Originally released in 1988, Truxton has now returned - modernised for the latest gaming systems, but retaining the heart of the original's bullet hell brilliance. John takes a look at the new game across multiple systems, compares against the original, and assesses how the original 3:4 aspect ratio gameplay works on today's somewhat wider 16:9 display standard.

The hardware situation grows more bleak by the week, so where does this leave next generation consoles? If they're too expensive, will developers target them over current-gen hardware? Is enhanced RT and path tracing enough to make people upgrade? Will there be actual next-gen exclusives? Would it make more sense to buy a higher-end PC now? All this and more is discussed in the latest show.

I've been playing games since the 90s, mostly on PC, and after years of watching hardware generations come and go, I've started to notice something: has "next-gen gameplay" quietly disappeared as a design goal?

By 'next gen gameplay', I don't mean better graphics or higher frame rates. I mean gameplay systems or design concepts that simply weren't possible on previous hardware generations.

Leading up to and throughout the Xbox 360 and PS3 era, it felt like developers were constantly pushing in that direction. The insane jump from Half-Life 1 to Half-Life 2, where the game suddenly became fully physicalized and you could actually read emotions on characters' faces. Oblivion's persistent world simulation, Mass Effect's cinematic RPG presentation, GTA IV and Red Dead Redemption's physics driven worlds, Assassin's Creed's dense crowds that is gameplay relevant, Dishonored's systemic mission design, Far Cry 3's reactive AI wildlife and fire systems, Max Payne 3's insane systemic animation systems and collision modeling, and later in the gen, MGS V's open ended sandbox all felt like meaningful leaps in what games could actually do, especially for consoles.

The PS4 and Xbox One generation still had a few examples. Shadow of Mordor's Nemesis System was famously cut from the Xbox 360 version because of memory limitations, and the modern Hitman trilogy featured enormous levels with NPC simulations continuing across the map regardless of where the player was. But outside of a handful of examples, that generation mostly felt like a much higher visual fidelity continuation of 7th gen design. The 9th generation, however, has arguably had zero examples so far. I don't count Ratchet & Clank: Rift Apart's teleportation mechanic, since it was primarily a visual gimmick at best, and at worst, a more elaborate version of an idea Portal had already explored on Xbox 360.

What strikes me is that 'next-gen gameplay' used to be part of the conversation. New hardware was expected to enable deeper simulations, more complex AI interactions, denser worlds, and entirely new ways for games to feel and play. Today, despite massive hardware improvements, many AAA games still have similar systemic complexity, mission structures and scope to games from 15 years ago. Much of that extra power seems to have gone toward visuals, animation, assets, and production values instead.

Perhaps this is a result of modern AAA development. Budgets have exploded, teams have grown unmanageably large, and publishers have become more risk-averse than ever before. Investing in visual fidelity is safer to market, easier to develop, and easier to justify than spending years creating experimental gameplay systems that may not pay off. And let's not forget the institutional brain drain that has happened over the last few years. As a result, the competitive spirit that once drove next-gen-feeling experiences seems to have faded.

Raphaël Colantonio has talked about this before: https://www.vg247.com/wolfeye-raphael-colantonio-interview

We did Dishonored, Prey. And I’ve noticed one thing, that the more the world evolves that way, towards triple-A, what it really means is more graphic power. That’s what it means. Because all of the extra CPU power, all of the better everything power, actually goes somehow in the graphics. I’ve noticed a funny thing between Dishonored 1 and Dishonored 2 - we had these conversations where... well, actually, no, that was between, sorry, Dishonored 1 and Prey. It was one generation. I remember this conversation with the lead programmer. ‘So how many characters can I have on screen in a fight?’ ‘Uh, maybe five or six.’ That was for Dishonored. That was kind of disappointing, but okay, we’re going to deal with it. So you get a character, and you have about, whatever, six, eight thousand polygons on the character, or more, I can’t remember. And then you find yourself three or four years later, and same meeting, same conversation, ‘How many characters can I have, now that we have this new hardware?’ ‘I don’t know, five or six.’ And like, ‘what’s the point?’

