Early previews are now doing the rounds for Hellblade 2 - and by most accounts this is shaping up to be an impressive Xbox Series X|S title. The team over at Digital Foundry is one of the outlets to have taken a look at the game recently, and they reckon it's "on another level" visually, despite some lingering issues about console resolution figures.
You can take a look at the team's analysis up above, which goes into detail about Ninja Theory's use of next-gen Unreal Engine 5 features - and how the whole setup could fare on console. Here's a snippet from their preview:
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/83228/8322824653bce5e721dbf5fc27119db3d9c6cdd4" alt="YouTube Video"
"On Xbox Series X, it's clearly a demanding game, but the results still look excellent overall. It's the lower-power platforms - specifically the Series S - that I'm more curious about. Resolution is bound to take a hit and I'd be curious to see the extent to which there are any further S-specific nips and tucks. The game's configuration on Series X may also place this as one of the more demanding pieces of PC software we've seen so far this generation.
Hellblade 2 is bound to create some divides as a result of these compromises - but I have to say that I have a lot of respect for Ninja Theory's creative talents, and the immense visual accomplishment this title represents. In my book, this could be the very best-looking Unreal Engine 5 title out there when it releases on May 21st, which is no small feat."
The DF team has counted a rough Xbox Series X resolution range of "between 1296p and 1440p or thereabouts", and we already know that the game will be running at 30FPS on console. It certainly sounds demanding then - we're eager to see what the dev team does with this one overall!
It's worth noting that all of this analysis is based off early preview footage, so we'll have to wait and see how the game's final code shapes up. There's not long to go anyway, as Hellblade 2 lands as an Xbox console exclusive on May 21st, 2024 - and it'll be on Xbox Game Pass on day one.
What do you think to DF's early analysis here? Drop your thoughts down below.
[source eurogamer.net]
Comments 34
My concern is the soft image quality cause he mentions that the internal resolutions is at like 900p-1070p. It's been quite a common theme with UE5 games on the current consoles.
Anyone played any UE5 games on Series X and how does the image quality look? I haven't...
I'm curious about what other platforms they are referring to. Maybe not so powerful PCs?
Ah well there's another game I won't be playing 🤗
Wait! What, @BBB! You cannot call yourself old and grumpy. I am now 60, and trademarked being old and grumpy on these forums some years back. So, unfortunately, I shall have to issue a cease and desist order, and politely request that you find your own original moniker... 🤣
I'll be playing on S. So we'll see how many cutbacks I'll have to deal with.
Didn’t they say due to letter boxing the resolution is more like 1000?
@BBB When did you play the gameplay? What's it like in motion?
And they also reference games like Robocop which can drop below 720p to 'hit' 60fps...
I think its a Catch 22 - Gamers seem to expect Graphics to be significantly advanced and first impressions count a LOT, but then expect significant 'frame rate' improvements too. If they made HB2 with the 'same' assets, same lighting etc, then maybe it would be a 60fps game, but then people would complain that it 'looks' like a last gen game...
It is, however, releasing at 30fps - just like the Original did to great success. This is on another level graphically and 'nothing' comes close to the facial animation and realism in game before. Is it really any different from games that 'pushed' the graphical limits of last gen, limiting games to '30fps' and represented a 'leap' up from the visuals on 360 era hardware.
Its only when 'old' games become playable on improved Hardware (like Pro/X or next gen hardware) that these '30fps' Console games can now be enhanced to 60fps. Most, if not all '60fps' releases this gen have also released '30fps' versions on last gen.
I can't wait to check it out!
I am just looking forward to playing it next month
@BRT15
I played Jusant which is an Unreal Engine 5 game and I think the most noticeable difference is the lighting in otherwise dark spaces looked really good. (Even without ray tracing.)
It was a game from a smaller development team though and used less complex textures so it won't be directly comparable to Hellblade 2.
@BBB I don't think gameplay was old years ago and this remains true today. Hellblade just don't go the spam any button action gameplay route and instead the movements are more precise and intentional.
It is not graphics only, gameplay is pretty solid.
I honestly don't get how people can be excited for this game. It just looks like a technical showcase game and if it plays anything like the original game, it's going to be a terrible game.
