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

Status
Not open for further replies.
22psi said:
I really think 10MB edram is the culprit. It just isn't large enough. MS should have included enough edram for a nice 1280x720p with 2x AA resolution without tiling.
Click to expand...

And sell the X360 for $500/600 and get lackluster sales? As getting it to $400 has already resulted in cutting a bit too many corners (RRoD)...

I think it's much better this way. The majority of their customers wouldn't even understand the issue here, far from caring about it. A lot of people probably play it on 42" plasmas at 1024*768 with distorted pixels...
 
You Owe me 20% more pixels!

It really is 20% less pixels though. I don't see how they can brush it off as nothing. And no AA to boot.

Halo3 is such a big first party title. You would sort of expect that the Xbox360 was built with a game like Halo3 in mind. But I guess not. Anyway, I hope this doesn't start a trend.
 
inefficient said:
It really is 20% less pixels though. I don't see how they can brush it off as nothing. And no AA to boot.

Halo3 is such a big first party title. You would sort of expect that the Xbox360 was built with a game like Halo3 in mind. But I guess not. Anyway, I hope this doesn't start a trend.
Click to expand...

The trend already exists on both sides of the "next gen" fence. This really isnt anything new.
 
How good is the lighting in this game? In the videos I have seen the lighting looks decent but nothing special. I don't think it was worth giving up AA.
 
Just played this for the first time tonight. I dunno, maybe all the negative comments prepared me to expect the worst, but I actually really like the lighting. I played thru the whole first level (the jungle area) and the lighting looks very natural. It didn't stand out as wrong or overdone as it so often does in other games. I think they did a very nice job of it. Screen shots don't really tell the tale, you need to see the game in motion on a proper tv.

I say 'proper tv' because I suspect peoples tv's will make a huge difference as to how they perceive the graphics. I admit, I hate lcd tv's, they always look very harsh and unnatural to me. We already had a 50" Panasonic plasma which we love, and had tried a 'high quality' lcd afterwards. I hated it, returned it and got another plasma. I think plasma just gives a much more natural picture and preserves detail better especially for video games where you can have some dark areas on screen that need to keep their detail, but often end up all black on lcd's.

For those that hate the lighting in Halo 3, I'd be interested in knowing what type of tv they have.
 
joker454 said:
Just played this for the first time tonight. I dunno, maybe all the negative comments prepared me to expect the worst, but I actually really like the lighting. I played thru the whole first level (the jungle area) and the lighting looks very natural. It didn't stand out as wrong or overdone as it so often does in other games. I think they did a very nice job of it. Screen shots don't really tell the tale, you need to see the game in motion on a proper tv.

I say 'proper tv' because I suspect peoples tv's will make a huge difference as to how they perceive the graphics. I admit, I hate lcd tv's, they always look very harsh and unnatural to me. We already had a 50" Panasonic plasma which we love, and had tried a 'high quality' lcd afterwards. I hated it, returned it and got another plasma. I think plasma just gives a much more natural picture and preserves detail better especially for video games where you can have some dark areas on screen that need to keep their detail, but often end up all black on lcd's.

For those that hate the lighting in Halo 3, I'd be interested in knowing what type of tv they have.
Click to expand...

Just wait til you get to the 3rd level 'Tsavo Highway'. The HDR in place is jaw dropping.
 
So I guess going by Bungie's explanation, we can now conclude that Killzone is rendering @ 2880p? :LOL:

Anyway I asked the GameSpot editors where they got their Halo 3 screenshots from, and the response I got was " Sometimes screenshots are publisher-provided, sometimes we take our own."
 
MJP said:
So I guess going by Bungie's explanation, we can now conclude that Killzone is rendering @ 2880p? :LOL:
Click to expand...
For a minute there I thought you were trolling, but maybe your point is Bungie's definition? If they can call there's 1280 pixels of vertical resolution because they use 2 buffers, KZ2 using multiple buffers can post the aggregate resolution too. Yep, that'd be a preposterous claim! That seems like a 'diffusion' remark to me, but it's probably warranted. Some folk are going to be kicking up a stink, and in layman's terms Bungie want to get across the idea that their game is doing 'twice the work' for each pixel you see, as it were, and then give people a number to bandy about as some folk just compare numbers.
 
Why bring KZ2 into this. It has nothing to do with H3 and the statement adds little to the thread. To be perfectly honest the game looks good to very good on my Panasonic Plasma, in fact certain areas are touching on gears quality. I'm not seeing a great amount of jaggies but I do see shimmering, or what ever technical term you have for it. And the lighting is the best I have seen in any game so far by quite a margin. Further I still come to the point that all of this should be taken into context, Halo3 has massive open areas with 20 plus characters on screen, pause the game and fly around some are levels are massive, it really can't be compared with graphical big hitters because its doing so more in the sense of scale.
 
Pugger said:
Why bring KZ2 into this. It has nothing to do with H3 and the statement adds little to the thread. To be perfectly honest the game looks good to very good on my Panasonic Plasma, in fact certain areas are touching on gears quality. I'm not seeing a great amount of jaggies but I do see shimmering, or what ever technical term you have for it. And the lighting is the best I have seen in any game so far by quite a margin. Further I still come to the point that all of this should be taken into context, Halo3 has massive open areas with 20 plus characters on screen, pause the game and fly around some are levels are massive, it really can't be compared with graphical big hitters because its doing so more in the sense of scale.
Click to expand...

I think you're missing the point.
It's just that this new announcement from Bungie regarding the resolution could suddenly open up a whole new can of worms.
Personally, I'd say no matter what, what we see is what we get.
640p with no AA is 640p with no AA. The lower resolution and the lack of AA were traded off for superior HDR+LDR lighting. That's the whole story.

Anything else is starting to seem like marketing vocabulary to me.

I'm oversimplifying things, but I guess this is what you have to do if we have to take into consideration the other ways games render their images.
 
Pugger said:
Why bring KZ2 into this.
Click to expand...
Because the Bizarre spokesman was suggesting that multiple render buffers can be represented by a sort of aggregate resolution. KZ2 is raised as an example of another title that uses aggregate buffers. The example is there to discredit the Bungiepoint that you can argue they give 1280p vertical resolution because they're rendering two 640p buffers. If that is a valid metric, KZ2 can be measured as 2880p (going by MJP's numbers) which I'm sure we all regard as preposterous, so we can thus conclude the idea of H3 being a '1280p' render is an argument that ends in the negative. Although the KZ2 buffers aren't full buffers. We don't know what exactly Bungie are rendering, and it could be they are actually rendering the whole screen twice. But that would be extremely weird and inefficient!
 
kyleb said:
Rectangular pixels don't distort anything. The aspect ratio is preserved, the images are just scaled anamorphically.
Click to expand...

It'll do bad things to the jaggies, though. See, the game is rendered at 1138*640, gets rescaled to 1280*720, then rescaled again to 1024*768, so the aliasing should be even worse then on other screens.
 
Q: If you hook up the 360 to the plasma tv with the VGA cable, and you select the actual native resolution (many are 1024x768), do you get worse or better picture quality :?: (it's scaling whatever rendering resolution to the VGA cable's selected output in one step) But then the "vga cable" assumes square pixels, right?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top