|
|
| Author | Message |
|---|
HaloGX
  
 
| | #1 posted October 11, 2007 at 4:30pm (EDT) |
This topic had many older posts which were moved here:
http://gametz.com/forum/VideoGame_Discussion/topic...
|
SmarmySir
 
| | #2 posted October 11, 2007 at 4:30pm (EDT) |
The lighting in Halo 3 is the best and most realistic the 360 has seen so far.
----------------------------------
You love me longtime?
My Halo 3 service record. |
colon
 
| | #3 posted October 11, 2007 at 8:07pm (EDT) |
It looks much much much much much better than Halo 2. |
MyAlterEgo
(frozen)
| | #4 posted October 11, 2007 at 8:18pm (EDT) |
Just beat Halo 3 on co-op Legendary. |
ChosenWarrior
 
| | #5 posted October 11, 2007 at 9:01pm (EDT) |
Am I supposed to be proud of you or something??!!? j/k |
Richie
 
 
| | #6 posted October 12, 2007 at 2:37am (EDT) |
CaptainColon wrote:
> It looks much much much much much better than Halo 2.
That's really not saying much. Halo 2 looked like a 4 year old pc title...
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true,
by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful" -Seneca |
|
colon
| | #7 posted October 12, 2007 at 10:00am (EDT) |
I beat Halo 3 on Tuesday, I'm going through it again to get the hidden skulls now. |
mdp7310
| | #8 posted October 12, 2007 at 10:10am (EDT) |
I have all the skulls, I just need to find the terminals |
Mewtwo
| | #9 posted October 13, 2007 at 1:39am (EDT) |
MyAlterEgo wrote:
> Mewtwo, you're claiming that saying the graphics in Halo 3 aren't
> that good is ignorance/naivety, yet maybe you're just too much of
> a fanboy to see the truth.
No it has nothing to do with being a fanboy. I do love the halo games but I can fully admit the Halo 3 isn't the most graphically impressive game ever. I can admit the 360 can do better. But I'm not naive enough to say it looks like a slightly better Halo 2. I own all 3 games and I can go back and see and they are vastly different. Even the lighting alone can make the game look much better. But lighting and fancy shading effects aside I can also see that the higher resolutions and poly counts ARE there and do make the game a lot better looking. Go take Zanzibar and Last Resort. and compare those two maps. Anyone saying it looks like Halo 2 only slightly better really is being jaded. Seriously. There is no reason to say that it looks like these graphics could be done on a regular Xbox.
I also said that yes Halo 3 could look better. It could. There is no denying that the Soldiers/Marines aren't that great looking in the high poly counts etc. There is no doubt the the grass textures could be higher and look better. (Oblivion proves this). But again... I rather have the graphics how they look now and be able to have 100+ things going on on the screen then just have 5 super detailed marines and high res grass textures and only have 5 enemies on the screen at one time. That's not Halo.
In Halo you have giant battles where two scarabs are moving around. 5 Tanks with a full complement of marines on them are firing at said scarabs. You have 5 brutes riding around on choppers, you have 4 grunts blasting around on ghost, you have two warthogs with full complements of marines in them trying to blast them, you have 4 banshee's and 4 hornets in the air above you blasting it out. The whole area is alive with gunfire and missles and crap exploding everywhere. That is part of what makes it Halo. So I rather have all that then 7 enemies on Screen and small enclosed maps ala Gears of War. (Don't get me wrong I think Gears is a great game too.)
I am not some fanboy who can't see that the game isn't perfect. Even if I do seem like one. I can see that in the distance I don't see anything. Then I zoom in with my scope and poof 3 Brutes appear on the cliff. Yeah the draw distance isn't what I would like it to be. I can see the flaws. But you know what? If the graphics where even higher then it would be even worse. I don't know about you but I don't want my draw-in distance to only be like 5 feet like in oblivion.... That game has awesome graphics and it pays bad for them when a enemy/character/NPC walks 5 feet away from you and fades out... or when bushes and grass draw 5 feet in front of you. No thanks. It's fine for oblivion but that wouldn't cut it for a FPS.
Yeah the graphics aren't the highest or best that can be done on 360. But they sure as hell are more then just "Halo 2.5".  |
Mewtwo
| | #10 posted October 13, 2007 at 1:39am (EDT) |
Nick_Danger wrote:
> Also, for the people that keep throwing around the "It's only in 620p
> not 720p so the graphics suck thing", here is the reason.
>
> After the game was released, speculations arose that Halo 3 did not
> actually play at true HD resolution, with at least 720 lines of resolution.[33]
> In a Bungie Weekly Update, it was confirmed that the game was rendered
> at 1152×640 resolution instead of the usual 1280×720 (HD) resolution
> that most Xbox 360 games use.[34] The choice for this design was conscious
> on Bungie's part, due to the fact that Halo 3 uses two frame buffers
> instead of the usual one, and that this choice would allow Bungie
> to preserve as much as the dynamic range as possible for the game's
> lighting, as well as maintaining a smooth frame rate. The picture
> could be upscaled all the way up to 1080p by the Xbox 360.[34]
Thanks nick that's what I was talking about. I knew it had been stated somewhere why it was like that. |
Nick
 
