Top
550°

Halo 4's graphics engine is redesigned Halo: Reach technology, actually does HD

XMNR: The three Halo first person-games that have been released for the Xbox 360 all ran at sub-HD levels which was disappointing to the graphics focused crowd. According to the information that was leaked on Friday, 343 Industries looks to changed that with Halo 4 and its redesigned engine that sounds like it will finally output the level of graphical polish that many expected with Halo 3 in 2007.

Read Full Story >>
examiner.com
The story is too old to be commented.
Abash2079d ago

Im all excited for Halo 4, but it's kind of pathetic it took 7 years for their to be a 720p Halo game and the article makes it sound like being HD is a big deal when it's been the widely regarded standard since 2005

LOGICWINS2079d ago

I don't see anything pathetic about it really. Most people(probably you even) wouldn't have been able to tell whether or not the most recent Halo games were running in HD unless your were told that was the case.

ProjectVulcan2079d ago (Edited 2079d ago )

Well it did also make the games more noticeably jaggy lacking AA. FXAA can hopefully make it the smoothest and best looking Halo out there. Assumedly this is the last hurrah for the main halo series on the current Xbox so they will want to go out with a bang.

LOGICWINS2079d ago (Edited 2079d ago )

@vulcan- A jaggy looking game isn't enough to determine whether its running in HD or not. Infamous 1 is jaggy as hell, and that supported 720p.

Hence..u can't prove that the jags found in Halo games are solely due to the fact that they lacked HD graphics.

EDIT: Uh oh, said something unfavorable about a PS3 exclusive.. phantom disagrees incoming.

ProjectVulcan2079d ago (Edited 2079d ago )

I didn't think you read my statement. I just said that running in sub HD made the games jaggier more so than if they were 720P. But yes, i could tell that they were sub HD just by looking at them.

I agree most probably could not but i can usually pick them out pretty easily, if they are missing a significant number of pixels below 720p.

The aliasing found in the Halo games for example Halo ODST (80 percent of 720p) is fairly severe and it is a combined result of having no real effective AA and being sub HD.

So finally having full 720P with a good AA method should make this final hurrah on 360 a LOT smoother looking.

SilentNegotiator2079d ago (Edited 2079d ago )

What is pathetic is that Halo 3 was almost solely responsible for Microsoft going completely backwards on its quality standard of native 720p, 2xAA, and now to this day still doesn't have proper AA (as made clear by gameplay videos ( http://www.youtube.com/watc... - 2:40, for example ), and only now reaching actual HD.

And they also used high resolution, lots of AA, bullshots like they did with Reach in early "in-game screenshots"

Reach: http://www.bungie.net/image...
-Definitely a native 1080p shot....that's funny, I remember a very obviously sub-HD game with ugly blur filters (especially towards the beginning when landing the pelicans) that failed to cover jaggies.

Halo 4: http://s2.n4g.com/media/11/...

Solid_Snake372079d ago (Edited 2079d ago )

All halo games still looked excellent graphically. I don't see the point of your whining.

Perjoss2079d ago

"Most people(probably you even) wouldn't have been able to tell whether or not the most recent Halo games were running in HD unless your were told that was the case."

I don't know man, GTA IV looked pretty blocky on the PS3 in 630p.

kaveti66162079d ago (Edited 2079d ago )

@silent negotiator

It's true, they did use bullshot videos when they introduced Reach.

This is what Reach looked like in the premiere trailer. The very first thing to notice is the difference in quality between the helmet visors in the premier trailer and the final build. You'll see a very big drop in sheen and texture resolution. Notice the face models are really well done in the premiere trailer (and different from the final build), the lighting is or appears to be HDR, the ground textures are excellent (in comparison to the final build, at least). Oh and the animations are more weighty and realistic in the trailer.

http://www.youtube.com/watc...

Now look at the final build intro. The fact that both videos are on youtube means you can't point to youtube to discredit my observations (they're on equal ground). Notice that everything has seen a drop in quality, from the helmet to the facial models, even the animations seem floaty. When the premiere trailer aired, I was impressed and believed it to be what the final build would resemble because I trusted Bungie, but was disappointed to see that they pulled a proper bait and switch.

http://www.youtube.com/watc...

