Support NeoGAF

[Plywood]

When they go berserker in Halo 3, they're completely useless, they rarely get a hit.
In Halo 2, they'd continuously tackle you 'til you died.

Which made them bullet sponges. Hell they didn't even have armor in H2. The Brute A.i. in H2 was pretty damn stupid, stupid but persistent in it's bullet sponginess. H3 only somewhat rectified the situation but it doesn't help that Brute armor flies off at the slightest touch.

 

[Truant]

Dynamic lighting coupled with dynamic shadows is the way to go. Even MW2 does it, at 60 FPS.

 

[BattleMonkey]

Dynamic lighting coupled with dynamic shadows is the way to go. Even MW2 does it, at 60 FPS.

In a linear corridor compared to the open world of halo games. Halo games openness is a much more demanding visual presentation than that of the COD games which are more like stage pieces that are tightly controlled allowing for easier optimization of the visuals.

 

[Truant]

In a linear corridor compared to the open world of halo games. Halo games openness is a much more demanding visual presentation than that of the COD games which are more like stage pieces that are tightly controlled allowing for easier optimization of the visuals.

Some of the MW2 levels are pretty open, so I'm not really buying that. Especially since it's running at twice the framerate, and it has faces that resemble actual faces.

 

[BattleMonkey]

Some of the MW2 levels are pretty open, so I'm not really buying that. Especially since it's running at twice the framerate, and it has faces that resemble actual faces.

By open you mean a big arena enclosed by invisible walls. The game is all about trickery in visuals. Also it's covered in mediocre to poor textures, the player models are the most detailed aspect. You got brain dead AI all over the place, canned animations instead of any true ragdoll physics to calculate, scripted environmental details, it's all a canned presentation that lets them give a higher fps while most games can't offer similar frame rates as they do so much more.

Even the "open" areas of COD are very limited and the game puts up magical walls that stop you from returning to areas once you reach areas, because it's not an open world that you can openly wander around in, the game puts all it's work into presenting a set piece by removing your freedom. Smoke and mirrors.

 

[Truant]

By open you mean a big arena enclosed by invisible walls. The game is all about trickery in visuals. Also it's covered in mediocre to poor textures, the player models are the most detailed aspect. You got brain dead AI all over the place, canned animations instead of any true ragdoll physics to calculate, scripted environmental details, it's all a canned presentation that lets them give a higher fps while most games can't offer similar frame rates as they do so much more.

Even the "open" areas of COD are very limited and the game puts up magical walls that stop you from returning to areas once you reach areas, because it's not an open world that you can openly wander around in, the game puts all it's work into presenting a set piece by removing your freedom. Smoke and mirrors.

No, it's not an open world, but neither is most of Halo 3. I think you're giving the sandbox element a bit too much credit here. Look at GTA4, while the framerate suffers, the game uses fully dynamic lighting (at least on my PC version, pretty sure it was the same on the 360) and the game is vast. I just feel that Halo 3 looks very underwhelming, which is kinda sad considering I actually called a friend over to theck out the bump mapping effects on the frozen lakes in AotCR in Halo: CE.

 

[BattleMonkey]

No, it's not an open world, but neither is most of Halo 3. I think you're giving the sandbox element a bit too much credit here. Look at GTA4, while the framerate suffers, the game uses fully dynamic lighting (at least on my PC version, pretty sure it was the same on the 360) and the game is vast. I just feel that Halo 3 looks very underwhelming, which is kinda sad considering I actually called a friend over to theck out the bump mapping effects on the frozen lakes in AotCR in Halo: CE.

Halo looked like crap, I won't say otherwise, but it does do many things better than a COD game and gives you complete freedom to do as you want. Also PC GTA? Seriously come on, play it on a console if you want to talk console games where the GTA games took serious hits on visual aspects. PC GTAIV is amazing visually compared to the console versions.

To get the visual upgrades people want out of Halo is not gonna allow for the games style to work at 60fps without downgrades in other aspects of the game.

 

[Slightly Live]

No, it's not an open world, but neither is most of Halo 3. I think you're giving the sandbox element a bit too much credit here. Look at GTA4, while the framerate suffers, the game uses fully dynamic lighting (at least on my PC version, pretty sure it was the same on the 360) and the game is vast. I just feel that Halo 3 looks very underwhelming, which is kinda sad considering I actually called a friend over to theck out the bump mapping effects on the frozen lakes in AotCR in Halo: CE.

You don't get it, Halo 3 has a lot more going on than you probably realise. From the lighting, the dynamic AI and the huge scale.

GTA4 nor COD hasn't got a fraction of the AI found in Halo 3. Heck the biggest COD levels are just a fraction the size of the biggest Halo 3 levels. None of them have saved films either.

