All of this is your assumption. No one blatantly said this.
2 Likes
Then you have Morrowind where you can jump across the continent if you go hard on the game mechanics.
2 Likes
So the conversation hasnāt been about aspects that HI supposedly does better than HZ2 on a technical level so far? People donāt have to blatantly say things for me to understand the point they are trying to make.
BTW I donāt care if anyone believes that, everyone is entitled to their opinion. Iām just saying that conversation has no place at this forum.
That was said to make & support a point that YOU yourself also pointed out
" since no two exclusives have the same demands, budgets, development environment, goals, etc "
That there are things Halo has to account for in its game design that would limit their visual fidelity like that, while the opposite for Horizon. I didnāt see him say Halo > Horizon just like that.
When things are described as āworseā on one game than another, itās not just to highlight the different development environments and conditions. This is especially true when so many assumptions are made of games weāve seen so little of. Again someone doesnāt have to blatantly say Halo > Horizon for me to get the point. Leave it off of these forums, thatās all Iām saying. It should be that hard to understand nor something someone should be so bothered by.
This called reaching.
Tell me how ANY of this points to what I said before about exclusives having different development environments?
It screams cross gen as well, and in many ways even worse than what we are seeing in HI tech wise.
HI is delivering a similar level of asset fidelity, when the scenes are much higher in scope (All the HZ2 footage thus far artificially limits your field of view, and going by the first, the truly open areas were the least flattering to the game visually), with more npcs and vehicles at twice the framerate (at least when targeting 4k)
ā¦
All those technical aspects that HI is doing above HZ2.
This is called you need to drop it and understand the point Iām making. This is all opinions and assumptions on games we have seen little about. Leave the unnecessary console exclusive comparisons off these forums. Itās crazy how some of you are so willing to talk back when moderation tries to keep these threads on topic.
Halo 5 at the time it released was not well received for its visuals since it really lacked polish on the technical side of things. Halo 4 was astonishing visually, but as you noted the environments were tiny and not very interactive and some of the enemy designs didnāt really convey info to players the way they should have despite looking incredibly detailed.
With Infinite, it is helpful to remember how folks reacted to the MP reveal vidās visuals vs playing it themselves. Lots of the details are packed into the textures and lighting that arenāt obvious until you can get up close and personal with the game, so keep that in mind. I bet when we are playing Infinite the art design choices land more effectively than they do in trailers you passively watch thru YouTube compression. 
1 Like
Weāll wait for him to explain himself
Donāt know about that. The game looked so clean and still to this day looks good. It was impressive at the time that it was locked 60fps basically all the time.
I donāt need an explanation, the point heās trying to make is rather obvious with the first quote and that was a rhetorical question anyways. Iām asking you all to keep it off this forum. So letās move on.
Anytime you trace light paths through translucent or transparent materials it should be refracted automatically unless the materials arenāt being tagged in the engine, so less of a āuse case decisionā than it is letting RT do what it always does in scenes with refraction (since caustics are just refractions of the light).
Today it looks clean and great due to it being optimized for X1X and X|S consoles. On release the IQ was really rough and jaggies were super distracting.
I think he might have been referring to things like obviously low framerate animation on npcs at mid to long range, not so much the resolution and general framerate.
When discussing Halo 5, I wouldnāt say it lacked polish, more so they made 60fps a priority at the detriment of other elements. It was certainly rough on the 1S with the low texture filtering, half rate animations, aggressive LODs, low render resolution, etc. Unfortunately only a few of these things were addressed in the 1X update. Animations are still half rate too often, LODs still aggressively pop in, and the texture quality can be questionable at time. With the crap CPUs and weak 1S GPU, itās understandable why they made the compromises they made. Itās a fine looking 60fps shooter but they have clearly made a lot of improvements with HI. Itās also telling that HI looks to be targeting 30fps on last gen consoles and for good reason.
Oh yeah in retrospect it makes sense. I just never thought of water caustics when thinking of where to use RT.
wouldnāt blame you as accurate caustics is largely ignored by most offline rendering solutions outside archviz cuz using both conventional RT and Photon Mapping have turned out to be rather inefficient/super expensive. So it was interesting to see it not just being done in realtime rendering but also using RT in this game. Still not sure how accurate the caustics are tho.
Corona (and other similar renderers meant for Archviz like Vray, LuxRender, etc) have some cool solutions!
I think you are missing their point a bit here. Their point is about the role of the gameās art design. Haloās is built to reinforce playability moreso than to make a strong visual impression. This is a lesson 343 learned after Halo 4 and they shifted to 60fps as a result of recognizing the importance of playability even if it comes at the expense of asset fidelity.
In HFW we absolutely can say that the art design comes at the expense of playability in some areas of the game since that has been demonstrated already, with footage showing super dense settings that the player character and other characters in the scenes can easily get lost in (visually I mean). Thatās why they had to add in the hero lighting on Alloy to try helping with playability.And that is fine since the priorities are different. One game is a visual showcase title and the other is all about playability as its top priority. It is not controversial to point this out.
What info did the players want exactly? From my playthrough the Knights have big glowing circles on their sides to indicate a weak point. Watchers acted as moving shields and granade reflectors so they where always priority. Jackals had the shoot through their shield opening weakness, everything else had the same weakness as every other Halo game which was shoot it on head. Was there something more that we needed to know?
Thatās not what was being pointed out though, especially when itās said more than once that HI is technically above HZ2. That is a blatant comparison meant to prop one game up at the expense of another. And we still have not seen the proper scope of HZ2, so itās still premature. Regardless of all of this, that conversation is better suited for twitter than these forums. It shouldnāt be hard to understand.
Players need to be able to know what vehicles, weapons, structures and weapons are in a scene at a quick glance in Halo since all of those elements play into the gameās sandbox decision making. This means seeing this stuff even from mid-far range. They want players to be able to look over a ledge into a valley w/an encampment several hundred meters away and be able to see that there are different types of brutes, where the jackals are, what vehicles are where, etc. so they can plan their approach. This is really important for having good encounter design in the game and something 343 has not always taken good consideration of. Bungie emphasized it greatly in Halo 3ās vidocs back in the day.
So yesā¦there is more to Haloās combat loop and broader sandbox than ājust shoot it in the headā. lol
What I noted is what the person you had quoted was saying.