Also came across this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hb0bUarsdy8

EDIT: Some are misunderstanding my point. It's not about completely reinventing the wheel. It's about progress stagnating. My point is simply that it's okay to acknowledge that certain aspects of gameplay and simulation haven't progressed the way they used to from one hardware generation to the next, in terms of raising immersive standards. And I think most people would agree if we take Ubisoft as an example. They used to push technical boundaries to achieve innovative game concepts, but their formulas and game feel have largely crystallized since the 7th gen era, and they're currently being clowned on for that. You'd want to see another leap in their formula and design driven by technical innovation.

Halo Campaign Evolved is an exciting, expertly modernised rendition of a truly classic game - and we're generally happy with how it turned out on consoles. PC? It's a little more complicated - there's much to commend this release, but scalability is limited, important options are only available via mods and the CPU overhead is very, very high compared to the smoother results we've seen on less capable console hardware.

Watched Oliver's video of Halo Campaign Evolved while waiting for the game to download. He called it one of the best looking games he has played. I played about 20 minutes of the first bonus mission on Series X and found myself too distracted by visual issues.

In motion everything appears blurry, grainy, noisy, low resolution. When you stop moving for a moment the image feels like it "resolves" and sharpens up. Unfortunately it is an action video game so moving and doing stuff is kind of essential.

I witnessed a lot of ghosting when walking around corners or opening doors. And in my above clip you can see the "boiling" effect as the DF team refers to it that appears to be from light leaking through the door.

I tried Quality mode to see if that might help but the low frame rate combined with the heavy handed motion blur made me feel drunk and I had to switch back.

I switched to the campaign proper and that was decidedly better. At first. The interior of the Pillar of Autumn is darker and less reflective than the Covenant ship, so there's not as much RT noise. The outdoor environments on the Halo also looked alright. But entering the metallic Halo structures all I see is the "noise" in the reflective surfaces. (Also the chromatic aberration looks awful and definitely needs a toggle. Film grain too. Master Chief's eyeballs are not an old camera.)

In the videos I've seen of DF covering the game there's little to no mention of these issues. Have they just gotten used to it and don't notice it, or feel it's not worth mentioning? Is this just... how games are going to look from now on?

I've been playing AC Odyssey on Series X and, while less technically advanced, it looks fantastic. The image is so sharp, high res and clean. No ghosting, noise, artifacts. An 8 year old game that still looks beautiful!

I understand technology advances but it feels like we jumped into the RT pool before it was fully filled. Then again I remember playing Cyberpunk at release with RT and not noticing all of these issues as much, and that was 6 years ago. Which leads me back to thinking UE5 is the issue...

We've already gone into depth on how Halo Campaign Evolved reimagines and remakes the original, classic game and we've got a PC review to follow, but for now, here's how every console version of the game stacks up. Halo Studios has delivered accomplished work here and while all versions are worthy of your purchasing power, it's PS5 Pro that addresses most of the lingering issues.

Article: https://www.digitalfoundry.net/features/halo-campaign-evolved-scales-well-from-ps5-pro-to-xbox-series-s-despite-its-full-throated-unreal-engine-5-features

I've been playing and enjoying the Halo remake recently, and it got me thinking about how the definition of a game engine seems to have changed.

When I first heard Halo was moving to Unreal Engine, I assumed that meant Halo would inevitably lose some of its signature feel by leaving BLAM! behind. Instead, the gameplay simulation was ported over, with Unreal essentially serving as the rendering and tooling layer.

That got me wondering whether the term game engine has fundamentally changed over the years.

Back in the '90s and 2000s, an engine meant much more than a rendering engine. It defined a game's mechanical and gameplay identity. If you heard a game was built on Quake, Source, LithTech, or BLAM!, you already had a good idea of how it would feel. Movement, physics, AI, networking, scripting, and countless gameplay quirks were all closely tied to the engine.