No game has the same combination of feature-set, scale, lighting and AI that Halo 3 has. None. Bungie made sacrifices to put all these features in and it the end product, the sales and the popularity show exactly why it was worth it.

Besides, the frameworks of GT4, COD and Halo are so different, it's almost impossible to directly compare them as each has it's own significant strengths and weaknesses.

But do go on and continue to troll Halo for not looking like game X or looking worse than game Y and giving the most ignorant of reasons for your idiotic statements.

Unless you are a technical coder and you can verify whether or not Halo 3's code is as optimised or refined as another game's, you're talking shit.

 

[Truant]

You don't get it, Halo 3 has a lot more going on than you probably realise. From the lighting, the dynamic AI and the huge scale.

GTA4 nor COD hasn't got a fraction of the AI found in Halo 3. Heck the biggest COD levels are just a fraction the size of the biggest Halo 3 levels. None of them have saved films either.

No game has the same combination of feature-set, scale, lighting and AI that Halo 3 has. None. Bungie made sacrifices to put all these features in and it the end product, the sales and the popularity show exactly why it was worth it.

Besides, the frameworks of GT4, COD and Halo are so different, it's almost impossible to directly compare them as each has it's own significant strengths and weaknesses.

But do go on and continue to troll Halo for not looking like game X or looking worse than game Y and giving the most ignorant of reasons for your idiotic statements.

Unless you are a technical coder and you can verify whether or not Halo 3's code is as optimised or refined as another game's, you're talking shit.

You seem upset, and I'm sorry if I offended you, that was not my intention at all. You obviously know more about this than I, and I have made no claims at all to be proficient in either coding or graphic design.

I'm exclusively talking about what I'm seeing and experiencing when I play the game, and how other games look and perform in comparison. I don't really care how the framework is set up, or what it's doing under the hood, because it could be a technical marvel, doing revolutionary stuff, but if the end result doesn't look good, that's really what I'm seeing.

I understand that this is the compromise Bungie had to live with given their ambitions for the AI, or the social features, but if other games can give me the illusion of the same quality, then why would any gamer care about what's really going on? To me, the AI in Half-Life 1 seems more impressive than the Halo 3 AI, but it's probably just a simple calculator to what Bungie is doing. It's all in the way you experience something, and I don't care what developers do to achieve that.

 

[Gui_PT]

Text

You can't really give that kind of opinion if you don't understand what you're talking about.
You can't also compare 2 games and then say "I don't care about how this or that is made"

 

[Truant]

You can't really give that kind of opinion if you don't understand what you're talking about.
You can't also compare 2 games and then say "I don't care about how this or that is made"

That's nonsense. It's like saying a piece of music is better because of the intricacies in its composition, as opposed to a song written by someone who can't even write sheet music.

Not the best comparison, but you get what I'm saying. I'm not saying all games should look as good as the other, but simply that the only thing that matters is how the player perceives the game, not the foundations behind it. Halo 3 has a bunch of features that most games don't have, so I guess this thread was the wrong place to post my thoughts. My point still stands, though.

 

[Gui_PT]

It is not nonsense. If you want to criticize something the way you were doing it, you should actually understand how it works

 

[clashfan]

Dynamic lighting coupled with dynamic shadows is the way to go. Even MW2 does it, at 60 FPS.

What resolution is MW2 running at?

 

[SimpleDesign]

What resolution is MW2 running at?

1024x600 I think.

 

[Blackface]

It is not nonsense. If you want to criticize something the way you were doing it, you should actually understand how it works

bingo.

 

[Walshicus]

By open you mean a big arena enclosed by invisible walls. The game is all about trickery in visuals. Also it's covered in mediocre to poor textures, the player models are the most detailed aspect. You got brain dead AI all over the place, canned animations instead of any true ragdoll physics to calculate, scripted environmental details, it's all a canned presentation that lets them give a higher fps while most games can't offer similar frame rates as they do so much more.

Even the "open" areas of COD are very limited and the game puts up magical walls that stop you from returning to areas once you reach areas, because it's not an open world that you can openly wander around in, the game puts all it's work into presenting a set piece by removing your freedom. Smoke and mirrors.

Indeed. Infinity Ward are masters at giving the illusion of complexity, while Bungie are the masters of - possibly unnecessary - attention to detail.

I don't think you could fault either developer for their approach as they both lead to very different play styles. I'd steer closer to Bungie's vision personally though.

 

[Relix]

It's not like the Halo 3 AI is that smart and advanced. It goes beyond what COD does of course.

IMO..

Halo 3 is a technical beast. So many things under the room, but graphics that generally look lackbuster.
COD is more of a thrill ride, and the graphics usually look better than Halo 3... and at 60FPS... and a sightly superior resolution. Dumber AI, no "movies" option, but to the end user COD looks more impressive than Halo.

