Halo 4 isn't running on a brand new Game Engine! - Report

[QUOTE="Animal-Mother"][QUOTE="TheEpicGoat"]

The Reach engine is awesome, way better than Halo 2-3 which I think used the same engine.

Phoenix534

Still not enough detail. Textures look a little washed out. Everything just looks like they overexposed it to light to hide some of the bad textures.

But... it's an open world game, didn't you know?

The engine is completely fine. Level design was the problem.

And so Halo turns into COD..-_-Heil68

Like Halo 3, ODST, and Reach aren't running the same engines?

[QUOTE="Heil68"]And so Halo turns into COD..-_-Jebus213

Like Halo 3, ODST, and Reach aren't running the same engines?

[QUOTE="Jebus213"]

[QUOTE="Heil68"]And so Halo turns into COD..-_-Zero5000X

Like Halo 3, ODST, and Reach aren't running the same engines?

That is precisely the point though. Hell, Halo 3 was built on a modified version of the Halo 2 engine... and Reach just modified the Halo 3 engine... Therefore, discussing this like them building off of their previous work is a "bad thing" is utterly ignorant. Nobody builds an engine from scratch anymore.

[QUOTE="Jebus213"]

[QUOTE="Heil68"]And so Halo turns into COD..-_-Zero5000X

Like Halo 3, ODST, and Reach aren't running the same engines?

[QUOTE="Zero5000X"][QUOTE="Jebus213"]

Like Halo 3, ODST, and Reach aren't running the same engines?

KingsMessenger

That is precisely the point though. Hell, Halo 3 was built on a modified version of the Halo 2 engine... and Reach just modified the Halo 3 engine... Therefore, discussing this like them building off of their previous work is a "bad thing" is utterly ignorant. Nobody builds an engine from scratch anymore.

Oh yes they do...RAGE engine,Id Tech 5,Frostbite 2,Cryengine 3 ,New Tomb Raider game,Avalanche engine,Ubi AC engine etc.

All the best looking games this gen use ground up engines.

[QUOTE="Zero5000X"][QUOTE="Jebus213"]

Like Halo 3, ODST, and Reach aren't running the same engines?

enterawesome

[QUOTE="KingsMessenger"]

[QUOTE="Zero5000X"] They aren't I think you should learn the definition of "same."Bus-A-Bus

That is precisely the point though. Hell, Halo 3 was built on a modified version of the Halo 2 engine... and Reach just modified the Halo 3 engine... Therefore, discussing this like them building off of their previous work is a "bad thing" is utterly ignorant. Nobody builds an engine from scratch anymore.

Oh yes they do...RAGE engine,Id Tech 5,Frostbite 2,Cryengine 3 ,New Tomb Raider game,Avalanche engine,Ubi AC engine etc.

All the best looking games this gen use ground up engines.

[QUOTE="KingsMessenger"]

[QUOTE="Zero5000X"] They aren't I think you should learn the definition of "same."Bus-A-Bus

That is precisely the point though. Hell, Halo 3 was built on a modified version of the Halo 2 engine... and Reach just modified the Halo 3 engine... Therefore, discussing this like them building off of their previous work is a "bad thing" is utterly ignorant. Nobody builds an engine from scratch anymore.

Oh yes they do...RAGE engine,Id Tech 5,Frostbite 2,Cryengine 3 ,New Tomb Raider game,Avalanche engine,Ubi AC engine etc.

All the best looking games this gen use ground up engines.

CE 3 wasn't ground up. Neither was FB2 or id Tech 5... AC engine wasn't really either...

They say "ground up" because they have done so much work, but the fact is that none of them are truly built from scratch. It just isn't possible anymore. You are talking about MILLIONS of lines of code. And engine to engine, a lot of stuff doesn't need to change. The bottom level framework doesn't need any change. All that really needs to change are the rendering pipelines, and that isn't a truly "ground up" rebuild of the engine. And even the rendering pipelines have a lot of cross-over. Any team that has ever worked on a game previously will be reusing some of their code, otherwise it would take 5 years to finish the engine, let alone finish the game...

[QUOTE="enterawesome"][QUOTE="Zero5000X"] They aren't I think you should learn the definition of "same."Zero5000X

Of course it isn't. The 360 couldn't handle an entirely new engine. Besides, what's the point in having a new engine if they can just update the old one? Saves money and provides good results. This isn't the PC where a totaly new engine would acually make a difference.

[QUOTE="Bus-A-Bus"]

[QUOTE="KingsMessenger"]

That is precisely the point though. Hell, Halo 3 was built on a modified version of the Halo 2 engine... and Reach just modified the Halo 3 engine... Therefore, discussing this like them building off of their previous work is a "bad thing" is utterly ignorant. Nobody builds an engine from scratch anymore.