Like if you are genuinely excited for it then great, more power to you but it just sounds terrible in my opinion.
Well, people wanted games that push next-gen hardware, so... here you are. In all of its lower-resolution, lower-framerate glory.
@ShadowofTwilight The original wasn't terrible by any stretch of the imagination.
It's not my sort of thing, but the original was well-crafted for what it was, and I expect the same will be true of this sequel.
@Ralizah
If you say so dude, I thought it was a genuinely terrible game. The combat wasn't fun to me and the dreary visuals made the actual areas look bad in my opinion.
So finally a Next Gen Visuals Game arrives on the Series X…..running at 30fps with low resolution…..oh dear 🤦🏻♂️ so when does the PS5 Pro release?
The sequel to my favorite and incredibly cinematic game plays at 30fps? Great. I'm in. The first one wasn't exactly super-fast, twitchy action and I didn't want this one to be either. Would I play it at 60fps on PC? Maybe, but honestly the original game had weight that I doubt would translate to 60 or 120fps anyway. I still don't get the obsession with frame rate on games like this. Forza? Totally. Competitive shooters like CoD? Absolutely. Slow-moving narrative single-player games? Who cares?
Weird how much hate the 1st game gets though. It's my second all-time favorite game behind Metal Gear Solid.
I have a Series S and Switch. I'm honestly SO excited for this game! I loved the first one, and am excited to see this story continue.
I don't need cutting edge graphics, just give me consistency. I don't need 4k resolutions or 60 fps, but please provide 1080p and 30 fps
@Ralizah I think what FANS wanted was to finally play high res PS4/X1 games at a proper high framerate with fast load times, too and maybe look even better to boot. What marketing managers and technophile "artists" wanted was cram more into a scene and let the hardware chug at the same framerate and resolution as a PS1.
Cant wait until Series Y and PS6 when we can play games with even more individual photon light path tracing, still at 240i and 15-27fps.
@JonBoyJ With basically the same CPU, PS5 Pro isn't going to improve fps on a heck of a lot of games that are CPU bound. It'll up the resolution but that's about it in most cases. Gen 9 is about playing PS4 games with better fps and res, and about playing gen 10 games at low fps and res. There are no gen 9 games. It's pretty much been skipped with development either having been for PS4, or starting for 4090's and optimizing for "next gen" (or put another way, not optimizing and hoping hardware will brute force it later.)
@BBB I agree. Granted, I'm biased because the entire theme of Hellblade/psych-horror just isn't for me in general. But as an outsider, I see a pretty, formulaic "Naughty Dog" game and super pretty tech demo graphics, clearly designed for a 4090/next-next-gen rig that performs so-so because it's too demanding for current hardware. Instead of making games for this hardware devs insist on making games for future hardware that can kind of run on today's hardware just barely, if you run it at 1985 broadcast TV resolutions. Just like PC has been for 30 years. These tech demo games, even going back to games like Quake 3 on PC when it launched always feel like they're selling you an early access preview for a game meant for hardware most people will own 5-10 years later.
I get that it's a graphical achievement and all that, and I don't doubt the hard work they've put into squeezing a lot out of the engine and hardware. I just doubt that the end result of running a game at sub-1080p resolution and 30 or less fps all to play what looks like a formulaic over the shoulder action adventure is worth it.
But I guess the market eats this stuff up.
Right now I see the future, or present of the gaming market splitting in 3 directions. One is all in for giant platform service games that look fugly, have repetitive game play designed to give you chores to do and reach into your wallet. One is all in for "AAA single player games" but what they really mean is tech demo's that lose millions of dollars previewing how amazing future graphics technology will be, the gameplay is either irrelevant or must be a Soulslike. And finally people who care about gameplay, and for that a Switch has graphics that are just fine pretty much from now until eternity.
I think recognizing that is why MS is going all in on Series S, a dedicated handheld and "indiepass". They know now what Nintendo knew generations ago.
@NEStalgia That's what this generation has been, though. PS4/XB1-tier games, but at higher framerates and resolutions. And I've heard endless griping from enthusiasts online about how this doesn't feel like a real console generation, it's just an extension of the last generation, everything that's on these consoles could have been on those consoles, nothing has really pushed the hardware, etc.
