Support NeoGAF

[Thrakier]

I hate how in most games it's a flat green texture and then like a patch or two of grass here and there. Kameo (which was an Xbox 360 launch title) still has some of the most impressive grass this generation IMO, huge fields of long grass.

Please, check out my thread:

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?p=14630228

 

[DarkChild]

Don't forget Rare.

Rare have done wonders with the 360 hardware, and they've done it from launch.

Having said that, the engines Bungie have used for all the Halo games HAVE done some amazing stuff not many others do. The problem is, most of that stuff was shit no one notices, cares about, or really adds to the experience.

For example. All mountains and terrain in the distance in Halo games are actually rendered with real geometry. Why? What's the point in doing that?

Yea, Rare did great stuff at beginning of a gen, too bad MS put them at Kinect helm.

Bungie has problem of old engine. They used same engine from Halo 2 to Reach, yea, you can update it, but there is a reason why they are building new one. You can see that they said in interview they didn't have parallel CPU renderer, so there goes alot of performances.

AFAIK alot of developers do that with mountains. Even in BLOPS and they are 60fps.

 

[ProfessorMoran]

Have you seen character shadows in 99% of Xbox 360/PS3 games? They would look better as blobs. They're awful.

So Santa Monica should be commended for other shitty games having shitty character shadows? Why don't we set the bar even lower while we're at it?

Don't forget Rare.

Rare have done wonders with the 360 hardware, and they've done it from launch.

Having said that, the engines Bungie have used for all the Halo games HAVE done some amazing stuff not many others do. The problem is, most of that stuff was shit no one notices, cares about, or really adds to the experience.

For example. All mountains and terrain in the distance in Halo games are actually rendered with real geometry. Why? What's the point in doing that?

The point is they can, and they don't want to put just a fake-ass texture there.

 

[Theonik]

So Bungie is looking into making HD games now? Cool.
/jk

 

[ProfessorMoran]

Yea, Rare did great stuff at beginning of a gen, too bad MS put them at Kinect helm.

Bungie has problem of old engine. They used same engine from Halo 2 to Reach, yea, you can update it, but there is a reason why they are building new one. You can see that they said in interview they didn't have parallel CPU renderer, so there goes alot of performances.

AFAIK alot of developers do that with mountains. Even in BLOPS and they are 60fps.

They didn't have to before, it's not like they were working with the PS3 before and had to deal with distributing work to 6 spus.

Reach had basically the best lighting solution on the 360 until Epic released Gears 3, not sure why their tech should be shat on so much.

 

[DarkChild]

They didn't have to before, it's not like they were working with the PS3 before and had to deal with distributing work to 6 spus.

Reach had basically the best lighting solution on the 360 until Epic released Gears 3, not sure why their tech should be shat on so much.

Who says you shouldnt go parallel with 360? You CAN go old way, but you can go like DICE went.

No, Crytek and R* have better lighting solutions than both of them, especially Gears 3. Gears 3 does use lighting very nice, but its certainly not most advanced one.

 

[MrPliskin]

I'm always entertained when people suggest that baked environment lighting is somehow "cheating" and any other merits should be ignored.

If nothing else, it just shows that they have zero understanding of the technical side of engine development, and simply regurgitate buzzwords they've learned on NeoGAF while they desperately try to fit in with the other 'connoisseurs' of visual aesthetics.

 

[Rufus]

I'm always entertained when people suggest that baked environment lighting is somehow "cheating" and any other merits should be ignored.

If nothing else, it just shows that they have zero understanding of the technical side of engine development, and simply regurgitate buzzwords they've learned on NeoGAF while they desperately try to fit in with the other 'connoisseurs' of visual aesthetics.

Eh. There's certainly some of that, but I think there are people who know their tech too who have similar sentiments. It's just that for them, real time rendering/calculating of everything is the holy grail. I can understand that kind of purism, even though I know next to nothing regarding graphics technology.

 

[Nirolak]

I think the MMO stuff was incredibly obvious efter they signed a decade long deal with a single publisher for a single IP.

(Also a friend visited last year and saw some stuff for it, and said it was very online focused, but wouldnt use the MMO term)

They're also hiring people like Economy Designers: http://www.bungie.net/Inside/aboutus.aspx#25100

Economy Designer

It’s the economy, stupid! Drive players to invest in our game economy by analyzing the subtleties of behavioral economics and pondering the pitfalls of specialization and free trade. Theorize why people make irrational economic choices and use the tricks you’ve learned to ensure players only make the irrational choices you want them to. Create an economic system that will fulfill a player’s needs just as much as shooting an alien in the face.

