Halo 4 engine downgrades

[antwan]

I was reading a lot of hyperbole in the Halo 4 thread. While I do believe the game's aesthetic is a big step up from previous Halo titles, I fail to see how any of this is a technical accomplishment, if at all.
In the case of many technical masterpieces (from competing platforms I might add), it is often said that the technology of those is "nothing special", it has "often been done before", and so on. The conclusion is often that the graphics are only great because of the art, and not because of the technical skill of the developer.

So why is it that Halo4 gets all this praise from those same people?

Let's be honest here. If we look at the game tech-wise, it is abig downgradefrom previous Halo games.
I know the engine is new and all that, but let's do a comparison:

from the previous Halo games, the following is missing:
-no more HDR, the lighting appears really clipped
-no more velocity based object motion blur
-the water is severely downgraded as well, missing is the interaction and the tessellation.
-the textures appear to have taken a big hit (see the vidoc2 at around 2:21, I had to double check to see if the youtube video didn't accidentally default to 320p)
-the godrays appear fake (ie 2D), although it's possible that this was also the case with older Halo titles. (maybe it's because newer games use real godrays that the 2d variety stands out so much).

while they improved on:
-increased the horizontal resolution by 128 pixels
-.....?
-art

They still render at 30 frames per second, and the environments still lack detail. so no improvement there either.
I thought they might have improved on the shadows, but also in this department the new engine is still lacking: the shadows are either baked, or not correct with relation to the light source.
I am purely talking about the realtime footage. The pre-rendered screens or cgi cutscenes don't count of course.

The game is not yet final, but I don't expect an engine upgrade this late in the development cycle. I agree that the game is art-wise, the best looking Halo yet. But from a technical perspective it is a severe downgrade, as I have demonstrated.

Unless I am missing something?

p.s. I didn't post this in the game thread because I don't want to confront the fans of the game with these technical observations.

 

[Graham]

downgrades + upgrades = tradeoffs

 

[antwan]

downgrades + upgrades = tradeoffs

in this case it appears the only upgrade is a 128pixel (10-11%) resolution increase. To me that is a really big tradeoff.

 

[ShadowWolf64]

I was reading a lot of hyperbole in the Halo 4 thread. While I do believe the game's aesthetic is a big step up from previous Halo titles, I fail to see how any of this is a technical accomplishment, if at all.
In the case of many technical masterpieces (from competing platforms I might add), it is often said that the technology of those is "nothing special", it has "often been done before", and so on. The conclusion is often that the graphics are only great because of the art, and not because of the technical skill of the developer.

So why is it that Halo4 gets all this praise from those same people?

Let's be honest here. If we look at the game tech-wise, it is abig downgradefrom previous Halo games.
I know the engine is new and all that, but let's do a comparison:

from the previous Halo games, the following is missing:
-no more HDR, the lighting appears really clipped
-no more velocity based object motion blur
-the water is severely downgraded as well, missing is the interaction and the tessellation.
-the textures appear to have taken a big hit (see the vidoc2 at around 2:21, I had to double check to see if the youtube video didn't accidentally default to 320p)
-the godrays appear fake (ie 2D), although it's possible that this was also the case with older Halo titles. (maybe it's because newer games use real godrays that the 2d variety stands out so much).

while they improved on:
-increased the horizontal resolution by 128 pixels
-.....?
-art

They still render at 30 frames per second, and the environments still lack detail. so no improvement there either.
I thought they might have improved on the shadows, but also in this department the new engine is still lacking: the shadows are either baked, or not correct with relation to the light source.
I am purely talking about the realtime footage. The pre-rendered screens or cgi cutscenes don't count of course.

The game is not yet final, but I don't expect an engine upgrade this late in the development cycle. I agree that the game is art-wise, the best looking Halo yet. But from a technical perspective it is a severe downgrade, as I have demonstrated.

Unless I am missing something?

p.s. I didn't post this in the game thread because I don't want to confront the fans of the game with these technical observations.

+Halo 4 runs at a native 72p resolution unlike Halo 3, ODST and Reach.Nice upgrade in that regard.

+ FXAA is a much better solution than the Temporal AA used in Reach which produced alot of ghosting etc.Everything will be much cleaner and sharper allowing us to see the details a bit better.


Halo 4's lighting is just as good as H3's without needing to use Bungie's very hardware taxing HDR implementation.In developing smarter, it has allowed 343I to produce a much better looking game then H3 and Reach by a good margin.Halo 4 is getting alot of praise for its graphics because the game does look oustanding from a visual perspective..I've seen plenty of H4 gameplay video's in HD and definitely see a very nice texture quality increase and not a decrease that you are suggesting.

In regards to the cut-scene's, they are done in real-time using the H4 engine and definitely aren't CG..All in all, H4 is shaping up to easily one of the best looking games of this console generation.

 

[Devious]

-the textures appear to have taken a big hit (see the vidoc2 at around 2:21, I had to double check to see if the youtube video didn't accidentally default to 320p)

I watched the Vidoc and the gameplay footage was from Halo: CEA.

