Here’s the link. Analysis done by Digital Foundry. This is why the Infinite trailer doesn’t look too hot.
In short, it’s mostly due to the lighting. Apparently the textures are full of details but that was botched by the time of day in the gameplay demo (since Infinite has a day-night cycle)- aside from some inferior armor design. Halo Infinite has the more resource-intensive dynamic lighting as compared to static lighting, which has it’s pros and cons. The missing squares in the clouds and grass pop-ins/outs might be due to not being optimized for/taking full advantage of the Series X (basically).
I’m probably missing something else so go ahead and watch the video, it was worthwhile.
Personally, I don’t understand why they would show that time of day in the game if they knew this was an issue. I don’t understand why they wouldn’t know it was an issue either, they had to have to reviewed the pros and cons of static vs dynamic lighting. Obviously I think the game will look better than the demo, and there are some things that can be touched up, which in reality is all I think Infinite needs, it doesn’t need a massive overhaul.
I have to say that one screenshot with that plasma burst weapon at 10:57 I was like woah there are actual details. This was definitely a cool watch, even though a lot of it I did not know what he was talking about lol. But I definitely see one of the problems now, and honestly won’t unsee it for other games. I did not know that new xbox would support ray tracing, and I feel like it benefit those lighting issues.
> 2535418979567138;1:
> Here’s the link. Analysis done by Digital Foundry. This is why the Infinite trailer doesn’t look too hot.
>
> In short, it’s mostly due to the lighting. Apparently the textures are full of details but that was botched by the time of day in the gameplay demo (since Infinite has a day-night cycle)- aside from some inferior armor design. Halo Infinite has the more resource-intensive dynamic lighting as compared to static lighting, which has it’s pros and cons. The missing squares in the clouds and grass pop-ins/outs might be due to not being optimized for/taking full advantage of the Series X (basically).
>
> I’m probably missing something else so go ahead and watch the video, it was worthwhile.
>
> Personally, I don’t understand why they would show that time of day in the game if they knew this was an issue. I don’t understand why they wouldn’t know it was an issue either, they had to have to reviewed the pros and cons of static vs dynamic lighting. Obviously I think the game will look better than the demo, and there are some things that can be touched up, which in reality is all I think Infinite needs, it doesn’t need a massive overhaul.
>
> Anyways, just posting this to be informational.
I just watched this and I definitely agree with them. It seems to be down to the lighting. If you pause at certain parts of the trailer there’s a lot of things you notice. They’re doing more realistic lighting which clearly has it’s down sides, but it’s also something people asked for. I’m not worried at all about how the game looks at all, I think it looks great, and they’re using the ray tracing that the next gen systems are advertising.
The textures are flat and look essentially unfinished, almost like the entire game was made in Forge.
Take a look at Halo 3, which was criticized in 2007 for being a bit cartoony. Look at how much significantly more detail there is compared to Infinite.
This is definitely a video everyone should watch just for general understanding. However, I feel like chalking it up to the lighting and rendering technology is not entirely accurate. The thesis of the video, if I’m able to summarize it properly, is that most of the detail on the textures is hidden in how different parts of the texture reflect light, and if there is no direct light to reflect then these differences won’t show. But that is only part of the issue, because in order to give the textures a good, believable appearance, there should also be detail that doesn’t rely on the lighting conditions.
If one looks at the textures in games like Halo 3 and Reach, which the Infinite demo gets compared to, they contain lots of explicit variation in the color that are independent of the material properties: scratches, discoloration, rust. And some of these details are exaggerated, not because it’s realistic, but because it gives the objects character and depth. Real weapons don’t have deep scratches and paint chipping off them, and real surfaces don’t have billions of tiny scratches like some of the objects in the aforementioned Halo games do. But in a game not aiming for photorealism, where subtle detail gets lost and fully realistic lighting is too expensive, these tricks give an artistic detail that makes the game look more interesting.
Thanks for sharing this. I certainly learned a bit about lighting (in regards to video game development) by watching this.The side by sides in this video (skip to 10 minutes in if you can’t wait) were very eye-opening for me (like the comparison of the pulse carbine in shadow vs. in direct lighting).
Agree that lighting is one of the primary contributors to the common list of grievances the demo is receiving on the graphics front. That being said, agree with others here that color choices and textures also have a major impact on many critics’ overall reaction. I think revisiting the color decisions alone would significantly improve things.
dude like 80% of the map is made of long linear blocks. That outdoor elevator scene was hard to watch. I guess I will try not to look up and around when i play…ewwwww