The Economy Designer at Bungie will develop a robust and rewarding game economy that drives player behavior toward intended goals and validate those systems through intense simulation, testing and iteration. You’ll design the systems and mechanics which drive in-game trade, satisfy the players’ need for possessions and wealth whilst ensuring rewards retain their intended value despite attempts to exploit or grief the system. You will determine what data is necessary to mine, ensure we have all of the hooks necessary to gather that data, and come up with all of the interesting metrics and questions we should ask of that data. You will run simulations of these mechanics based on expected player behavior and test these simulated results against actual player behavior; tuning the live system accordingly.
Required Skills

-Degree in Economics and/or professional working experience with online game economies.
-Deep understanding of the social, cognitive, and emotional factors that drive behavior.
-Excellent math and analytical skills.
-Ability to model complex economic systems and command of Excel.
-Outstanding organizational and communication skills.
-Strong drive for excellence.
-Ability to work well in a collaborative team environment under deadlines.
-A strong desire to translate your passion and talent into a vibrant and rewarding gaming experience for players.

Edit:

Actually, they have a ton of new job postings.

I think I'll distill this and make a thread later analyzing what new information we have if I find enough.

 

[ProfessorMoran]

Who says you shouldnt go parallel with 360? You CAN go old way, but you can go like DICE went.

No, Crytek and R* have better lighting solutions than both of them, especially Gears 3. Gears 3 does use lighting very nice, but its certainly not most advanced one.

DICE had to because they have to work with the PS3.

What exactly did Cryteck and R* did with their lighting that Bungie didn't?

 

[ProfessorMoran]

I'm always entertained when people suggest that baked environment lighting is somehow "cheating" and any other merits should be ignored.

If nothing else, it just shows that they have zero understanding of the technical side of engine development, and simply regurgitate buzzwords they've learned on NeoGAF while they desperately try to fit in with the other 'connoisseurs' of visual aesthetics.

Take it easy. Did people who like dynamic lighting run over your dog in their pick-up or something?

They don't have to suggest it's "somehow" cheating, it is cheating. Everything is a basically a hack, there are obviously better hacks than others, baked lighting has its uses in spots, with maybe the exception of Mirror's Edge, it just doesn't look very realistic or very good in outdoor environments, or in cases where dynamic light sources or dynamic objects are being used.

 

[RooMHM]

Worst post of 2012, so far.....

You just topped me no?

 

[Anuxinamoon]

Regarding baked shadows:
As long as the end result looks good, it doesn't matter how many cheats it took to get it there, hence why baked shadows are so popular for certain game play environments; they look good at half the cost. Cutting costs in one place allows more room to be devoted to other things, like more actors on screen, more draw calls or a higher frame rate. And depending on the game play you need to cater for, pre-baked usually wins out over full real time lighting.

In the case of why can't people steal flowers grass tech to use in game X. While I have yet to play Flower (for shame); I would bet that the amount of other calculations found in most other heavy action games are lower in Flower, allowing them more free space to devote to other visual aspects. Or perhaps they prioritized that moving grass was a needed effect to promote game play. This would have bumped it higher up in the list to get more love.
Compare this, to say a fast paced action game. Where moving, flowing grass would get less attention as it is not a focus point of the core game play mechanics.

I was happy to hear this:

we have about 65 or 70 percent of the time devoted to coding. The rest of the 30 to 35 percent is spent talking to the artist, educating the content people how to properly use the tools, and gathering feedback into what needs to be changed.

Making great tech is one thing, but if your artists can't utilize the tech and make content efficiently and easily then its pretty much a waste. Sometimes to the extent that tools would go unused, ending up with wasted man hours.

Nice article. I wish them luck with their next title.

 

[StuBurns]

Take it easy. Did people who like dynamic lighting run over your dog in their pick-up or something?

They don't have to suggest it's "somehow" cheating, it is cheating. Everything is a basically a hack, there are obviously better hacks than others, baked lighting has its uses in spots, with maybe the exception of Mirror's Edge, it just doesn't look very realistic or very good in outdoor environments, or in cases where dynamic light sources or dynamic objects are being used.