The side effect of those games 'not pushing the hardware' is that performance modes can be offered for them, allowing them to run more smoothly on modern hardware.
We're beginning to transition back to '30fps, but gosh these games sure are expensive looking' again. It just took longer than previous gens because modern AAA games take ungodly levels of dev time.
@Ralizah This generation was a mistake. There's just no reason hardware should have ever released in 2020. Hardware advancement hadn't really advanced enough yet. It exists mostly for the SSD and loading times, and some bumps here and there, but PS4 Pro Plus/X1XX is really all it is. Which is fine. PS4/X1 budget games that actually run 4k/60 with fast load times should have been seen as finally correcting the sucky 8th gen.
Instead people whine that it's not the gfx leap that SNES to PS1 was. And of course no studio can afford to make games that push any hardware better than Switch anyway.
I really hate the whole "30fps but sure looks expensive" world. Hated it in 90's PC gamers, hate it today. Like I said in the other thread those "enthusiasts" are more interested in the hobby of benchmarking their hardware OC's than they are in playing games. No idea how that mentality of tech demos ended up in console.
"But can it run Crysis?" No. STFU.
@NEStalgia Ehh, Sony needed new hardware. The PS4 was looking pretty wimpy by that point and sales were flatlining. I'm sure their market analysts saw this dip coming and rightly advised Sony that they needed a next-gen hardware launch by then.
The issue is one of expectations. The largest demographic purchasing consoles are millennial men in their 30s and 40s who watched the modern console market grow from its infancy, when every new hardware release meant a revelatory shift in what was possible in the medium. That's just not the case anymore, which is why I've argued you'll increasingly see manufacturers go sideways in their evolution. Granted, Nintendo was smart, lowered expectations for cutting-edge tech in their consoles since the Wii era, and went sideways with tech capable of running seventh-gen games, so they still have room to surprise people with how much better games look on the Switch 2.
@Ralizah That's kind of the problem with the console model these days and I think some of Phil's point. Xbox released a console because Sony released a console which they did merely to reinvigorate sales, not because the hardware difference justified a new generation because it doesn't change as fast anymore. Heck it's so obvious even "generations" guy didn't really think so.
Obviously PS4 wasn't very wimpy considering most new games are still running on it. The 9th Gen exists as a marketing campaign only.
You're right about expectations but the real issue is one of hardware. It doesn't really change as fast anymore. What was a 5 year leap in hardware is now 10 to 12 years. Which means we really don't need new hardware every 7 years anymore.
Hardware AI will really be the best important factor next. But as always consoles will launch with a prototype of it that doesn't actually work properly for what games will be built for on PC a year later, and again the cycle will repeat.
@BAMozzy yup this is what I have been saying to people all of the time with each generation. This current generation is bad with this mindset because the last few years people are accustomed to remasters. Remasters of older games from previous hardware. So of course the new hardware can run it well. I knew once true current generation games came out that are ambitious developers would have to decide which direction they want to go. It’s the same for any console generation really. So nothing new. Problem is too many people follow critique outlets like digital foundry and think everything is unplayable if it doesn’t pass their 60 fps+ analysis for all game types. With that said I’m someone whom can easily see the difference with higher frame rates. It’s noticeable. However games from previous generations that were ambitious for the time that didn’t have great performance were never a problem for me. As long as they were playable. And yes you are correct people would complain if they reduced the graphics down just for the sake of FPS and resolution. Next generation of console 4K gaming will be better assuming 4K remains the target resolution. I also hope that Microsoft and Sony make truly powerful consoles similar to the X360/PS3 era. As considering inflation the consoles have been keep relatively weak just so they can keep the price in the same range more less.
@eduscxbox different strokes for different folks. I did find the gameplay in the first one very repetitive. Game was gorgeous and had really interesting story but I could not get into it and got bored of it very quickly. Will definitely give this one a shot and hopefully it clicks
@BAMozzy 30 fps is atrocious. You could have this thing at 16K, but 30 fps will make it seem laggy and sluggish. 60 fps minimum or we're just not playing. If you like 30 fps, great. But not me, I need crisp, fast, low latency, smooth 60 or I'm Audi. My wallet my choice. 😝
This is so laughable. Guess we just pretend the Xbox360,Xone generations never happened ? Internet gamers just hate games.
