|
Member
(03-05-2012, 11:10 AM)
|
#503
Some of you people must realise it's a photo mode picture and move on. Its only purpose is to reveal in-game Master Chief model (aka the series' icon). When Naughty Dog reveals photo mode pictures no one complains and everybody just looks at the quality of modelling, textures, lighting etc.
We're going to see in-game footage in a few hours anyway. |
|
Member
(03-05-2012, 11:10 AM)
|
#504
It's no different to what other developers do, whether it's Issuing Photo mode screenshots in GT5 as in-game or whether it's epic flat out cheating or whether it's Uncharted having screenshots issued with additional AA passes applied to them.
|
|
Banned
(03-05-2012, 11:12 AM)
|
#508
Baseless, highly unlikely conjecture is what you're looking for?
And it's fucking terrible and it needs to stop. |
|
Banned
(03-05-2012, 11:13 AM)
|
#509
I understand that as it's Halo (one of the biggest and most important franchises in gaming) it's open for a lot of scrutiny for this kinda thing. That said, I doubt these bullshots were done for the standard reason of misrepresenting in-game graphics, rather, to give fans something salivate over until we get actual footage. |
|
Banned
(03-05-2012, 11:16 AM)
|
#512
Last edited by GavinGT; 03-05-2012 at 11:19 AM.
|
|
Member
(03-05-2012, 11:16 AM)
|
#513
If the pictures posted were a jaggy mess, there would be an even longer thread bitching about that. Does nobody else remember this screenshot released from Halo 3? ![]() It was posted on..IGN I think, before B.net and people flipped shit about the trees, and the lack of AA. There was zero discussion about the Infection gametype, or anything else that screenshot revealed. |
|
Banned
(03-05-2012, 11:17 AM)
|
#515
Aside from the fact that what you're saying technically impossible - code changes up to a month from release, so you should see a first trailer one month before release (by your logic) - it's also very subjective. That's your take on what developers should be doing. And becouse of that, you should stop generalising how developers try to deceive everyone, becouse I don't experience it that way.
|
|
Member
(03-05-2012, 11:18 AM)
|
#517
By the time most people have watched a trailer on Youtube or TV or on their console, it will of been compressed to fuck and looks worse than it does on TV. Same with the screenshots, most of these will end up reduced to tinyvision with severe jpeg compression on them. |
|
Member
(03-05-2012, 11:18 AM)
|
#519
|
|
Member
(03-05-2012, 11:20 AM)
|
#520
|
|
Member
(03-05-2012, 11:20 AM)
|
#521
|
|
Banned
(03-05-2012, 11:22 AM)
|
#522
My argument is that developers should try to provide an accurate barometer for what their final product will look like. Which side sounds more reasonable? You're basically straw-manning yourself here.
Last edited by GavinGT; 03-05-2012 at 11:26 AM.
|
|
Member
(03-05-2012, 11:23 AM)
|
#523
Last thing we want is Halo 4 looking Like Nexuiz! Halo has always been pretty consistant between campaign and Multiplayer, Keeping the geometry down ensures they will still have the grunt to push 16 players on screen at the same time all firing rockets and needlers and grenades at the same time. That's not to mention the split screen co-op of the game is famous for and the inclusion of 4 player online co-op in the campaign, which must have some bearing on design decisions that have to be made to accomodate these processor expensive modes. We get less of this disparity anyway nowadays, but I think back to the days of Ghost Recon, where the Campaign looked just like you wanted it to and the Multiplayer looked like a Ps2 game!
Last edited by EvB; 03-05-2012 at 11:25 AM.
|
|
Member
(03-05-2012, 11:25 AM)
|
#526
I'll have to disagree here. The weapon textures look better, the visor is obviously better, armor plates look at least as good and the parts underneath look more detailed, although the texture looks stretched in the first screen (it looks great in the orange shot).
|
|
Banned
(03-05-2012, 11:48 AM)
|
#528
Just look at the difference between the two, it's impossible to provide that accurate barometer. As for the visual quality, apart from the MC model, they're pretty close. Both, and I agree with both. But what you pass trough as your arguement here is different on what you were willing to achieve by posting this and this Trailers shouldn't be taken out of context.
Last edited by HollovVpo1nt; 03-05-2012 at 11:52 AM.
|
|
Member
(03-05-2012, 11:52 AM)
|
#532
Weapon texture looks about the same as Reach. Weapon textures in reach were generally 1024X, I can't imagine they're going to going higher than that, unless they were going to split the weapon models into multiple pieces and have those each be 512x or higher..which is highly unlikely since the 360 has such little RAM. Visor is better, yeah, but that's not really because of textures. Chances are it's probably the same setup they had in Reach. It's a few different decent res textures, with a cubemap showing through and a yellow tinted specular. Damn nice shader though. Armor looks like the set up as Reach as well. Looks like it was split into multiple(possibly interchangeable) parts, and textured that way. Reach had a base body texture, under armor texture, and then different textures for each body part. These ranged from 128(for the smaller things, like the grenade belt, arm accessories, knife, etc), to 1024(this was actually just for the base Mark V(b). Most of the other helmets and main body pieces were 512. So with this, we're probably seeing the 1024x since it'll be the "base" variant(if there are even others, which I REALLY hope there are). My only complaint with the hard armor portions is that it's very...flat, in terms of highlights. A really dull metal look. And that the scratches and signs of wear look like crap..mainly the elbows. The under armor is what bugs me the most. Looks really low res compared to the rest of the armor. In Reach, the "rubber" bits on the body alone had its own texture that was 1024x. It was really clean and looked GREAT up close in-game. I'd post the texture but I'm..pretty sure that's illegal. |
|
Banned
(03-05-2012, 12:08 PM)
|
#543
|
|
Banned
(03-05-2012, 12:11 PM)
|
#547
Thanks Ajemsuhgao , I thought those were new leaky pics... you're expandiancy is much appreciated though. We at work when the reveal comes will live or die relying on those with rehosting skills!
Last edited by monome; 03-05-2012 at 12:14 PM.
|
|
Member
(03-05-2012, 12:12 PM)
|
#549
|