It's just a case of how you value that trade off. The amazing HDR lighting of Halo 3 is impressive, but the game looks like you're playing it in a porn movie, it's really unpleasant to me. Reach has lots of those very pretty combat effects, and things blow up very nice, but it has horrible ghosting and bad IQ. Some people are going to think the trade offs Bungie made are for the best, some people will disagree, I personally disagree. I think Reach looks fine, but when compared to something like KZ2 it's night and day in visual quality for me.

 

[Glix]

A high resolution, good anti-aliasing with transparency sampling to clean up foliage and what have you, and anisotropic filtering do wonders for games, in terms of raw rendering moreso than anything else in my opinion. So I'm all for pushing those things harder on the next generation of console and rendering technology.

I was actually shocked that GT5 shipped with shadows the way they were. It sounds insane, but it ruined the game for me. Consistency in graphics is the MOST important thing.

 

[ProfessorMoran]

Regarding baked shadows:
As long as the end result looks good, it doesn't matter how many cheats it took to get it there, hence why baked shadows are so popular for certain game play environments; they look good at half the cost. Cutting costs in one place allows more room to be devoted to other things, like more actors on screen, more draw calls or a higher frame rate. And depending on the game play you need to cater for, pre-baked usually wins out over full real time lighting.

One could make a case for baked shadows but in today's games where there are many more moving and/or destructable objects and dynamic light sources, baked shadows just don't give results that look as good.

It's just a case of how you value that trade off. The amazing HDR lighting of Halo 3 is impressive, but the game looks like you're playing it in a porn movie, it's really unpleasant to me. Reach has lots of those very pretty combat effects, and things blow up very nice, but it has horrible ghosting and bad IQ. Some people are going to think the trade offs Bungie made are for the best, some people will disagree, I personally disagree. I think Reach looks fine, but when compared to something like KZ2 it's night and day in visual quality for me.

How did you ever cope with SD resolution graphics if HALO3 resolution bothered you that much?

Everything has a trade-off, I can understand some of the complaints Reach had but Reach wouldn't look even half as good, let alone better, had Bungie gone with everything pre-baked just to maintain imagine quality.

 

[MrPliskin]

Take it easy. Did people who like dynamic lighting run over your dog in their pick-up or something?

They don't have to suggest it's "somehow" cheating, it is cheating. Everything is a basically a hack, there are obviously better hacks than others, baked lighting has its uses in spots, with maybe the exception of Mirror's Edge, it just doesn't look very realistic or very good in outdoor environments, or in cases where dynamic light sources or dynamic objects are being used.

It's cheating in what way? The developer understands the limits of their hardware, they make choices in engine development and in art to maximize their resources to achieve the most visually pleasing scenes they can.

The difference between someone who actually understands the technology behind all of this, and individuals like you, is that they know the challenges and difficulties presented by dynamic lighting. Those people wouldn't "scoff" at baked lighting, in fact they would be significantly more peeved would said developer actually shoot for dynamic lighting while achieving sub par results (looks at Skyrim).

No, it's not that anyone ran over my dog. It's that I understand the difference between someone who is realistic, and understands the technology (and limitations), and someone who is attempting to devalue the art and work of a development team because it's not buzz-wordy enough for them to put on a pedestal.

Eh. There's certainly some of that, but I think there are people who know their tech too who have similar sentiments. It's just that for them, real time rendering/calculating of everything is the holy grail. I can understand that kind of purism, even though I know next to nothing regarding graphics technology.

You'd be hard pressed to find anyone who is going to call pre-baked lighting "cheating" on current generation hardware, because they know full well that truly dynamic lighting for everything is a huge strain and will absolutely compromise many other areas, visually.

 

[StuBurns]

How did you ever cope with standard resolution graphics if HALO3 resolution bothered you that much?

That's like everything. Dial up is okay till you have broadband, I'm happy with the connection I have right now, but next week I get fiber optic and I'm sure it'll take an hour till the newness disappears and the current connect seems too slow. SD didn't bother me till I had HD, when everyone has Quad-HD displays I'm sure 720p will be horrific.

Everything has a trade-off, I can understand some of the complaints Reach had but Reach wouldn't look even half as good, let alone better, had Bungie gone with everything pre-baked just to maintain imagine quality.

You say that, but I say I doubt it, because lots of games look way better than Reach to me. If you think Reach is the best looking console game, then sure, you would hold that opinion.

 

[Sean]

Kameo is gorgeous IMO. Shame rare is mostly sticking to kinect stuff now as they are capable of some impressive stuff (kameo, VP, banjo).