| | #11 posted October 13, 2007 at 4:37am (EDT) |
No prob.
I also fully agree with your post #1018. |
colon
| | #12 posted October 13, 2007 at 4:44am (EDT) |
I agree with the last sentence of post #1018, that is all I read of it.  |
vDub
 
| | #13 posted October 13, 2007 at 4:54am (EDT) |
Halo: Combat Evolved (PC)
 |
sgtshaggy
 
| | #14 posted October 13, 2007 at 9:19am (EDT) |
I think Halo 3 looks pretty damned good--better than I expected, after reading some reviews.
shags |
AlphakirA
 
| | #15 posted October 13, 2007 at 1:06pm (EDT) |
Same here Shags. I bought it for the hype since I thought Halo 2 was nothing better than mediocre and the first got stale quickly, but boy was I pleasantly surprised,
Alpha's Wii Forum |
Avro
| | #16 posted October 13, 2007 at 2:11pm (EDT) |
But you should also work better with the hardware your provided, instead they tried to do to much and it hurt the overal polish of the game. I don't think Halo 3 has the best lighting at all. I much preferd the lighting in gears of war. I supose my biggest reaction to the game is not that its bad, but it's normal run of the mill FPS, with a few multiplayer gems tossed in, but a company that had one project, and well over 2 years to do it .. one would think.. or expect a hight lvl of polish from a game. Granted for the most part it does not have the rushed feeling then that turd of a game Halo 2 had IMO. Halo 3 is better, and yes Mewtwo I do agree, with some of what you said. It is nice to have alot of action going on at once (Gears of War) but you have to draw the line someplace. Some of these AI units are surrounded by those annoying little whatcha call its (name escapes me) that seem to be less graphically intensive and not as taxing when it comes to AI, all to say hey look, there are a bazillion things going on at once YAY ME!!! I don't think Halo 3 works well within the limits of the 360 hardware at all. It looks great in areas, and Bungie tried to do to much and probably could have used that time to tighten up the solo game play and and implrove the overall look of the game. Its wonderful to try and do so much, but its not worth it when Halo 3 could have been improved in other areas that are just as important.
I get the whole "well Bungie had to focus on both single and multiplayer" argument. But that seems as though people are making excuses for them. How many people does bungie have on there Dev team? 3? 5? 10? I can't see why you could have had 1 team focus on single player and another multiplayer! Once single player was finished you could incorperate the co-op play. We were told they would make it better.. and they did, but it was still rather ordinary, average nothing that really made you go holla crap WOW! this is fanfudgingastic. After I finished it, the first thought was... 2+ years and this is all I got? Look, this is not by any means a poor game, but its not a 10/10 either. The game is a solid 7.5 - 8.5 give or take abit. There are to many flaws with the game to give it anything higher then that.
Anyway:
Just finished Halflife 2 and EP 1 agian. working on EP 2. Valve produces another solid alround game, with multiplayer that IMO is 2nd to none. Teamfortress 2 and Portal are just WOW!
|
Jeffro
| | #17 posted October 13, 2007 at 2:47pm (EDT) |
Yeah, working on Ep. 2 myself. Valve, as a developer, is second to none. Nobody produces games of this quality, some come real close, but Valve hits the mark everytime.
YOUR SUCH A SUPER LADY!! |
sgtshaggy
| | #18 posted October 13, 2007 at 2:51pm (EDT) |
For such a young company, they rawk pretty hard.
shags |
vDub
| | #19 posted October 13, 2007 at 3:08pm (EDT) |
but you know what they say, what goes up must come down.
|
MyAlterEgo
(frozen)
| | #20 posted October 13, 2007 at 3:36pm (EDT) |
/looks at Squaresoft
Vdub, you're right. |
HaloGX
| | #21 posted October 13, 2007 at 3:45pm (EDT) |
Conker Live & Reloaded.
|
sgtshaggy
| | #22 posted October 13, 2007 at 3:47pm (EDT) |
Is that a vDubberism? |
Jeffro
| | #23 posted October 13, 2007 at 4:54pm (EDT) |
vDub wrote:
> but you know what they say, what goes up must come
> down.
>
>
Not gonna happen, they're too smart as a whole. Most developers get greedy(i.e. Rare, Sqenix), if Valve was gonna sell out they would of done it by now. Im sure they've been offered massive amounts of currency by many of the gigantic game companies.
YOUR SUCH A SUPER LADY!! |
vDub
| | #24 posted October 13, 2007 at 5:04pm (EDT) |
I'm not trying to say that Valve would sell out, I'm saying that eventually they're gonna make a game that's not on par with their previous games.
|
benstylus
| | #25 posted October 13, 2007 at 5:49pm (EDT) |
Jeffro wrote:
> Not gonna happen, they're too smart as a whole. Most developers get
> greedy(i.e. Rare, Sqenix), if Valve was gonna sell out they would
> of done it by now. Im sure they've been offered massive amounts of
> currency by many of the gigantic game companies.
>
With their Steam service, I think Valve is trying to make a push towards being a top publisher rather than just a top developer.
At the very least, they're positioning themselves to have quite a head start over their rivals when the inevitable move away from physical media occurs because they'll already have the infrastructure.
PHRASE OF THE MOMENT: tap-dancing douchebag |
Jeffro
