I understand what Alex says about indirect lighting, but this game doesn't look too hot with indirect or direct lighting. I think it's great what he says about resolution devs shouldn't have to worry about resolution, just that the game looks good. Is it really native 4k or do some parts have a lower resolution?Thanks
They, hummm, don't look impressive
This is specially, I tought it was photoshoped when I saw someone comparing to LEGO.
yeah, just watched it. really explains so much. I didn't even know they were going with real time lighting and according to Alex that is quite resource heavy. The game should probably look much better at launch then. Thanks again Alex for such an amazing and informative video.
Giving zero pre-explanation and throwing your flagship to the sharks sure wasn't the better alternative.
Yeah, Halo has always had a very 'gamey' look and art design that really runs the risk of looking a bit too "infantile" sci-fi. I think this could've been avoided with more realistic lighting, materials, etc. With what we got, it does look very Lego like, very plasticky.Thanks
They, hummm, don't look impressive
This is specially, I tought it was photoshoped when I saw someone comparing to LEGO.
Yeah like they didn't even bother saying this was on PC WIP, and/or pre alpha etc Sony conference they were extremely clear that 1. Everything was captured on PS5 and labeled a game like R&C as pre alpha.
Making the skin not look like plastic would probably require sub surface scattering and that doesn't come for free. Not saying it's not possible, but they also have to run on an Xbox One still.
Thanks
They, hummm, don't look impressive
This one specially, I tought it was photoshoped when I saw someone comparing to LEGO.
IMHO, what makes it worse is them saying the game was build from the ground-up for Series X literally right after the demo.
Yeah, adding a disclaimer saying "Old Build of Work In Progress game" would have raised awkward questions about exactly why that was all Microsoft were able to show four months before launch (and maybe it's not even that long), but those questions would still be preferable to the awkward questions Microsoft are now fielding about why their first gameplay demo of their flagship product on their new flagship hardware looked pretty underwhelming, and wasn't even running on that flagship hardware.
I think dynamic resolution is absolutely perfect for this, we don't NEED 4k anyway, could do checkerboarding if you keep the 60fps
Yeah but what i don't get is, aren't a lot of these effects switchable in modern engines? Can't the same game have certain graphical features, high LOD models, high res textures be limited too higher spec PCs and series X? I'm definitely the most ignorant person in the internet when it comes to how graphic engines work but i always assumed that you can do all these things. I mean, look at a graphical menu in PCs today, there's so many options and you can get a game look amazing or look like crap. If they made an engine that only allows for a series X to squeeze this visuals then it can't be a good engine.
Yea I agree that they arent that impressive.The blue brute kind of reminds me of Mega Man.Thanks
They, hummm, don't look impressive
This one specially, I tought it was photoshoped when I saw someone comparing to LEGO.
No it isn't. If you want to create an immersive experience fidelity is a huge part of that.
that's subjective though, which is my point. the problem is with the chosen art styling then, not with technical details. all this whinging is a bit annoying when it's not the final product and it's all from a short demo.
A technical discussion about graphics in a thread specifically about that isn't irrelevant.
for sure. but if halo is fun and people are still whining, then idk
Hell yes it would totally reduce the downgrade crap we continually have. Also I see where Sony kind of learned their lesson and only show games further in development which reduced some of the downgrade talk. It would be good to just be transparent about these things.
yeah like what. At this point it's safe to assume they pretty much have PC as their dev kit since all their games are guaranteed to be on PC.
You can, but you are underestimating how much work that is. Art is by far the most manpower any project needs. People might work on a character for weeks. Reducing poly count on characters is relatively easy, because it's not hard surface geometry, but if you want more elaborate shading you also need to adjust the material textures. Lighting artists then need to make sure that all variants work with their lighting setups. On top of that quality assurance would have to test all the variants, management has to sign off on them etc. I can't remember a AAA production which ever did this. It's just out of the question and you make assets that work on the lowest spec platform.
Mannn that's a good fucking point even the Ratchet footage had pre-alpha as a disclaimer
Yep, and that game looks amazing. Imagine what will happen when it gets released.
It reminds me of games in Unreal 4 that have loads of temporal AA. It has that same super soft look to it, where any fine detail is lost in layers of blur.
What made it worse is that it's revealed as what we should expect on the XBSX. That makes it even worse for sure.
For the most part the armor looks like the Halo Wars 2 versions worn in cinematics. If they add some wear and tear and get rid of those silly looking lego-like protrusions I think it'll look pretty good.Thanks
They, hummm, don't look impressive
This one specially, I tought it was photoshoped when I saw someone comparing to LEGO.
I thought they said it was 4k/60? Or maybe that was just misinformation from when people were up in arms about the textures/pop-in/etc.
For the most part the armor looks like the Halo Wars 2 versions worn in cinematics. If they add some wear and tear and get rid of those silly looking lego-like protrusions I think it'll look pretty good.