Never understood why Microsoft didn't turn Rare into a tech/engine house. Have them provide engine support and share their graphics technology with other first party titles (similar to Sony Cambridge I think).

Rare nailed multiplayer netcode in their launch game (32 players lag free) while Microsoft's flagship title (Gears) struggled to do 5 vs 5 matches. Rare were rendering thousands of enemies in real-time with their launch title (Kameo), while a game like Halo which shipped two years later and is supposed to be an epic all-out war with the covenant usually only displayed a handful of Grunts and Elites on-screen. And a lot of other examples.

I'm sure it's not as simple as copying and pasting, but I see a lot of cases where other 1st party games could've greatly benefitted from Rare's technology.

 

[mt1200]

Rare has been doing amazing graphics since SNES era.

 

[ProfessorMoran]

It's cheating in what way? The developer understands the limits of their hardware, they make choices in engine development and in art to maximize their resources to achieve the most visually pleasing scenes they can.

The difference between someone who actually understands the technology behind all of this, and individuals like you, is that they know the challenges and difficulties presented by dynamic lighting. Those people wouldn't "scoff" at baked lighting, in fact they would be significantly more peeved would said developer actually shoot for dynamic lighting while achieving sub par results (looks at Skyrim).

No, it's not that anyone ran over my dog. It's that I understand the difference between someone who is realistic, and understands the technology (and limitations), and someone who is attempting to devalue the art and work of a development team because it's not buzz-wordy enough for them to put on a pedestal.

This has nothing to do with "buzzwords" and more to do with the final result, the best-looking console games this generation aren't exactly showcases for baked lighting.

One could make a case that certain developers have made technical choices that ended up holding them back from making the most visually impressive games. Real-time lighting is not a limitation this generation, they can do amazing real-time lighting this generation, and in many cases they have to in order to allow for dynamic objects and environments.

Bethesda isn't exactly the posterboy for dynamic lighting, their games look like shit, even before Skyrim.

That's like everything. Dial up is okay till you have broadband, I'm happy with the connection I have right now, but next week I get fiber optic and I'm sure it'll take an hour till the newness disappears and the current connect seems too slow. SD didn't bother me till I had HD, when everyone has Quad-HD displays I'm sure 720p will be horrific.

You say that, but I say I doubt it, because lots of games look way better than Reach to me. If you think Reach is the best looking console game, then sure, you would hold that opinion.

Not saying Reach is currently the best-looking console game because that's Uncharted 3, but Reach would still be one of the best-looking games on the 360, and the best-looking game on the 360 back in 2010.

 

[Anuxinamoon]

One could make a case for baked shadows but in today's games where there are many more moving and/or destructable objects and dynamic light sources, baked shadows just don't give results that look as good.

True, but dynamic actors are flagged dynamic and are not rendered in the baked lighting pass anyway. This means they will use dynamic lighting (like characters) instead.
But the only downside is that the dynamic lighting shadow cast fidelity will be different (and often lower) to the baked shadows. So these are the discrepancies they would look to fix.

If there is an asset that needs dynamic lighting then, by all means yes it should definitely use dynamic lighting. But having dynamic lighting on a mainly light static scene just because a few actors have dynamic lighting is seen as a luxury that some games cannot afford or choose to spend elsewhere.

 

[abracadaver]

Rare nailed multiplayer netcode in their launch game (32 players lag free) while Microsoft's flagship title (Gears) struggled to do 5 vs 5 matches.

Gears 1 was 4 vs 4

 

[emacs]

Gamasutra has a very interesting interview Bungie's Senior Graphics Engineer, Hao Chen.

...

“Number one is removing digital artifacts… removing all the jaggies, having very clean foliage edges, and awesome looking hair with no artifacts. Removing these digital artifacts that remind people you are staring at a computer screen is one of our top priorities.”

artifacts are only problem if the game design has (near) realism as a requirement. if the game design dictates stylisation, the existence of artifacts is a minor issue.

 

[FyreWulff]

I thought reach looked super. Halo 3 looked like it was originally planned to be a xbox game.

I think you forgot how bad Halo 2 looks compared to Halo 3. Not even in the same league.

edit: The Forge World pieces in Reach like the Sniper Nest are literally based off the geometry from the original Halo 2 map they came from, and even at that they have more detail than the original.