I will be playing this day one in all it's 30fps, UE5, Nanite, Lumen, FSR, Raytraced, templar upscaling, reflective nose hairs, uber immersive gameplay and all the other big words users of this page said they demanded to have. Well here you go lmao
@JaffeGaffe Your choice of course but you'll end up not playing MANY new games. Even those with '60fps' modes aren't delivering a LOCKED 60fps with 'internal' resolutions below 720p - but hey, your choice...
30fps can feel more 'weighty' than laggy/sluggish - it really does depend on the game. Its not a fast paced twitch shooter like Call of Duty - Even the fights only ever pit you against one 'enemy' at a time.
As you say, your wallet, your choice - so I guess you won't be playing many of the 'great' UE5 games coming out that take advantage of Nanite, Lumin, meta Humans etc on Consoles - you may have to buy a PC or wait until 'next' gen when these games could be '60fps' - much like all the 'Last-gen' games released/updated etc on Current Gen hardware.
If you wanted to play Hellblade at 60fps, you had to play on PC or 'wait' for more powerful hardware - like PS4 Pro/XB1X - but even the Pro was a 'softer' image and couldn't deliver a consistent '60fps'. So like last gen games pushing the limits of 'aging' relatively low cost hardware as the Consoles ARE, you either play at 30fps OR wait until new Hardware releases enabling higher frame rates.
As for 'wallet', well it won't cost me anything to play as I have Game Pass Ultimate - enabling me to play on my Series X or 3080ti PC. I know GPU has a 'cost' but I not paying that just for HBii so its essentially Free...
@Fiendish-Beaver Delighted that someone else has the title! I won't be 60 till summer old man!
I'm a relative spring chicken
From a tech perspective, this game is pushing it and Ninja Theory deserve praise. I'm not sure that's going to give it compelling game play mind you, but at least we get eye candy!
@BAMozzy Oh hell yeah, good reply...because you changed my mind (I'm not an UNREASONABLE troll).
I have an MSI Stealth 15 with a 3070ti, 64GB of DDR5, and a 12900H. Got it for an unbelievable deal last uear so I had to grab it instead of drain my "wallet" for a current gen system.
It's not a 3080ti desktop card, but the 8GB plus the additional cores the RTX 30 series possesses over Ampere, it's running double the load of what my GTX1080 desktop card was doing. Haven't had a hitch yet. I can play on my 4K TV on (nearly) max settings for most games and keep the frames at 60 with little (visible to the naked eye) difference compared to all ultra settings. Ray tracing seems to be handled extremely well too. I was surprised this XX70ti-tier card performs so well compared to what I expected. UE5 games run like a dream too. Cool thing, it happened to be the final and literal last minute revision of this particular laptop model. None of the PC reviewers got this setup. If you look up reviews on this model, the earlier revisions all have worse specs and fairly significant gaps in the hardware performance in one aspect or another. I really went from feeling like a cheapo to feeling satisfied after using it for several months.
If I really want to let it the thing scream, I can play on my cooling pad on the 1080p 360HZ laptop display. Aside from a fairly low resolution (I prefer 1440p on a 15 inch screen) and lack of HDR, the high frame rate and DLSS make up for that. I'm getting in the ballpark of 100 and 200 fps on my games, depending on how demanding they are. 4K is almost always 60 fps. It's super thin and lightweight, so playing on my lap isn't cumbersome. I'm extremely happy and this is my first foray into non-flagship GPUs.
I have Gamepass Ultimate and thanks to you I now know this game will be on PC! Nice! Much appreciated.
My slight counter argument though: the Navi GPU in the Series X is more than suited to get this game running at 60. My opinion on the matter is that the development cycle of implementing the dynamic culling and LOD levels to every asset to make a Performance Mode is a time consuming and difficult process. A lot of developers skip that so they can get their game launched on consoles. I still think there is a significant population of snobs that draw a line at 60 for certain AAA titles.