You'll have to fast forward this second video to 1:40 mark to see a comparison between the two builds.

Edit: I also noticed that the flora and fauna in the premiere trailer is more abundant and moves around whereas the final build has far less flora and fauna and what little there is is very static and hard to see (poor lighting).

Edit 2: For Chrissakes even the sound is better in the premiere trailer. It's dampened and cheap in the final build.

Edit 3: More dust and particle effects in premiere trailer.

ChronoJoe2079d ago

Who cares? a better framerate is more important than AA or resolution. Especially for a game that wants to be taken seriously, competatively.

If this comes at the expense of framerate then I'll be very dissapointed.

Arnon2079d ago (Edited 2079d ago )

"The very first thing to notice is the difference in quality between the helmet visors in the premier trailer and the final build. You'll see a very big drop in sheen and texture resolution. Notice the face models are really well done in the premiere trailer (and different from the final build), the lighting is or appears to be HDR, the ground textures are excellent (in comparison to the final build, at least). Oh and the animations are more weighty and realistic in the trailer."

1. I saw absolutely no drop in the trailer cutscene versus every cutscene throughout the campaign. It looks just as good. Texture size did not change, unless you're referring to the gameplay vs. a cutscene, in which case so does every other game. Yay for post-processing effects.

2. Face models, lighting, HDR, aliasing, etc. had little to no change. They wanted to make it clear that the cutscenes were not differing much at all from the actual game.

3. "Oh and the animations are more weighty and realistic in the trailer."

This kills your stance on the debate. You're telling me that the animations in the TRAILER were better? Who would've thought that all that extra mo-cap that was done specifically for the cutscenes of the game would look better than the actual game? /sarcasm.

I've played Halo: Reach out the ass, and the fact that you're judging the sound quality off of a youtube video highly discredits your statements.

Halo: Reach is doing exactly what every other game does this day. Their cutscenes are running on the in-game engine, with some post processing effects going on. The game itself however, is unbelievably pretty in terms of it's sheer size and scope. The fact that the game has almost 0 aliasing issues on not only character models, but on micro-detail as well is a testament to the "tricks" that Bungie had to pull to work around the 360's bottleneck. Also, the flora of the game is in fact, VERY abundant.

And yes, I analyzed the shit out of this game just by standing around for moments on end viewing the landscapes and uncovering tiny little graphical hiccups throughout the campaign.

EDIT:

Also, this goes out to anyone debating about what is HD and what isn't; by definition, anything above 480p is classified as HD. Whether it's 720p or 680p or 540p, it's all HD.

kaveti66162079d ago

Helmet from trailer
http://img94.imageshack.us/...

Helmet from final build
http://img209.imageshack.us...

Grass from trailer
http://img14.imageshack.us/...

Grass from final build
http://img819.imageshack.us...

Dust effects from trailer
http://img138.imageshack.us...

Dust effects from final build
http://img854.imageshack.us...

Lighting effects from trailer
http://img407.imageshack.us...

Lighting effects from final build
http://img269.imageshack.us...

Armor details from trailer(now in Reach you can choose your own armor colors so ignore the differences in color and instead focus on the fact that the trailer build has better light reflections and diffusions)
http://img528.imageshack.us...

Armor details from final build
http://img718.imageshack.us...

Reach comrade armor from trailer
http://img684.imageshack.us...

Reach comrade armor from final build (armor details less noticeable)
http://img209.imageshack.us...

Face from trailer
http://img577.imageshack.us...

Face from final build
http://img338.imageshack.us...

Commander face from trailer (nice eye reflections, faces have this sweat sheen that is pretty good though some say plasticky)
http://img827.imageshack.us...

Commander face from final build (this was the closest shot I could get of him, for some reason they changed his appearance and didn't zoom in)
http://img42.imageshack.us/...

Reach shadow and ground from trailer (this one's harder to judge, but look at how the lighting and shadow makes the models more natural to the environment, there's even some rocks or pebbles on the ground to the right, the shadows help to make things appear not only more solid but helps distinguish distances between objects on a 3D plane.)
http://img210.imageshack.us...