Really, I was so, so disappointed with Halo 3 graphics. There's barely been a moment where it has wowed me... and don't show me game pictures, those have a shitload of AA and post-processing added to it. Without those the game looks bad. Really, the ending mission I could feel the jaggies about to slice my arm off or something =P.

Hoepfully Halo Reach looks like that trailer they released long ago =)

 

[Effect]

Sorry if this is been asked but what is this game suppose to be about?

Is this game suppose to be focusing on the events covered in the Fall of Reach novel, the attack on the planet? Or is it going to void that entire book in terms of story and events? Or possibly this isn't a prequel (maybe a parallel storyline) game but perhaps a retaking of Reach while the events of Halo 1, 2, and maybe three are taking place?

 

[Sai-kun]

Sorry if this is been asked but what is this game suppose to be about?

Is this game suppose to be focusing on the events covered in the Fall of Reach novel, the attack on the planet? Or is it going to void that entire book in terms of story and events? Or possibly this isn't a prequel (maybe a parallel storyline) game but perhaps a retaking of Reach while the events of Halo 1, 2, and maybe three are taking place?

"Reach Falls 2010".

It's taking place during the fall of Reach.

 

[Zabka]

Don't be surprised to see Halo 3's HDR implementation dropped for the Reach engine. The idea behind it is interesting, but it seems like a pretty big sacrifice for a subtle increase in exposure range.

Resolution, AA, texture filtering, frame rate and self-shadowing are far more important to making a modern game look good.

 

[Magni]

When they go berserker in Halo 3, they're completely useless, they rarely get a hit.
In Halo 2, they'd continuously tackle you 'til you died.

That part was better in H2. The rest was better in H3. And the H1 Elites are better than both of them.

Technically, Halo 3 is more impressive. But to the average joe, the dude who just wants to shoot things and who has no knowledge of what it takes to make a game, I agree that MW might feel more 'beautiful.' I personally dislike its style, way too brown and muddy, with horrendous textures. MW2 isn't that much prettier than MW (cleaner UI, but the in game graphics themselves? No difference on my 20" 800x600, I dunno how it is on 1080p plasmas though). I'm just hoping Reach is much more of an improvement over H3 than MW2 is over MW.

 

[BruceLeeRoy]

Dynamic lighting coupled with dynamic shadows is the way to go. Even MW2 does it, at 60 FPS.

Yeah but in all honesty I think Halo 3 even with all its graphical inconsistency's looks better than MW2.

That part was better in H2. The rest was better in H3. And the H1 Elites are better than both of them.

Technically, Halo 3 is more impressive. But to the average joe, the dude who just wants to shoot things and who has no knowledge of what it takes to make a game, I agree that MW might feel more 'beautiful.' I personally dislike it's style, way too brown and muddy, with horrendous textures. MW2 isn't that much prettier than MW (cleaner UI, but the in game graphics themselves? No difference on my 20" 800x600, I dunno how it is on 1080p plasmas though). I'm just hoping Reach is much more of an improvement over H3 than MW2 is over MW.

No I am totally with you man. MW is kind of a ugly looking game.

 

[Slightly Live]

You seem upset, and I'm sorry if I offended you, that was not my intention at all. You obviously know more about this than I, and I have made no claims at all to be proficient in either coding or graphic design.

I'm exclusively talking about what I'm seeing and experiencing when I play the game, and how other games look and perform in comparison. I don't really care how the framework is set up, or what it's doing under the hood, because it could be a technical marvel, doing revolutionary stuff, but if the end result doesn't look good, that's really what I'm seeing.

I understand that this is the compromise Bungie had to live with given their ambitions for the AI, or the social features, but if other games can give me the illusion of the same quality, then why would any gamer care about what's really going on? To me, the AI in Half-Life 1 seems more impressive than the Halo 3 AI, but it's probably just a simple calculator to what Bungie is doing. It's all in the way you experience something, and I don't care what developers do to achieve that.

Upset? :lol Nah, but dude I strongly disagree with some of your points and your argument. Nothing wrong with a robust and healthy rebuttal. =)

You talk about what the end user experiences and sees, and when a player plays GTA and COD next to Halo, Halo can't stack up? Am I right that this is your argument?

Well, if it is, then the only area you make a valid point in is the resolution and graphical details such as lack of AA, however using this as the weight of your argument debases your point.

Let me explain. When Halo 3 came out, the graphics were substantially more impressive at the time of release. It wasn't the "best" looking game, but it was still strong however with time and other games coming out, it hasn't aged too well.

You say it's all down to the end user experience and I agree, however the end user experience is not just about graphics.

In Halo 3, you could be put up against 20-30 enemies, you have dozens of ways to engage them in the encounter, differant tactics, strategies and for the first few times you play it out, things can go differantly, enemies behave and react and changes things up. Then after this encounter, you can jump into a vehicle and engage against ground vehicles, thanks, turrets, ghosts, infantry.