I appreciate the discourse, my friend.
Look at the 'best' games of the PS3/360 era - those 30fps games often either had 60fps options on the next gen or pushed the visual Quality much higher than the last gen. At the start, you had 'cross' gen games that pushed much higher resolution and graphic settings on newer hardware, some games offering 60fps etc too
Tomb Raider, Uncharted Trilogy, Skyrim (to name a few) were all boosted by new Hardware. Uncharted was regarded as the best graphics of the Gen, yet Uncharted 4 was a graphical leap over U3 - and only 30fps (until PS4 Pro).
Hellblade was a 30fps game until Pro/XB1 hardware came along - and now on next gen, you can even have some Ray Tracing effects but have to settle for 30fps - so why expect this to be 60fps?
If this was built on the old engine, with the old assets, old animations etc just to hit '60fps' on Series X, It could release on XB1 at 30fps - not using 'next' gen things like Lumin or Nanite. It would look like a last gen game on modern hardware and that would be 'wrong' too for many.
Nothing else - not even the 'best' graphical games on last gen look as advanced, a generational leap up from anything we had last gen. That has always resulted in 30fps on Console because 30fps allows double the CPU/GPU cycles per frame over 60fps, double the amount of processing resources per frame...
Yes they maybe able to drop res, drop graphical settings to the lowest possible, reduce LoDs and Draw Distances etc to try and hit 60fps, but if it looks 'ugly/terrible' with so many upscaling artefacts detracting from its intended impact, Devs may not want that for their game - especially one like this.
@BAMozzy @BAMozzy Every single current gen PlayStation 5 exclusive I have played and I've played have been 60fps at launch many were 60fps with raytracing and many with 120fps options available. This is obviously an X Box Series X and S exclusive issue as most exclusive I played on X Box were 30fps while being noticeably worse in every factor
@Jett And most (if not all) were built for Last gen Hardware too and were targeting at least 30fps on that hardware so at least 60fps is 'possible' on next gen. Not saying they aren't great or fun to play, but that they were 'built' to run on a PS4 (built on PS4 era 'engines' they built the Sequel on).
Those games may feature an RT 'effect' like Reflections, shadows etc but are also using 'traditional' methods of lighting but that's 'cheap' compared to Full Path Tracing and Global Illumination for example - but does 'tick' the RT box. Not saying there is an issue with that, but that's why they have games like that. Not one of these has the Physics and scale of Starfield or Flight Simulator for example.
Games like Death Stranding (again a PS4 era game) Looks great and plays at 60fps on a PS5 - no doubt, but that is not in the same league thanks to Nanite and Lumin - not traditional textures but actual geometry detail that UE5, a much more modern game engine offers.
Game-play, story etc - well that's only personal preference - Whether you like Forza (either) both have 60fps options, Gears (60fps and 120fps with RT GI on Series S/X - free upgrade instead of charging for it as a remaster or upgrade as Sony did for theirs), Starfield/Redfall (legacy from Zenimax but still built on Old engine and Redfall was really not MS at all - too 'hands off') etc is personal preference.
MS only 'supported' Bethesda in the last stages of development to ensure they had the 'help' required to optimise and minimise 'bugs' so they get 'Bethesda's' game out in a much better state than any 'prior' Bethesda game released - which they 'succeeded' in.
Its typical Bethesda because that's what Bethesda do, what they were deep into working on, nearly finished when MS took over....
We're yet to see what games their Studios were building 'specifically' with Series X in mind on Modern/Current Gen Engines like UE5, on ANY console - this is really one of the first. Whether you 'enjoy it' more/less than Sony's PS4/5 games, that's 'preference' and Subjective.
I, for example, enjoy some PS5 games for what they are - games! I often select the '30fps' 4k Quality mode than 1080-1440p 60fps mode as it looks so much better - but I do feel like I've played their games over and over again - just increasingly looking 'better' rather than bring something 'different' and/or 'ambitious'...
The fact that some thought they were looking at the Actress in Character dress, not the 'in-game' character we get is that step closer to realism, without those aspects that 'games' usually have that always makes them look like 'games'...
Leave A Comment
Hold on there, you need to login to post a comment...