 

[Magnus]

- polycount
- animations
- AA filter
- shadow
- lighting (is really special imo)

 

[antwan]

I watched the Vidoc and the gameplay footage was from Halo: CEA.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9jsCP9AdKmk < you can see it here on 2:20

Halo 4's lighting is just as good as H3's without needing to use Bungie's very hardware taxing HDR implementation.

it can't be just as good if it is non existent, with regards to HDR that is.
You might have a preference to clipped, non-HDR lighting in the same way that a lot of people prefer black-crush. But still "just as good" has nothing to do with technology

Why do people keep insisting everywhere that Halo games use tessellation for water ? I've seen people mention it a lot, it's not true ! Also previous halo games didn't have sun shafts ('God rays').
As for the object motion blur, it never really stood out in Halo because it'd only get applied to objects close to the edges of the screen.

They've done improvements in framebuffer (resolution + FXAA), animation, shadows, polycount and lighting.

Even the first Halo game had sun shafts. About the tessellation: playing around in the water in H3, and analysing it in the replay theatre; you could clearly see the water was 'polygonal' I don't think that it could be possible without tessellation because the water would need to made out of millions of polygons.
From the released footage, there is no improvement in the shadow department. The lighting is a downgrade, so that leaves polycount and animation. If true, then the polygon count could be because of technical improvements (removing past limits), but nothing shown can support the claim that the games uses more polygons now. Animation is part of art.
If FXAA is an improvement remains to be seen. IMO Reach was really clean and I didn't notice any ghosting outside of the early beta

 

[nightshade]

Why do people keep insisting everywhere that Halo games use tessellation for water ? I've seen people mention it a lot, it's not true ! Also previous halo games didn't have sun shafts ('God rays').
As for the object motion blur, it never really stood out in Halo because it'd only get applied to objects close to the edges of the screen.

They've done improvements in framebuffer (resolution + FXAA), animation, shadows, polycount and lighting.

 

[Devious]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9jsCP9AdKmk < you can see it here on 2:20

Oh, I was watching the one Halo Waypoint uploaded. Theirs is timed a bit different than the one you posted.

 

[XpiderMX]

Halo 4 looks A LOT better than Reach

.

 

[antwan]

Oh, I was watching the one Halo Waypoint uploaded. Theirs is timed a bit different than the one you posted.

No problem, the one I posted has low bitrate though, but the texture resolution is apparent still.

The micro texturing (or shader?) could still be there, but it's possible that the encoding destroys it.

Still, I am not claiming the game is bad looking. It looks wonderful, while still retaining the Halo feel. I believe that in itself is one of the biggest achievements.

 

[Ruskie]

So...can you tell me where did they mention dropping HDR, or show me example from the game itself.

 

[Rangers]

Halo 3

Halo 4

I dont see any contest, looks almost like another gen (like the pic a gaffer posted of COD2 from early 360 days vs Black Ops 2 today, also almost generational difference)

Of course Halo 3 defined "An Xbox (one) game in HD" for me, one of the worst looking games of the gen. Whereas Halo 4 is one of the best so, yeah. Reach is kind of a mid-step between the two. Closer to 4 though, and good looking game imo.

One of the worst things about Halo 3 is the (very important, omnipresent) gun models. Look at the DMR type rifle on the Halo 3 vid (one spot you can see it is 1:19). It looks so flat, dark, and just bad compared to any model in 4. Since you are staring at your weapon all the time in a FPS, that is a gigantic deal.

Another thing you can do is play Reach or Anniversary for a while, at least an hour, then pop Halo 3 in directly after. You will be amazed at how bad and last-gen it looks.

Even Halo 3's much ballyhooed lighting is often actually very harsh and artificial in the sunny/desert levels, not pretty,

 

[(((interference)))]

Yeah Halo 3 was, in terms of visuals, a huge disappointment from Bungie.

343 really looks to have knocked it out of the park with 4 though, it really does look like a generational leap, i'm still amazed at how they've managed to make it look significantly better than even Reach.

 

[BoardBonobo]

I was quite disappointed by Halo 3, the lighting, the static skies, and low res were almost enough to put me off completely. The only reason I have a 360 is to play Halo. Reach was pretty good though and Halo 4, even if it is missing a few things looks to be shaping up to be the best looking 360 game this gen. It's like the Resistance 3 making up for Resistance 2, in this case 4 makes good what went wrong with 3.

 

[Turok]

I was quite disappointed by Halo 3, the lighting, the static skies, and low res were almost enough to put me off completely. The only reason I have a 360 is to play Halo. Reach was pretty good though and Halo 4, even if it is missing a few things looks to be shaping up to be the best looking 360 game this gen. It's like the Resistance 3 making up for Resistance 2, in this case 4 makes good what went wrong with 3.

Whoa there, Halo 3 had fantastic lighting.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-odst-tech-analysis-article?page=2

Look at the first video from the 20 second mark and pay close attention to the exploding vehicle and the light it casts on the plasma rifle. Yeah, I know it's ODST, but the lighting model is mostly the same.

 

[N2O]

But it's upgrade

 

[dragonelite]

But it's upgrade

General public says its the 360 swan song last big bang before next gen.

 

[Turok]

http://www.gamespot.com/halo-4/vide...6937/?tag=Topslot;Halo4;HowToKillPrometheansW

Look at the environment textures in this video. Maybe it's a streaming issue (or texture filtering issue), but some of them look really bad.

Hell, Halo Anniversary looks better, texture-wise, in this footage.

 

[N2O]

The video is blurred even i use 720p