 

[StuBurns]

Not saying Reach is currently the best-looking console game because that's Uncharted 3, but Reach would still be one of the best-looking games on the 360, and the best-looking game on the 360 back in 2010.

It does just come down to taste, but I don't think it's up there with the best at all. Gears 2 certainly already looked way better to me.

I also don't think UC3 looks as good as UC2 though. Again it's the difference in IQ mostly, although I've not played it since it was patched, I believe they reinstated the motion blur so maybe it looks nicer now.

 

[Diablohead]

When I play the same game I own on my xbox 360 on my pc, like f1 2010 or sonic generations, just the addition of a better res with a little MSAA does so many wonders, next gen games will look much cleaner if every game can do that, even with today's visual graphics.

Biggest leap for me was a few years back with Resi 5, played it on 360 the first few times then on pc when that pc stress test demo thing came out, the visuals were so much nicer and better in 1080 with anti analyzing.

I really will be dissapointed if next gen we see sub hd games just because they can push 10% more polygons or whatever.

 

[Zabka]

It does just come down to taste, but I don't think it's up there with the best at all. Gears 2 certainly already looked way better to me.

I also don't think UC3 looks as good as UC2 though. Again it's the difference in IQ mostly, although I've not played it since it was patched, I believe they reinstated the motion blur so maybe it looks nicer now.

The motion blur doesn't change much besides objects switching from aliased to smeared. I actually wish they left it off.

 

[KageMaru]

Well being sub-HD doesn't always mean bad IQ - look at Halo Anniversary, the game runs at 1152*640 (same as Halo 3 which is lower than Reach's 1152*720) and the IQ is so much better than both games from Bungie, in other words if Bungie implemented FXAA instead of the totally worthless IMO TAA on Reach the IQ would've been so much better.

Halo CEA has the same resolution as Reach, though you're right the AA is much better.

 

[Kitschkraft]

I personally just want the characters to look fantastic.

I care mostly about skin textures (Particularly the face), facial animation, body animation, hair, eyes, LIPS (Sooooo frustrating, and I've seen little improvement) and the way clothes look/move. Everything else, I only care about if they add to making the characters look (A nose should cast a shadow on the face for instance, but I honestly am cool with a little black circle underneath objects).

After this, I would like developers to start making games that can actually utilize these characters, and not just as "fellow soldiers".

 

[Margalis]

All video game rendering is a "cheat" of some sort. Period. To talk about one form of cheating being more of a cheat than another is silly.

 

[FLEABttn]

They're also hiring people like Economy Designers: http://www.bungie.net/Inside/aboutus.aspx#25100

Wow, this is me. I'm applying. Thanks!

 

[KageMaru]

I've read it before. I just don't see it in the end result. I think Reach is an amazing game, the best console shooter ever made in fact, but nothing about it seemed technically impressive. It's consistently a pretty middling looking game to me. And not just the IQ. Vanquish is sub-HD too, and I think looks way better, and busier generally too.

They just directed their resources slightly differently, it's still no slouch. Nice resolution with most of their maps while still applying detail maps, multiple vehicles, more open environments, HBAO (IIRC), deferred lighting, OBMB, etc. Other than the TAA and slight sub-HD it's doing a lot of the same things other graphically recognized games do.

I do understand how the art of Reach may be less appealing to some.

It does just come down to taste, but I don't think it's up there with the best at all. Gears 2 certainly already looked way better to me.

I also don't think UC3 looks as good as UC2 though. Again it's the difference in IQ mostly, although I've not played it since it was patched, I believe they reinstated the motion blur so maybe it looks nicer now.

Have you played Gears 2 recently? I don't think it's aged all that well.

 

[MrPliskin]

This has nothing to do with "buzzwords" and more to do with the final result, the best-looking console games this generation aren't exactly showcases for baked lighting.

One could make a case that certain developers have made technical choices that ended up holding them back from making the most visually impressive games. Real-time lighting is not a limitation this generation, they can do amazing real-time lighting this generation, and in many cases they have to in order to allow for dynamic objects and environments.

Bethesda isn't exactly the posterboy for dynamic lighting, their games look like shit, even before Skyrim.



Not saying Reach is currently the best-looking console game because that's Uncharted 3, but Reach would still be one of the best-looking games on the 360, and the best-looking game on the 360 back in 2010.

