So both of those trailers are made entirely using “Game Engine Footage from the Slipspace Engine”. That infers that the game itself during gameplay should look identical to the quality of what we have been shown in those 2 trailers.
The July gameplay reveal was far from that level of quality and even the screenshots that they have released recently [while looking alot better than the July gameplay demo]; the game still doesn’t look as visually stunning as what the Slipspace Engine rendered for those 2 trailers.
I want to know if the gameplay visuals will truly be Next-gen on the Xbox Series X - after all, this is Halo releasing on Microsoft’s next generation Xbox console - it should be a visual tour de force. Anything less than gameplay that looks like what was depicted in those 2 trailers would be a total and complete let down.
What are the chances that 343I can make gameplay look as good [or better] than those “in-engine” trailers?
I can’t tell you how many “in-engine” Frostbite trailers I’ve seen that later the game pales in comparison to.
While I don’t doubt that Halo Infinite will look stunning, expecting the standard of trailers and E3 demos is a recipe for constant disappointment, regardless of game.
> 2533274927740213;2:
> I can’t tell you how many “in-engine” Frostbite trailers I’ve seen that later the game pales in comparison to.
>
> While I don’t doubt that Halo Infinite will look stunning, expecting the standard of trailers and E3 demos is a recipe for constant disappointment, regardless of game.
The industry shouldn’t use “in-engine trailers” anymore then, as it sets the expectation that the game will look like that while playing it.
> 2533274795727848;3:
> > 2533274927740213;2:
> > I can’t tell you how many “in-engine” Frostbite trailers I’ve seen that later the game pales in comparison to.
> >
> > While I don’t doubt that Halo Infinite will look stunning, expecting the standard of trailers and E3 demos is a recipe for constant disappointment, regardless of game.
>
> The industry shouldn’t use “in-engine trailers” anymore then, as it sets the expectation that the game will look like that while playing it.
That is something we both can agree on lol.
I’d honestly be fine with cinematic trailers until they’re ready to show genuine gameplay.
> 2533274927740213;4:
> > 2533274795727848;3:
> > > 2533274927740213;2:
> > >
>
> That is something we both can agree on lol.
>
> I’d honestly be fine with cinematic trailers until they’re ready to show genuine gameplay.
Is it completely unrealistic to hope that 343I can match the initial 2 trailer’s graphical quality at launch?
> 2533274795727848;5:
> > 2533274927740213;4:
> > > 2533274795727848;3:
> > > > 2533274927740213;2:
> > > >
> >
> > That is something we both can agree on lol.
> >
> > I’d honestly be fine with cinematic trailers until they’re ready to show genuine gameplay.
>
> Is it completely unrealistic to hope that 343I can match the initial 2 trailer’s graphical quality at launch?
I personally subscribe to the thought of “never say never.”
The in-progress screenshots we’ve seen on Inside Infinite articles do show promise. Because if they game does indeed look that good at this moment it could be possible to add a significant layer of polish by launch. They’ve got a minimum of 5 months to add some shine to the game.
> 2533274795727848;1:
> Before we discuss - please watch these first:
>
> E3 2018 Announcement trailer:
> Halo Infinite - E3 2018 - Announcement Trailer - YouTube
>
> E3 2019 “Discover Hope” trailer:
> Halo Infinite - E3 2019 - Discover Hope - YouTube
>
> Okay.
>
> So both of those trailers are made entirely using “Game Engine Footage from the Slipspace Engine”. That infers that the game itself during gameplay should look identical to the quality of what we have been shown in those 2 trailers.
>
> The July gameplay reveal was far from that level of quality and even the screenshots that they have released recently [while looking a**lot better than the July gameplay demo]; the game still doesn’t look as visually stunning as what the Slipspace Engine rendered for those 2 trailers.
>
> I want to know if the gameplay visuals will truly be Next-gen on the Xbox Series X - after all, this is Halo releasing on Microsoft’s next generation Xbox console - it should be a visual tour de force. Anything less than gameplay that looks like what was depicted in those 2 trailers would be a total and complete let down.
>
> What are the chances that 343I can make gameplay look as good [or better] than those “in-engine” trailers?