Reach shadow and light in final build (notice leg of bungalow)
http://img840.imageshack.us...

I have a few more I can show but I think you get the picture.

CommonSense2079d ago

what's pathetic is that COD has had 7 tries this generation and still can't hit HD. yet, it sells a trillion copies every year.

people just like to pick on halo cuz it's a 360 exclusive and infinitely better than any other FPS on console.

Arnon2079d ago (Edited 2079d ago )

Such subtle differences are somehow equating to massive bullshots. There's hardly any difference between the two. Also, some of the images look different for legitimate reasons:

2 different sets of armor:

http://img94.imageshack.us/...
http://img209.imageshack.us...

http://img528.imageshack.us...
http://img718.imageshack.us...

Kos-Mos2079d ago

That`s a personal attack. How do you know if abash can`t see the difference? No logic, just an opinion.

JokesOnYou2079d ago

Kavetti' lol those are hardly bullshots, trailers of ingame most often always look a bit better then actual game play, honestly you'd have to be pretty picky counting pixels to notice....either way Reach looks and more importantly runs fantastic so I don't see the problem.

BISHOP-BRASIL2079d ago

@Arnon

First off, I'm not disagreeing with you. As far as I am concerned, all I want is to be blown away by Halo 4 story and gameplay as I was by the first Halo, because every Halo after that was kind of a let down for me (although Reach was quite good again).

But just to straigth things up, technically the smallest resolution for it to be considered HD is the old PC XGA 1028x768, which is almost 0.8 megapixel. The most popular in TVs 720p is actually 1280x720, around 0.9 megapixel. Halo 3 runs at 1152x640, which is just a little over 0.7 megapixel.

In the jump between 480i, the "standard definition", and the current HD formats, there were many resolution standards, the most popular one was 480p (which you mistakenly labeled as SD, but progressive scan came later in and technically was never part of the standard broadcasts, although the resolution itself is indeed SD, in a progressive scanning you are actually getting double the pixels per frame, so it was quite a step up), I guess that's what Halo current resolution is instead of HD... It's called Enhanced Definition (ED).

But seriously, people have to drop the attitude, it's not like if it was anywhere near the old gen SD resolutions. A common 4:3 SDTV has a resolution of around 0.3 megapixel (but in reality only 0.15 megapixels per frame if it's 480i), at least 0.6 megapixel behind the today's gaming standard 720p while Halo resolution is behind by less than 0.2 megapixel (not to mention the ton of stuff that comes into having nice graphics beyond resolution).

Septic2079d ago

Indeed.

To be honest I NEVER realised the game was sub HD until very recently. The visuals sure were impressive for Halo 3 and Reach, especially the latter game.

With Halo's unique art direction and improved visual fidelity, we should be in for a treat.

Rageanitus2079d ago (Edited 2079d ago )

it's not just halo..... its console fanboys in general that need to get their eyes CHECKED.... I still remember the days when xbox and ps3 launched and they were raving as to how revolutionary these consoles are gonna be in terms of resolution.... look how that has turned out...

many of these ppl are convinced games are native 1080 p just because it says so on the BOX. Its not only that they quickly put a blind eye as to how superior PC graphics are ..

Having said that... I did have some fun with my xbox and ps3.... much more so on the PS3 though

dantesparda2078d ago

wow, i cant believe people think halo reach is impressive, and anybody who cant tell that the trailer looked alot better than the final build is both blind and a fanboy

RedDead2078d ago (Edited 2078d ago )

Reach is impressive, anyone that's played it fully can attest to it. Of course it ain't as good as the original trailer. Doesn't change anything though, the final game was impressive.

Oh also, the art style is really really great too. The Sky of Reach ios awesome, the colors are great. Space in Reach looks better than Space in every other game..due to the art style

+ Show (16) more repliesLast reply 2078d ago
LOGICWINS2079d ago

Also, if you read the article, you'll notice that the title is actually sarcastic(hence the "actually").