I'm sorry, did I just see you say that real-time lighting is not limited by hardware? Just so we're clear, we're talking both lighting and shadows, since the two go hand in hand...and you're saying that hardware doesn't limit either? I'm sorry, but some of the best looking games this generation are the best looking games first and foremost because of their art direction, not because of their technical prowess. Halo: REACH and Uncharted series not withstanding.

Also, Gears of War, Uncharted, Bioshock, GT, Forza, Batman: Arkham (Subtitle), and quite a few other very impressive looking games ALL have a very decent amount of baked lighting. You're telling me that your posts aren't riding the coat tails of buzzwords? Please.

 

[h1nch]

Here's what Bungie needs to solve :
-making a good graphics engine
-making good looking games
-Try not to be 3 years late in terms of graphics technology

They have failed horribly so far.

Agreed.

I love Halo but I haven't been graphically wowed by any Halo game since Halo 1. The graphics are usually solid, and technically impressive in terms of landscape size and stuff happening on screen, but I personally find games like Gears of War, BF3, COD all to be much more visually pleasing than Halo.

 

[ProfessorMoran]

I'm sorry, did I just see you say that real-time lighting is not limited by hardware? Just so we're clear, we're talking both lighting and shadows, since the two go hand in hand...and you're saying that hardware doesn't limit either? I'm sorry, but some of the best looking games this generation are the best looking games first and foremost because of their art direction, not because of their technical prowess. Halo: REACH and Uncharted series not withstanding.

Also, Gears of War, Uncharted, Bioshock, GT, Forza, Batman: Arkham (Subtitle), and quite a few other very impressive looking games ALL have a very decent amount of baked lighting. You're telling me that your posts aren't riding the coat tails of buzzwords? Please.

We have the best-looking games like Uncharted 3 that basically features real-time lighting and shadowing in entire scenes where things from characters to environment/objects cast and receive proper shadows, RDR has real-time lighting and day-night cycle, developers have shown that the hardware can support it, I wouldn't call it a limitation due to the hardware, some developers are limited by their talent and sometimes wrong design choices.

The best-looking games are good-looking because of a combination of BOTH great art direction and technical prowess, they're able to realize the art direction because the team has the tech to support the artists, NOT because they might have some baked shadows here and there.

Developers don't devote resources to better lighting solutions because they can use some "buzzwords" in a presentation, they use those lighting solutions because they make the games look better, when was the last time you see a developer showcase their use of baked shadows as a graphical feature?

Aren't you riding the coat tails of a buzzword like "baked lighting"? Was dynamic lighting lacking in your favorite game or something?

 

[zoukka]

Don't be a tool. Baked lights are a great asset in any environment creation. Only a fool would limit the amount of options devs have.

 

[Stallion Free]

Holy shit, did I just read something that basically said: baked lighting = less talent?

Holy shit.

 

[dragonelite]

Never understood why Microsoft didn't turn Rare into a tech/engine house. Have them provide engine support and share their graphics technology with other first party titles (similar to Sony Cambridge I think).

Rare nailed multiplayer netcode in their launch game (32 players lag free) while Microsoft's flagship title (Gears) struggled to do 5 vs 5 matches. Rare were rendering thousands of enemies in real-time with their launch title (Kameo), while a game like Halo which shipped two years later and is supposed to be an epic all-out war with the covenant usually only displayed a handful of Grunts and Elites on-screen. And a lot of other examples.

I'm sure it's not as simple as copying and pasting, but I see a lot of cases where other 1st party games could've greatly benefitted from Rare's technology.

Microsoft did turn rare in a tech support team if im not mistaken.

 

[ProfessorMoran]

Don't be a tool. Baked lights are a great asset in any environment creation. Only a fool would limit the amount of options devs have.

It's just one of the tools, like LOD, like real-time lights and shadows, Bungie shouldn't be restricted to using baked shadows and baked lighting because all of a sudden a slight sub-HD resolution is frowned upon, everything has its trade-offs.

Holy shit, did I just read something that basically said: baked lighting = less talent?

Holy shit.

Nope, I said developers are limited by their level of talent and sometimes their design choices made early in the generation, they're competing on roughly the same hardware, the fact is some games are better-looking and have better gameplay than others.

 

[ii Stryker]

4 Player Campaign Co-op with large play spaces is the trade off for higher IQ with the Halo games.

SMH at ppl comparing Bungie games IQ to everyone else who only make hallway shooters with little to no AI.