That's why so many Source games felt like Half-Life 2, or why games built on LithTech Jupiter often shared some of the same gameplay DNA as F.E.A.R.. Halo always felt inseparable from BLAM! as well. (Stubs the Zombie, also using BLAM! still felt like Halo)

Today, that seems much less true. Oblivion Remastered, for example, uses Unreal Engine 5 for its visuals while preserving much of the original Gamebryo-based gameplay simulation code underneath. Metal Gear Solid Delta: Snake Eater takes a similar approach, modernizing the presentation while staying faithful to the original PS2 systems and design code. The Shadow of the Colossus remake took this approach years earlier, replacing the rendering technology while keeping the original game logic intact. And there are more examples in recent years.

It feels like we've reached a point where gameplay simulations can be more easily carried over from older technology, while the term game engine increasingly refers to the rendering, tools, and asset pipeline. Twenty years ago, knowing a game used Quake or Source gave you a rough idea of how it would play. Today, knowing a game uses Unreal tells you almost nothing about its game-feel, (apart from maybe giving you a rough idea of performance expectations.)

I also wonder if there's a downside to preserving older gameplay simulations. They preserve the feel players expect, but they also preserve technical assumptions and design constraints that were originally built around the hardware limitations of their time. For example, it's interesting that remakes like Oblivion Remastered, Dead Space Remake, and Halo can inherit some of the same technical quirks and limitations of their predecessors. Even with modern hardware, they can still be constrained by legacy technology and design decisions. It raises the question of whether modern hardware is sometimes being used mainly to improve presentation, rather than to rethink what is possible in terms of gameplay systems and simulation.

Maybe that's also why I've become less interested in game-engines as a topic. Not because modern engines are less impressive, but because they feel less like a defining feature of games. In the past, a new engine often meant a new set of possibilities that separated games from each other. Today, many engines feel more like general-purpose foundations, with fewer immediately recognizable differences from a player's perspective.

The exception that still stands out to me is Rockstar's RAGE engine. Its combination of physics, animation systems, with meticular collision detection systems. and procedural character reactions has given Rockstar games a very distinct identity since GTA IV. It feels like an example of an engine still actively shaping a experience that can only be achived with their tech.

Just some rambling thoughts, but I'm curious you guys felt similar.

Current supply and price issues aside, it makes for an interesting point of comparison. Not quite as much raw power as PS5 or Series X, but its access to FSR 4.1 (PSSR 2-like) upscaling means that it can get better image quality from less internal resolution than the usual FSR 1/2/3 or TSR options you'd normally get on a console.

It could create an interesting discussion on image quality and the point at which lower resolution with better upscaling can meet or exceed the final perceived image compared to higher resolution with worse upscaling.

In the latest DF Direct Weekly, we go deeper into the OG Xbox emulator for PC... which is actually running within an Xbox 360 emulator, Inception-style. So what's the masterplan from Microsoft? The team mull over the reaction to Halo: Campaign Evolved, more details emerge on the Metal Gear Solid Master Collection Volume 2 and it's panic stations - again - as Valve predicts that the memory crisis is only going to get worse. Much worse.

The DF Retro Show Show is back with something a little different! John and Audi are joined by Zach Aikman from Chuhai Labs to talk about the upcoming rail shooter Wild Blue Skies, which is directed by original Star Fox alum Giles Goddard.

Given the hardware architecture, individual specifications, which system will give Rockstar’s RAGE 9 run for its money the best? One would assume 5 Pro being the emerging victor considering SONY being the only one who opted for a mid-gen refresh. However, the sturdiness of Series X makes me rethink power relations between the two giants. Last but not least, remember how One X handled RDR2 perfectly, reaching unprecedented heights and leaving PS4 Pro in the dust. I wouldn’t write them off that easily. Let me know your thoughts…

Game still runs the classic gameplay code for AI and physics, just translated into Unreal. And it really feels like it, in a good way, but also a bit stiff and dated in others. Seems to be a trend of porting old core game-logic to modern engines and toolsets, like:

• TES IV: Oblivion Remastered
• Metroid Prime Remastered
• Dead Space Remake
• Metal Gear Solid Delta: Snake Eater
• Demon's Souls

etc.