Then you move to indoor sections, corridor fighting waves of enemies, each with their own method and strategies to take your down, then afterwards your high in the air dogfighting dozens of aerial banshees and a larger Phantom ship, then afterwards you are fighting from the air against tanks and other ground based infantry, switch back to more corridor shooting, then more ground vehicle combat in a tank going across spiral, mountainous roads fighting dozens of vehicles and infantry.

Then you reach the end of the level, dozens of vehicles on the ground and the air and you have to take down two scarabs at the same time, each one a mountain of death with a more than dozen of enemies inside and out, with a battle raging overhead in the sky and beneath on the ground.

That's all just a single level. The scale on that level is just crazy. You have all the traditional dynamic AI and physics going on all around you. More importantly you can do this with two player spliitscreen (3 players if you know a special glitch) or with 4 other co-op over Live. You can save the film and rewind the entire mission, look at it from every angle, every frame. You play a meta score game at the same time too, with or against your buddies. Amazing gameplay, scale, everything.

Does COD or GTA provide an end user experience compared to that? Hell no. So what if the resolution is a few pixels less than the other games or it has less bump mapping or AA or some other graphical feature.

Halo 3 provides a unique playing experience that no other game has come close to matching. When you are having so fun, a few pixels don't really subtract from it.

This is why I have confidence in Bungie, they can nail down amazing game experiences unlike any other. Additionally, look at the evolution of graphics in the Halo series, they will not disappoint. I don't really care if it has less pixels (or specific graphical feature) than COD, GTA or Killzone.

Reach will look better than Halo 3, that's certain, they have built a new engine for it, the last time they did that (new engine for a sequel on the same console as the previous game) we had the jump from Halo 1 to Halo 2. If they can make the same graphical jump from 3 to Reach, keep all the great gameplay features and stat tracking they themselves standardised, I'll be more than happy.

It's not like the Halo 3 AI is that smart and advanced. It goes beyond what COD does of course.

IMO..

Halo 3 is a technical beast. So many things under the room, but graphics that generally look lackbuster.
COD is more of a thrill ride, and the graphics usually look better than Halo 3... and at 60FPS... and a sightly superior resolution. Dumber AI, no "movies" option, but to the end user COD looks more impressive than Halo.

Really, I was so, so disappointed with Halo 3 graphics. There's barely been a moment where it has wowed me... and don't show me game pictures, those have a shitload of AA and post-processing added to it. Without those the game looks bad. Really, the ending mission I could feel the jaggies about to slice my arm off or something =P.

Hopefully Halo Reach looks like that trailer they released long ago =)

Halo 3'S graphics were far from lacklustre when it was released. It just wasn't the most visually impressive and it hasn't aged well. I haven't seen a 3D game (bar Crysis) that didn't start to look worse over time.

Some of the things in Halo are amazing and still stand today, such as the lighting and the skyboxes, but some things like the lack of AA really hurt the game 2 years later when comparing it to recent releases (not that I think that's a fair comparison to make though =P).

 

[Arpharmd B]

It's not like the Halo 3 AI is that smart and advanced. It goes beyond what COD does of course.

IMO..

Halo 3 is a technical beast. So many things under the room, but graphics that generally look lackbuster.
COD is more of a thrill ride, and the graphics usually look better than Halo 3... and at 60FPS... and a sightly superior resolution. Dumber AI, no "movies" option, but to the end user COD looks more impressive than Halo.

Really, I was so, so disappointed with Halo 3 graphics. There's barely been a moment where it has wowed me... and don't show me game pictures, those have a shitload of AA and post-processing added to it. Without those the game looks bad. Really, the ending mission I could feel the jaggies about to slice my arm off or something =P.

Hoepfully Halo Reach looks like that trailer they released long ago =)

I thought COD was 600P while Halo was 640P.

 

[RSB]

720p + good anisotropic filtering + anti aliasing + good looking faces + all the cool shit Halo 3 had (including great textures and amazing lighting) = Awesome Graphics

Bungie can do it. Believe

Bye

 

[Gui_PT]

In Halo 3, you could be put up against 20-30 enemies, you have dozens of ways to engage them in the encounter, differant tactics, strategies and for the first few times you play it out, things can go differantly, enemies behave and react and changes things up. Then after this encounter, you can jump into a vehicle and engage against ground vehicles, thanks, turrets, ghosts, infantry.

This -----> Definition of Halo.

 

[Relix]

Some of the things in Halo are amazing and still stand today, such as the lighting and the skyboxes, but some things like the lack of AA really hurt the game 2 years later when comparing it to recent releases (not that I think that's a fair comparison to make though =P).

Ohh... true that. The skybox felt very good.

I thought COD was 600P while Halo was 640P.

Oh. I thought it was 580P. If so I stand corrected!