Zero5000X

Oh yes they do...RAGE engine,Id Tech 5,Frostbite 2,Cryengine 3 ,New Tomb Raider game,Avalanche engine,Ubi AC engine etc.

All the best looking games this gen use ground up engines.

The fact that they are using TOTALY different rendering techniques(deferred lighting and deferred shading)?Frostbite 3 is completely new,CE3 as well.There is no point in using old code for new engine,they mentioned it couple of times.If you are however constantly making new games in series(Halo,COD and AC) you are not going to have enough time to make new one from ground up.Thats why Halo still has Halo 1 engine and COD still has Quake 3 engine,because they didn't have time to change it(even though I think IW made MUCH better job with their updates).

[QUOTE="Zero5000X"][QUOTE="Bus-A-Bus"]

Oh yes they do...RAGE engine,Id Tech 5,Frostbite 2,Cryengine 3 ,New Tomb Raider game,Avalanche engine,Ubi AC engine etc.

All the best looking games this gen use ground up engines.

Bus-A-Bus

The fact that they are using TOTALY different rendering techniques(deferred lighting and deferred shading)?Frostbite 3 is completely new,CE3 as well.There is no point in using old code for new engine,they mentioned it couple of times.If you are however constantly making new games in series(Halo,COD and AC) you are not going to have enough time to make new one from ground up.Thats why Halo still has Halo 1 engine and COD still has Quake 3 engine,because they didn't have time to change it(even though I think IW made MUCH better job with their updates).

That is a swap of the rendering pipelines.. But it is IMPOSSIBLE to build an engine from scratch at this point. Not unless you have 5 years to do it or an army of programmers.

[QUOTE="Bus-A-Bus"]

[QUOTE="KingsMessenger"]

That is precisely the point though. Hell, Halo 3 was built on a modified version of the Halo 2 engine... and Reach just modified the Halo 3 engine... Therefore, discussing this like them building off of their previous work is a "bad thing" is utterly ignorant. Nobody builds an engine from scratch anymore.

KingsMessenger

Oh yes they do...RAGE engine,Id Tech 5,Frostbite 2,Cryengine 3 ,New Tomb Raider game,Avalanche engine,Ubi AC engine etc.

All the best looking games this gen use ground up engines.

CE 3 wasn't ground up. Neither was FB2 or id Tech 5... AC engine wasn't really either...

They say "ground up" because they have done so much work, but the fact is that none of them are truly built from scratch. It just isn't possible anymore. You are talking about MILLIONS of lines of code. And engine to engine, a lot of stuff doesn't need to change. The bottom level framework doesn't need any change. All that really needs to change are the rendering pipelines, and that isn't a truly "ground up" rebuild of the engine. And even the rendering pipelines have a lot of cross-over. Any team that has ever worked on a game previously will be reusing some of their code, otherwise it would take 5 years to finish the engine, let alone finish the game...

Yes it needs,it definitely needs.If you are changing complete rendering technique(from forward to deferred rendering) you are just going to make a new one and thats it.There is however difference in Halo Reach engine and COD engine from CE3 and Frostbite 3.The fundamental "flaw" of Halo engine will cause Halo 4 to be sub HD again.

[QUOTE="Jebus213"]

[QUOTE="Heil68"]And so Halo turns into COD..-_-Zero5000X

Like Halo 3, ODST, and Reach aren't running the same engines?

Well they are... Sorry if you don't like it.

[QUOTE="Bus-A-Bus"]

[QUOTE="Zero5000X"] Do you have any proof that they share absolutely zero code with their predecessors?KingsMessenger

The fact that they are using TOTALY different rendering techniques(deferred lighting and deferred shading)?Frostbite 3 is completely new,CE3 as well.There is no point in using old code for new engine,they mentioned it couple of times.If you are however constantly making new games in series(Halo,COD and AC) you are not going to have enough time to make new one from ground up.Thats why Halo still has Halo 1 engine and COD still has Quake 3 engine,because they didn't have time to change it(even though I think IW made MUCH better job with their updates).

That is a swap of the rendering pipelines.. But it is IMPOSSIBLE to build an engine from scratch at this point. Not unless you have 5 years to do it or an army of programmers.

Its still completely new engine.You change your complete rendering pipeline and all other things become affected by it.The problem is,Halo and COD aint changing that.If you go from forward renderer to deferred one for example,your post processing effects will become much cheaper duo to already having g buffers in memory and data to work on.