| | #26 posted October 13, 2007 at 6:47pm (EDT) |
vDub- thats not how it came out. Either way, I still dont see it happening, theres too much testing involved, and, like Shaun said, they control everything throughout the development process. There would be no reason for them to release a game that wasnt up to par when they have all the control.
YOUR SUCH A SUPER LADY!! |
Shadowchemist
| | #27 posted October 13, 2007 at 6:50pm (EDT) |
Solitaire- 10650 points.
I win! |
j_factor
| | #28 posted October 13, 2007 at 7:49pm (EDT) |
Jeffro wrote:
> There would be no reason for them to
> release a game that wasnt up to par when they have all the
> control.
Generally, games aren't "not up to par" on purpose. They don't need a reason. It just happens.
"To anyone who knew me better
Know I chose Saturn first 'cause it’s 2D heaven
Bernie Stolar dropped the ball with the RAM cartridge
X-men Vs. Street Fighter could’ve expanded the market"
-- Del |
Jeffro
| | #29 posted October 13, 2007 at 8:17pm (EDT) |
No, they're rushed(on purpose). If a company releases a crapty game it either isnt finished or they dont know their market(i.e. stupid idea in the first place). It doesnt "just happen".
YOUR SUCH A SUPER LADY!! |
j_factor
| | #30 posted October 13, 2007 at 8:43pm (EDT) |
Jeffro wrote:
> No, they're rushed(on purpose). If a company releases a
> crapty game it either isnt finished or they dont know their
> market(i.e. stupid idea in the first place). It doesnt "just
> happen".
Not every poor game is rushed. Some are simply not fun.
"To anyone who knew me better
Know I chose Saturn first 'cause it’s 2D heaven
Bernie Stolar dropped the ball with the RAM cartridge
X-men Vs. Street Fighter could’ve expanded the market"
-- Del |
MyAlterEgo
(frozen)
| | #31 posted October 13, 2007 at 9:34pm (EDT) |
Mewtwo wrote:
> MyAlterEgo wrote:
>> Mewtwo, you're claiming that saying the graphics in Halo 3 aren't
>> that good is ignorance/naivety, yet maybe you're just too much
> of
>> a fanboy to see the truth.
>
> No it has nothing to do with being a fanboy. I do love the halo games
> but I can fully admit the Halo 3 isn't the most graphically impressive
> game ever. I can admit the 360 can do better. But I'm not naive enough
> to say it looks like a slightly better Halo 2. I own all 3 games and
> I can go back and see and they are vastly different. Even the lighting
> alone can make the game look much better. But lighting and fancy shading
> effects aside I can also see that the higher resolutions and poly
> counts ARE there and do make the game a lot better looking. Go take
> Zanzibar and Last Resort. and compare those two maps. Anyone saying
> it looks like Halo 2 only slightly better really is being jaded. Seriously.
> There is no reason to say that it looks like these graphics could
> be done on a regular Xbox.
>
> I also said that yes Halo 3 could look better. It could. There is
> no denying that the Soldiers/Marines aren't that great looking in
> the high poly counts etc. There is no doubt the the grass textures
> could be higher and look better. (Oblivion proves this). But again...
> I rather have the graphics how they look now and be able to have 100+
> things going on on the screen then just have 5 super detailed marines
> and high res grass textures and only have 5 enemies on the screen
> at one time. That's not Halo.
>
> In Halo you have giant battles where two scarabs are moving around.
> 5 Tanks with a full complement of marines on them are firing at said
> scarabs. You have 5 brutes riding around on choppers, you have 4 grunts
> blasting around on ghost, you have two warthogs with full complements
> of marines in them trying to blast them, you have 4 banshee's and
> 4 hornets in the air above you blasting it out. The whole area is
> alive with gunfire and missles and crap exploding everywhere. That
> is part of what makes it Halo. So I rather have all that then 7 enemies
> on Screen and small enclosed maps ala Gears of War. (Don't get me
> wrong I think Gears is a great game too.)
>
> I am not some fanboy who can't see that the game isn't perfect. Even
> if I do seem like one. I can see that in the distance I don't see
> anything. Then I zoom in with my scope and poof 3 Brutes appear on
> the cliff. Yeah the draw distance isn't what I would like it to be.
> I can see the flaws. But you know what? If the graphics where even
> higher then it would be even worse. I don't know about you but I don't
> want my draw-in distance to only be like 5 feet like in oblivion....
> That game has awesome graphics and it pays bad for them when a enemy/character/NPC
> walks 5 feet away from you and fades out... or when bushes and grass
> draw 5 feet in front of you. No thanks. It's fine for oblivion but
> that wouldn't cut it for a FPS.
>
> Yeah the graphics aren't the highest or best that can be done on
> 360. But they sure as hell are more then just "Halo 2.5".
You make interesting points, and while the lighting in the game is better than Halo 3, I think it's still sucks. The game is overall too dark in a lot of areas that aren't in sunlight. Sure, the graphics are better, and maybe comparing them next to Halo 2's graphics would make them stand out better, but there is not one second when playing this game that I say "damn, that looks fudging amazing." |
OuTrAgE
 