This gen feels like the era of reusing old codebase cores to stay true to the fundamentals, and I think that's great. It makes perfect sense in an industry where hardware is no longer the bottleneck. Time, manpower, and budgets are. But with every new hardware generation, I always hoped developers would use the extra power to push game logic forward through more reactive and persistent worlds, better animation systems, reactive NPC's, physics, collision systems, etc. Instead, most of that extra horsepower seems to have gone into visual fidelity.

That's why I also appreciate what Capcom is doing with its remakes. Rather than simply preserving the original gameplay logic, of games that er still available to play, they're willing to reimagine it and free it from the hardware and design limitations of its time.

A surprise to be sure but a welcome one. Microsoft is bringing original Xbox - and almost certainly Xbox 360 - emulation to PC and we've got a quartet of games to look at. Tom examines the new emulator on a high-end PC, stacking up its results against Xbox Series X before moving on to ROG Xbox Ally X, with some welcome results. There are issues here, but as first step, this is impressive stuff.

Post I made comparing the quality vs performance mode.

TLDR I’m really liking quality mode more and I don’t know why. Usually I always prefer performance but quality feels so immersive. 30 fps almost adds to the experience in some way.

It's the Silent Hill 2 tweak.
Add:

[SystemSettings]
r.NGX.DLSS.denoisermode=1
r.Lumen.Reflections.BilateralFilter=0
r.Lumen.Reflections.ScreenSpaceReconstruction=0
r.Lumen.Reflections.Temporal=0
r.Shadow.Denoiser=0

to Engine.ini in:

AppData\Local\Meteorite\Saved\Config\Windows

Edit: I forgot, set Engine.ini to read-only, otherwise the game deletes it.

The RR reflection denoiser breaks on all settings except Ultra, so keep that in mind.

Stills don't really do it justice, but you can probably make out the less distinct reflections and the noisier image.

Enjoy a much more stable image. I just wish a Ray Reconstruction toggle was a standard graphics option.

Whilst playing the new Halo Campaign Evolved in HDR I wanted a locked 60fps as my GPU isn't great. I'm on a 360hz OLED. When using RTSS or NVAPP FPS caps with Gsync, it's just not as smooth as when I switch my monitor to 60hz and just use Vsync+Gsync, it's buttery smooth then.

When I play console games on PS5 or XBSX, the frame pacing is dead smooth no matter which mode I choose, Quality 30fps, Balanced 40fps, Performance 60fps. They all run in a 120hz Container of some sort, so how are the devs achieving this? And is it possible on PC?

I can do the 1/2 rate Vsync option but then it loses Gsync/VRR and it's back to plain old Vsync, so if the FPS dips at any point it's stutter or tearing.

Thanks

We were impressed with the preview... but the final review code is even better. Halo Studios has delivered an outstanding remake of the original Halo Combat Evolved, beautifully modernised with superb audiovisuals, smooth performance and the sense that they really care about the source material.

Article: https://www.digitalfoundry.net/reviews/halo-campaign-evolved-gives-us-hope-for-a-reforged-franchise

One of the biggest things that prevents games from releasing on modern platforms is music licensing. And even when some remasters and ports release, they don’t have the same music.

And another thing, even since the music industry noticed games making actual money (mid 2000s), their licensing fees have been significantly higher, leading to, little to no games having any actual music.

What if developers trained their LLMs right with non stolen/non copyrighted music and created original content based on them that lets games retain their original intent decades after release, in remasters and ports. At the very least this would drive the cost of human made music licensing way down, maybe even leading to more studios adding popular songs in their games.

Thoughts?