Want to know what two games use the "Same engine"?

Quake 3:

Call of Duty: MW3

With a modular and flexible engine, being based on something "old" means nothing.

KingsMessenger

Yes it needs,it definitely needs.If you are changing complete rendering technique(from forward to deferred rendering) you are just going to make a new one and thats it.There is however difference in Halo Reach engine and COD engine from CE3 and Frostbite 3.The fundamental "flaw" of Halo engine will cause Halo 4 to be sub HD again.

Bus-A-Bus

The fundamental "flaw"?

Halo: Reach was practically 720p...

There is no inherent element of Halo's engine that forces it to be sub-HD... They choose to because they want to fit in the eDRAM for all of the post processing benefits... However, if they manuever thing properly they may be able to do 1280x720...

The Reach engine is awesome, way better than Halo 2-3 which I think used the same engine.

TheEpicGoat

[QUOTE="KingsMessenger"]

Want to know what two games use the "Same engine"?

Quake 3:

Call of Duty: MW3

With a modular and flexible engine, being based on something "old" means nothing.

mitu123

[QUOTE="Bus-A-Bus"]

Yes it needs,it definitely needs.If you are changing complete rendering technique(from forward to deferred rendering) you are just going to make a new one and thats it.There is however difference in Halo Reach engine and COD engine from CE3 and Frostbite 3.The fundamental "flaw" of Halo engine will cause Halo 4 to be sub HD again.

KingsMessenger

The fundamental "flaw"?

Halo: Reach was practically 720p...

There is no inherent element of Halo's engine that forces it to be sub-HD... They choose to because they want to fit in the eDRAM for all of the post processing benefits... However, if they manuever thing properly they may be able to do 1280x720...

No they didn't choose it,its the way it is.Their g buffer is too big.Rockstars isn't.Not only does it supprot native 720p,it also does it with 2xMSAA(which doubles g buffer).

[QUOTE="mitu123"]

[QUOTE="KingsMessenger"]

Want to know what two games use the "Same engine"?

Quake 3:

Call of Duty: MW3

With a modular and flexible engine, being based on something "old" means nothing.

savagetwinkie

[QUOTE="KingsMessenger"]

[QUOTE="Bus-A-Bus"]

Yes it needs,it definitely needs.If you are changing complete rendering technique(from forward to deferred rendering) you are just going to make a new one and thats it.There is however difference in Halo Reach engine and COD engine from CE3 and Frostbite 3.The fundamental "flaw" of Halo engine will cause Halo 4 to be sub HD again.

Bus-A-Bus

The fundamental "flaw"?

Halo: Reach was practically 720p...

There is no inherent element of Halo's engine that forces it to be sub-HD... They choose to because they want to fit in the eDRAM for all of the post processing benefits... However, if they manuever thing properly they may be able to do 1280x720...

No they didn't choose it,its the way it is.Their g buffer is too big.Rockstars isn't.Not only does it supprot native 720p,it also does it with 2xMSAA(which doubles g buffer).

Not a fan of the Halo Reach engine at all...I mean yea its the best looking halo to date but the ghosting was god awful and everything looks so BLAND. Maybe thats more an art style than the actual engine but whatever.

they chose to put the g-buffer into edram, rockstar chose to tile it, are we missing something?savagetwinkie

No. It wouldn't be that difficult to change it if they wanted to. They just have to find reasonable alternatives to the current solutions that have for post processing...

[QUOTE="savagetwinkie"]they chose to put the g-buffer into edram, rockstar chose to tile it, are we missing something?KingsMessenger

No. It wouldn't be that difficult to change it if they wanted to. They just have to find reasonable alternatives to the current solutions that have for post processing...

Oh no, there's no way Halo 4 can be a good game now! You obviously need a new engine and be the best looking game on the market, to actually be a good game, don't you know?

[QUOTE="KingsMessenger"]

[QUOTE="savagetwinkie"]they chose to put the g-buffer into edram, rockstar chose to tile it, are we missing something?savagetwinkie

No. It wouldn't be that difficult to change it if they wanted to. They just have to find reasonable alternatives to the current solutions that have for post processing...

I wrote my post weird.

I was agree with you. It is a choice And we aren't missing anything His statemet that the Halo engine is outright unable to do 1280x720 is factually inaccurate. Modify a couple of things and it could probably do 1920x1080... Everything else would take a hit, but the engine wouldn't be fundamentally different. It is all down to the choice that is made by their technicians.

[QUOTE="savagetwinkie"][QUOTE="KingsMessenger"]

No. It wouldn't be that difficult to change it if they wanted to. They just have to find reasonable alternatives to the current solutions that have for post processing...