Gameplay > IQ

 

[zoukka]

It's just one of the tools, like LOD, like real-time lights and shadows, Bungie shouldn't be restricted to using baked shadows and baked lighting because all of a sudden a slight sub-HD resolution is frowned upon, everything has its trade-offs.

Yes indeed they shouldn't be restricted in using whatever the fuck they think works best for any given product.

 

[erpg]

Halo: Reach had some of the worst post-process AA induced ghosting I have ever seen.

Hopefully this means they picked up on that.

343, I will take no AA over Temporal AA. Seriously. Never again.

Hell, I'll pay for an option to disable it in Reach.

 

[FyreWulff]

It's just one of the tools, like LOD, like real-time lights and shadows, Bungie shouldn't be restricted to using baked shadows and baked lighting because all of a sudden a slight sub-HD resolution is frowned upon, everything has its trade-offs.

For the world lightmap, I don't see why Bungie should be using real time lighting - the campaign spaces are tuned to the time setting, and so are the multiplayer maps. They do use real time lighting on players and other objects up close, but I think for Halo whole-world RTL would have been overkill. In fact, they tried it for Halo 2 already and dumped it because it never worked out.

edit:

http://www.bungie.net/News/content.aspx?type=topnews&cid=25650

This was taken in January ’03 with the graphics engine we went to E3 2003 with. The ‘pstencil’ engine as we called it just barely poked along at 30fps after herculean effort. After that E3 we decided that the geometry/lighting fidelity compromises we would have to make to do stencil were too great, and we went back to the more traditional lightmaps + shadow maps we used in halo 1.

 

[ProfessorMoran]

For the world lightmap, I don't see why Bungie should be using real time lighting - the campaign spaces are tuned to the time setting, and so are the multiplayer maps. They do use real time lighting on players and other objects up close, but I think for Halo whole-world RTL would have been overkill. In fact, they tried it for Halo 2 already and dumped it because it never worked out.

edit:

http://www.bungie.net/News/content.aspx?type=topnews&cid=25650

That was for the original xbox, should they not try anything that didn't work on the original xbox?

RTL gives you the advantage to allow day-night cycles and give the player the ability to let time lapse during the campaign and see the result or maybe use different approaches during gameplay, in MP it lets the host play around the time of day in a custom game which would be kind of fun.

 

[zoukka]

That was for the original xbox, should they not try anything that didn't work on the original xbox?

You think they haven't played around with all kinds of lighting models and options? Also your examples aren't the most bright. Time lapse? :b

Now I'm not making fun of you, but honestly it just feels like you know nothing about creating levels (and games in general) and the decision making behind that.

 

[ProfessorMoran]

You think they haven't played around with all kinds of lighting models and options? Also your examples aren't the most bright. Time lapse? :b

Now I'm not making fun of you, but honestly it just feels like you know nothing about creating levels (and games in general) and the decision making behind that.

Night vs daytime, sunlight/moonlight coming from different angles, different level of visibility for the player(s) and/or the AIs, different AI reactions, use of stealth, could be fun for SP/MP/co-op, heck it beats having to pay for a night version of the same fucking maps via DLC.

Why would I need to know about creating levels/games? I'm not a game developer, not even some sort of developer-wannabe, I'm simply stating features I would like to see in a game.

4 Player Campaign Co-op with large play spaces is the trade off for higher IQ with the Halo games.

SMH at ppl comparing Bungie games IQ to everyone else who only make hallway shooters with little to no AI.

Gameplay > IQ

I would take that trade-off anytime.

 

[Dennis]

Wow, this is me. I'm applying. Thanks!

Good luck!

 

[Soul_Pie]

On the topic of grass, I remember spending ages just admiring the grass in Star Fox Adventures. It just looked so organic. I recently dug up the game and it still is beautiful.

I really hope Rare's phenomenal technical skills are not wasted on Kinect games and avatars. No matter what game they make there's always something that makes you go wow.

 

[zoukka]

Night vs daytime, sunlight/moonlight coming from different angles, different level of visibility for the player(s) and/or the AIs, different AI reactions, use of stealth, could be fun for SP/MP/co-op, heck it beats having to pay for a night version of the same fucking maps via DLC.

Why would I need to know about creating levels/games? I'm not a game developer, not even some sort of developer-wannabe, I'm simply stating features I would like to see in a game.

That is fine and all, but you quickly come off as ignorant when you start labeling some of the most competent devs around (SSM, Bungie) incompetent. Even more so when lighting is one of the best things in those games.