a 24bit image (16.6M color) -- they are 18bit (~200K colors).

Incorrect colors, dithering, poor contrast, horrible blacks, and so forth. Most consumer LCDs are far, far inferior to most Plasmas. And the places where LCDs fall the most short are those areas where lighting nuances will be most washed out.

I will take this one step further: Most graphic hores wouldn't touch most LCDs for the above reasons.

So it is a valid point that a Plasma, with better contrast, accentuates the strength of the game more than a poor LCD.

That doesn't change the fact most people are on cheap LCDs or SDTVs. And I don't think joker is suggesting that.

but this discussion is now bordering on absurd with the "you have to play Halo 3 on my TV to appreciate it".

Why? If you are playing on a crappy 17" LCD with cheap stereo headphones and I am playing on a 48" high dollar Plasma with a really nice 5.1 stereo system there will be a difference in experience.

I don't see it much different from audio. Users hear essentially the same thing, but better equipment can often show the difference in the nuances of the audio quality. 2 games with similar quality on cheap sets may be quite different on quality gear.

So sure, a better Plasma isn't gonna do jack for the art, lack of texture filtering, aliasing, etc... but that DOESN'T mean it won't help anything.

Now THAT is absurd!

 

[kyleb]

Sure, but do we even have anyone complaining about the lighting? I mean, at least aside from a few rough spots, it looks nice compared to other games on a the best of plasmas just it looks nice compared to other games on the crappiest of LCDs.

 

[RobertR1]

Thanks for the reply. I was looking at Pioneer and Panasonic actually. Pio is the way to go?

What would you say is a decent break-in time? Lord of the Rings Trilogy (extended editions)?

Here's all your settings info break-in and after for the 8th gen Pioneer's.

 

[Todd33]

So sure, a better Plasma isn't gonna do jack for the art, lack of texture filtering, aliasing, etc... but that DOESN'T mean it won't help anything.

Now THAT is absurd!

It's absurd because it's known that people have all kind of different displays, it's is a constant that should be taken out of the equation. Unless you are prepared for the same plasma vs LCD discussion in every thread about graphics, then it should be dropped from this one and left for the AVS forums. You cannot use the variety of people's displays to apoligize for Halo3.

 

[scooby_dooby]

You cannot use the variety of people's displays to apoligize for Halo3.

But it explains the disparity in reactions.

Why? Because Halo's biggest problem is probably it's aliasing, which is compounded by the lower resolution.

It's not about apologizing, but more explaining why some people honestly think it looks great, and others don't.

 

[AlNom]

Nah, that would likely earn you a bit of image retention becuase those movies are letterboxed 2.35:1. You'd be far better off just playing Halo 3 right away, as while it does have a static HUD, that HUD is rather low contrast and partially tansparent which will keep the phosphor wear closer to even than running a letterboxed movies.

Ah... hm.... Actually, maybe Gears of War would be better altogether due to the disappearing HUD.

Here's all your settings info break-in and after for the 8th gen Pioneer's.

I'm missing something here.

 

[Dot50Cal]

It's absurd because it's known that people have all kind of different displays, it's is a constant that should be taken out of the equation. Unless you are prepared for the same plasma vs LCD discussion in every thread about graphics, then it should be dropped from this one and left for the AVS forums. You cannot use the variety of people's displays to apoligize for Halo3.

I couldn't agree more.

 

[joker454]

It's absurd because it's known that people have all kind of different displays, it's is a constant that should be taken out of the equation. Unless you are prepared for the same plasma vs LCD discussion in every thread about graphics, then it should be dropped from this one and left for the AVS forums. You cannot use the variety of people's displays to apoligize for Halo3.

No apologies being made here, it looks great to me. If people want to miss out on this gen by playing on their parents Philco tv or on a crappy LCD, then it's their prerogative. But then, it's just like someone driving a Ferrari F40 off road then saying it was "meh" as a car. It's hard for me to take them seriously.

If a games point in graphics is mood and lighting, and you play it on a display that has difficultly replicating mood and lighting, then guess what, you've missed out. It would be like someone playing Warhawk with no internet connection, then saying that it's a boring game. Ironically, many won't miss out because they are still playing on CRT tv's, which in the case of Halo 3 could actually look better than many bargain LCD's.

This thread has thankfully solved one riddle for me. Often people will comment on two games and say that game A looks as good as game B, or that some new game doesn't look that great. And in many cases, I just don't see how in hell that's possible when I view the same stuff myself. Well now I know why, it's all about the display device. I actually fired up Gears of War again on the rain level, which looks stunningly gorgeous on my plasma, except this time I did it on a "good lcd" at work. Sure enough, it was a night and day difference. All the dark detail, the subtle lighting, all of it, gone.

Now it all makes sense how two people can see the same game so differently. Thanks for that.

 

[kyleb]

Ah... hm.... Actually, maybe Gears of War would be better altogether due to the disappearing HUD.

Nah, that HUD is pure white and comes up every time you fire, usually against a rather dark background. That is exactly the type of game you'll want to aviod extended periods of durning the inital quick fading phase of a plasma. Though even Gears is fine to play on a new plasma in short spurts as long as you mix up your viewing with other content inbetween. I recently swapped out my old 42" plasma for a 50" model, and Gears is the one game that did cause some slight image retention on the new display. It took some heavy gaming to acomplish that though, and simply running a screensaver over night evened out the wear and had me back to playing Gears the next day without ever seeing any image retention from it again.