I’m pretty sure that at least the 2018 trailer was from an early build of the game and it seems like all of those locations/awesome looking biomes are scrapped
I must be the only one who feels like the recent screenshots are having a placebo effect on people. I haven’t done a thorough side-by-side-style comparison, but I don’t think the game looks much different now than it did last year, besides the Sniper Rifle having more visible texture on it than the MA40.
I also didn’t think the game looked bad in the 2020 demo. At that point it looked similar enough (in my opinion) to the shot of the Warthog bouncing along the dirt path near the end of the 2018 E3 reveal trailer.
> 2533274795727848;1:
> So both of those trailers are made entirely using “Game Engine Footage from the Slipspace Engine”. That infers that the game itself during gameplay should look identical to the quality of what we have been shown in those 2 trailers.
that’s not what game engine means. Being in engine does not mean gameplay looks identical. Trailer one showed a crafted trailer in engine. This means everything is manually placed and nothing only visuals are essentially focused on. AI, day night, combat systems etc, are all removed, thus allowing everything to look as it did.
The same goes for the discover hope trailer. I’d argue the in-engine cutscene is fairly similar to gameplay. However, there is are differences. The cutscene is in a confined space so the system is, again, putting everything into the visuals. As soon as they step outside, the draw distance, AI, combat systems etc. All come into effect. They are not 1 to 1.
> 2533274927740213;2:
> I can’t tell you how many “in-engine” Frostbite trailers I’ve seen that later the game pales in comparison to.
>
> While I don’t doubt that Halo Infinite will look stunning, expecting the standard of trailers and E3 demos is a recipe for constant disappointment, regardless of game.
> 2533274795727848;1:
> So both of those trailers are made entirely using “Game Engine Footage from the Slipspace Engine”. That infers that the game itself during gameplay should look identical to the quality of what we have been shown in those 2 trailers.
No, a game engine is always capable of more than the hardware it’s intended to be run on. It’s completely normal for game engine demos to look nothing like any game that will ever be made on them. Sometimes they might be offline renderings that’d run on 1 fps if you’d try running them on real time. Sometimes they’re running in real time on some extremely overpowered hardware. But always they are specific carefully crafted set pieces with composition that maximizes visual fidelity for the carefully chosen camera angles of the demo, and not much else.
Engine demos are the absolute worst thing to try to infer a game’s graphics from.
I don’t think 343 was intentionally being misleading by saying that those two cinematic trailers were “game engine footage” as they technically were made using the game engine itself and is rendered as an “in-engine cutscene” so to speak. I will agree it is a little bit disappointing to see such great visuals for a cutscene and then have the actual gameplay itself be a bit below that benchmark. It is an unfortunate reality of game development though. When the game is rendering a cutscene the system doesn’t have to worry about things like AI or really anything dynamic, which takes up a lot of resources. I think looking at the cutscene and then looking at gameplay, the level of detail is still there for a majority of things, but stuff like shadow quality and lighting do take a step down. I guess the biggest difference is that cutscenes are often more hand crafted, like others have said, while gameplay itself has to by nature be more dynamic and reactive. I do wish cutscenes and gameplay looked identical, and maybe they will look a lot closer to each other come full release, but for now cinematic trailers always leave me wanting more.
> 2533274840624875;9:
> > 2533274795727848;1:
> > So both of those trailers are made entirely using “Game Engine Footage from the Slipspace Engine”. That infers that the game itself during gameplay should look identical to the quality of what we have been shown in those 2 trailers.
>
> that’s not what game engine means. Being in engine does not mean gameplay looks identical. Trailer one showed a crafted trailer in engine. This means everything is manually placed and nothing only visuals are essentially focused on. AI, day night, combat systems etc, are all removed, thus allowing everything to look as it did.
>
> The same goes for the discover hope trailer. I’d argue the in-engine cutscene is fairly similar to gameplay. However, there is are differences. The cutscene is in a confined space so the system is, again, putting everything into the visuals. As soon as they step outside, the draw distance, AI, combat systems etc. All come into effect. They are not 1 to 1.
To expand your point with another example, the Star Wars show ‘The Mandalorian’ uses the Unreal Engine to create the backgrounds for a lot of its scenes. It’s photoreal and indistinguishable from the real sets they’re also using.
It can be considered an “In-Engine Render”, it reflects power of the Unreal Engine, but not the games running on it. You can’t look at The Mandalorian and expect Gears 5 to look like that because it is built in the same engine.