"The three Halo first person-games that have been released for the Xbox 360 all ran at sub-HD levels which was disappointing to the graphics focused crowd. According to the information that was leaked on Friday, 343 Industries looks to changed that with Halo 4 and its redesigned engine that sounds like it will finally output the level of graphical polish that many expected with Halo 3 in 2007."

The author is making fun of the fact that it took THIS long for a Halo game to support 720p.

Soldierone2079d ago

"Sub-HD" still makes me laugh. Either its HD or not. Do you think camera makers can go to a film studio and say "don't worry its 'Sub HD"' and get away with it?

CGI-Quality2079d ago

You get disagrees for more than just your usual off-topic remarks about Sony products in unrelated articles. I agree that jaggies don't prove HD/sub-HD, but if you're going to sport the word "logic" in your name, try to use it without such a condescending / defensive attitude.

OT: I'm liking what I'm hearing. I hope they push the system as to go beyond what's already been done (Gears of War 3 being the best recent example of what the 360 can do).

Muffins12232079d ago

It is a big deal for a game with graphics like that on a console!

Intentions2079d ago

Yeah I don't find it pathetic at all. Even when it was sub-HD, it still looked good and at the time. In some ways it looks better than most games (then).

Kahvipannu2079d ago

Hmmm.. HD is kinda big deal, this gen consoles have strugled to output decent HD-graphics out, and it's good to see MS is using the money they have made with the franchise to improve the game, if I compare to, yes, Activision, who doesn't give a crap what comes out..

Gamer19822079d ago

We shall see though if they do hit 720p something else will have to give. Unless they spend many years on this game polishing it to make it perfect of course which they are not doing.

trancefreak2078d ago

Reach was one funnest co op games I have played with my kid. The Video graphics were quality and never distracted me from the fun I had with my kid. Their were was that occasional frame drop which a lot of console games get but not enough to make unplayable.

Halo 4 is in my hit list.

+ Show (4) more repliesLast reply 2078d ago
Abash2079d ago (Edited 2079d ago )

Damn took long for my post to show so I pressed it the button again and it double posted -_-

CHARLIEBROWNE2079d ago

Too much talk not enough umm well anything else .

StrongMan2079d ago

HD has been an industry standard for 6 years now. What took so long?

dazreah2079d ago

And yet a hell of a lot of games this gen are not including other 360 and ps3 exclusives.

Gamer19822079d ago

That's true its why I actually buy games on my PC now over console if they are graphically beautiful of course. I don't buy a game for graphics but games like Arkham City and Mass Effect 3 which I bought(am aware its not exclusive) have to be played on a PC in 1080p as it looks soooo good compared to console versions. Did the same for fallout games which not only looked better (especially with mods) but had home made addons to make the game experience better.

Saying that Uncharted 3 looked amazing and was HD even though not full HD.

superrey192079d ago

Yea when you compare multi plats on PC running at 1080p its kinda hard to go back to consoles cuz the lower res and graphics is really noticeable. Like you said though, console exclusives like uncharted 2 and red dead redemption really impressed me.

lategamer2079d ago

Having the game be sub-HD was a compromise for Bungie. It being Sub-HD let them have better lighting effects, etc. Look at Halo 3, at the time rarely any other console game had HDR. The lighting in that game is beautiful.

Smashbro292079d ago

Wait a sec... Halo 3 and Wars wasn't in HD? That's impressive.

Smashbro292079d ago

Still. That's pretty impressive that they made a 480p game look that good.

GameOn2079d ago

I think its closer to 640p

Gamer19822079d ago

Look that good really? Have you played a game on PC like battlefield 3 in 1080p? Then you can say what looks good. Halo 3 didn't look good at all really. Then again there wasn't too much detail so I guess it was easy to slap on lots of AA which they did to make it look better.

Lucretia2079d ago

actually does hd?

lol....did they just dismiss all other halo's as being sub HD.......i wonder how the hardcore halo fans feel about that.

anyway game will be awesome, hope the multiplayer is as fun as 3 and 2's :)

Show all comments (73)
The story is too old to be commented.