KingsMessenger

I wrote my post weird.

I was agree with you. It is a choice And we aren't missing anything His statemet that the Halo engine is outright unable to do 1280x720 is factually inaccurate. Modify a couple of things and it could probably do 1920x1080... Everything else would take a hit, but the engine wouldn't be fundamentally different. It is all down to the choice that is made by their technicians.

[QUOTE="KingsMessenger"]

[QUOTE="savagetwinkie"] did you misinterpret my post? I'm saying its a choice, Bungie decided to avoid tiling by keeping the g-buffer together so its a little bit smaller so they can do the post processing effects in EDRAM, I know its easier to change you just have to add tiling to allow you to get the post processing effects in a larger g-buffer savagetwinkie

I wrote my post weird.

I was agree with you. It is a choice And we aren't missing anything His statemet that the Halo engine is outright unable to do 1280x720 is factually inaccurate. Modify a couple of things and it could probably do 1920x1080... Everything else would take a hit, but the engine wouldn't be fundamentally different. It is all down to the choice that is made by their technicians.

With as far as the MLAA on GPU stuff has come, I think everyone has to be looking at it very closely. The reason that Bungie started using Temporal AA to begin with was to free up space to increase the resolution. With some reasonable alternatives around now, 343 has to be looking at them as superior choices next to the Temporal AA that people have complained about constantly.

"but a ton of work has gone into it by 343." How come everyone is missing this part?Zero5000X

because its promotional garbage that you would expect from publishers

Why would they bother coding a completely new engine? The Reach engine was used last year for the first time. It's a good engine, and Reach looked good graphically. Not top of the line, sure, but anyone who thinks Halo is ever going to be top of the line with the amount of stuff that's going on in game and the way the game is designed is crazy. It's not super linear (think Call of Duty), and there's a lot going on on screen at any one time.

Besides, 343 has had years to tweak the engine. This really isn't isn't a big deal. It's not the DOOM era anymore, people. Building a new engine from scratch for every new game isn't feasible anymore. And it's not like 343's still using id Tech 3 or something. Good Lord.

sounds like they are going to make this into a one year on one year off thing.......i guess halo couldnt last forever

EDIT: as in being the last of it's kind to take time in developing a game

[QUOTE="Heil68"]And so Halo turns into COD..-_-AugustusGraham

[QUOTE="TheEpicGoat"]

The Reach engine is awesome, way better than Halo 2-3 which I think used the same engine.

mitu123

[QUOTE="Zero5000X"]

[QUOTE="enterawesome"] They are the same engines. And no, same engine =/= same code and scripting. enterawesome

Looks like yearly halo is starting to come. Reach last year. ODST the year before.
Now Halo 1 Remake this year and halo 4 next year?

4 halos, 4 years?

How can anyone deny it's becoming annualized.

[QUOTE="AugustusGraham"][QUOTE="Heil68"]And so Halo turns into COD..-_-Heil68

Are you implying that by using the same engine, Halo is unable to evolve in gameplay? Or do you mean to say that Halo isn't the best looking game out there. Because, Minecraft pushes the envelope further than BF3 in terms of gameplay, and I don't think anyone would argue the former looking better than the latter

Resistance 3 is using a brand new engine.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m7PHXyLp7aI

Its looks much better from explosions, animations, textures, lightning, Sharpnes (doesnt use QAA) than RE1 og 2.

RE1 and 2 and all the Rachet games besides the new one are using a upgraded ps2 engine.

A new engine can make wonders.

RE3 looks real nextgen compared to the stiff andbland looking RE1 and 2.

Reach's engine is a modified Halo 3 engine

ODST ran on Halo 3 engine

Halo 3 engine is a modified Halo 2 engine...

what a surprise. :roll:

so i guess a modified engine of a century-old game maximizes the 360's hardware? whattajoke. :lol:

[QUOTE="TheEpicGoat"]

The Reach engine is awesome, way better than Halo 2-3 which I think used the same engine.

Animal-Mother

Yeah it was HORRIBLE I hated that.. If there is motion blur like that in Halo 4 I am not going to buy it..

And so Halo turns into COD..-_-Heil68

Ifanyone's tired of the series then move on, but let the people enjoy what they enjoy playing.

[QUOTE="Animal-Mother"][QUOTE="TheEpicGoat"]

The Reach engine is awesome, way better than Halo 2-3 which I think used the same engine.

Phoenix534

Still not enough detail. Textures look a little washed out. Everything just looks like they overexposed it to light to hide some of the bad textures.

Its a console. You should expect this.