The reality is that the price point and (more specifically) availability of the Series X is such that 343 can’t ignore the significant population of paying customers that will still be using the Xbox One.
At least for another couple of years.
Plus the huge population of mid-range PC gamers that they can also draw upon.
Besides, we rarely see anything truly ‘next gen’ first up on a new console. It takes a generation or two of games for the devs to get comfortable with the hardware. So there is not really much point cutting out a huge chunk of your fanbase for a few, relatively under-cooked, bells and whistles.
> 2585548714655118;15:
> The reality is that the price point and (more specifically) availability of the Series X is such that 343 can’t ignore the significant population of paying customers that will still be using the Xbox One.
>
> At least for another couple of years.
>
> Plus the huge population of mid-range PC gamers that they can also draw upon.
>
> Besides, we rarely see anything truly ‘next gen’ first up on a new console. It takes a generation or two of games for the devs to get comfortable with the hardware. So there is not really much point cutting out a huge chunk of your fanbase for a few, relatively under-cooked, bells and whistles.
HALO INFINITE has been given the unceremonious duty of reinvigorating jaded HALO fans after the disappointing campaigns of HALO 4 & 5 - particularly HALO 5.
Sadly, many fans feel that 343I cannot sustain the quality bar that Bungie set for HALO [after the initial 3 games in the 2001-2007 series]; given the quality of content thus far [mainly HALO 5].
I see it, I hear it and I read it daily - how 343 Industries isn’t worthy of the HALO saga and how fans wish that Bungie would’ve continued making these games. A game in any saga is only as good as the people that create it and anyone that’s a fan of HALO: Combat Evolved could envision a game worthy of; or even better than that game, given the opportunity for a sequel - merely based on Fandom & lore knowledge alone.
HALO INFINITE will truly be the “trial by fire” that 343I needs to prove their worth. This game will either cement them into HALO legendary status - or bring them to the brink of obscurity due to banality.
> 2533274795727848;16:
> HALO INFINITE has been given the unceremonious duty of reinvigorating jaded HALO fans after the disappointing campaigns of HALO 4 & 5 - particularly HALO 5.
I quite liked Halo 4’s campaign.
Halo 5 was meh. Once you separated it from the (mostly changed) pre-game hype it was quite… tolerable.
But yes, the reboot sits firmly on the shoulders of Infinite.
> 2533274795727848;16:
> Sadly, many fans feel that 343I cannot sustain the quality bar that Bungie set for HALO [after the initial 3 games in the 2001-2007 series]; given the quality of content thus far [mainly HALO 5]. I see it, I hear it and I read it daily - how 343 Industries isn’t worthy of the HALO saga and how fans wish that Bungie would’ve continued making these games. A game in any saga is only as good as the people that create it and anyone that’s a fan of HALO: Combat Evolved could envision a game worthy of; or even better than that game, given the opportunity for a sequel - merely based on Fandom & lore knowledge alone.
I liked what Bungie did. But also a fair bit of what 343 has done. I actually really like Halo 5. The MP is great / the campaign average.
Not sure Bungie was an option. Those who wanted to stay with Halo moved across to form 343. Those that left wanted to work on Destiny. So a ‘Bungie’ Halo 4 is probably a moot point?
> 2533274795727848;16:
> HALO INFINITE will truly be the “trial by fire” that 343I needs to prove their worth. This game will either cement them into HALO legendary status - or bring them to the brink of obscurity due to banality. I sincerely hope it’s the former:metal:t2:
> 2533274795727848;14:
> I just don’t want the Xbox One to hold back the Xbox Series X version - I want a true, next-gen HALO🤘🏻
It won’t
> “Here’s something that excites me as an engineering architect: for Halo Infinite, we rebuilt the engine multi-threading solution to ensure high execution efficiency across all platforms and PCs, instead of running optimally just on Xbox One. We used this new system to transition the renderer to a massively parallel multi-threaded framework to support the increased cost of all our new rendering features and achieve high graphics efficiency on PC CPUs of various size as well as Xbox Series X/S and Xbox One X/S hardware. In practice, this means that we are doing our very best to make sure Halo Infinite runs optimally on any device you may choose to play on!” - Daniele Giannetti, Game Foundation Architect
The chances that the gameplay looks like those trailers is low. Those were in engine, pre rendered scenes in the trailer. They were simply showing it off. Gameplay won’t look like that, never does.