| | #32 posted October 13, 2007 at 11:44pm (EDT) |
Portal (PC) - 9/10
 |
Jeffro
| | #33 posted October 14, 2007 at 12:58am (EDT) |
j_factor wrote:
> Jeffro wrote:
>> No, they're rushed(on purpose). If a company releases
> a
>> crapty game it either isnt finished or they dont
> know their
>> market(i.e. stupid idea in the first place). It
> doesnt "just
>> happen".
>
> Not every poor game is rushed. Some are simply not
> fun.
>
>
To certain individuals maybe, but no game is "accidently" bad, and yes, every poor game is rushed, if the developer was thinking about their audience it would'nt of happened. The game would of been terminated on the spot, its not a good financial decision to release a game nobody likes. There is more than enough information out there to develop a game that a large majority of people will like. All of these developers releasing crapty games just get done with what they are doing(they're bored) or they are forced to by the publishers.
YOUR SUCH A SUPER LADY!! |
Richie
| | #34 posted October 14, 2007 at 2:04am (EDT) |
j_factor wrote:
> Jeffro wrote:
>> No, they're rushed(on purpose). If a company releases a
>> crapty game it either isnt finished or they dont know their
>> market(i.e. stupid idea in the first place). It doesnt "just
>> happen".
>
> Not every poor game is rushed. Some are simply not fun.
>
>
And the rest of the poor games are published by EA.
still bitter about the buyout of Bioware
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true,
by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful" -Seneca |
|
Richie
| | #35 posted October 14, 2007 at 2:06am (EDT) |
OT: Just finished HL2: Episode One again earlier tonight. I love when Alex cracks the joke about the
zombie combine soldier. Hi-larious.
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true,
by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful" -Seneca |
|
vDub
| | #36 posted October 14, 2007 at 2:06am (EDT) |
Richie - I'm just as bitter as you are. EA needs to fudging die and leave great companies like BioWare alone.
|
Richie
| | #37 posted October 14, 2007 at 2:09am (EDT) |
 
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true,
by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful" -Seneca |
|
sindon007
| | #38 posted October 14, 2007 at 4:04am (EDT) |
Kingdom Hearts 2 |
benstylus
| | #39 posted October 14, 2007 at 10:31am (EDT) |
vDub wrote:
> Richie - I'm just as bitter as you are. EA needs to fudging die and
> leave great companies like BioWare alone.
If people would stop buying their games, EA would have no choice but to stop making them.
PHRASE OF THE MOMENT: tap-dancing douchebag |
ParkAvenger
| | #40 posted October 14, 2007 at 11:31am (EDT) |
But sadly, since EA buys up so many good companies, the games they release are good, even if they themselves are a bunch of swine. And of course, the great masses of people who buy their more "mass-appeal" type games aren't going to give a crap who owns who as long as they get their Madden. |
|
|
Rules Help 
