-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Halo 2 VS Halo 3 GT Comparison :(
- Thread starter DemonSwordsman
- Start date
PepsimanVsJoe
Member
I think the game looks good but whatever I'm blind.
Hiro_Kunimi_80
Member
Scottlarock said:
Teknopathetic
Member
"Textures - In running and looking at the ground, rubbing up against the rocks, the iron/
metals textures look dingy/dirty and in whole (what looks like a) WAY higher poly count
than the textures in Halo 2"
Really? The textures have a higher polygon count? Really?
metals textures look dingy/dirty and in whole (what looks like a) WAY higher poly count
than the textures in Halo 2"
Really? The textures have a higher polygon count? Really?
AltogetherAndrews
Member
besada said:
I dislike 360 hardware. I think it's an unreliable cheap machine tossed out too soon and with far too much importance placed on making a cost efficient product. I have no problem admitting that. The problem people have with that is that they are so used to seeing themselves and others carefully skirt that line and cloud their own bias that blunt honesty offends them. Last generation, I was all about Xbox, because it was the best hardware. As I recall, someone in that "meltdown" thread made a comment to the effect of Sony needing to take pointers from MS, and I called bull on that.
This doesn't have much to do with the games, and as far as I'm concerned most of my commentary in regards to games on the 360 have been well founded. I do find it a bit annoying when people accuse me on always hating on Halo 3 as I've been quite forgiving of earlier issues, and it's not like I've been calling the Halo 3 beta complete crap either. I take offense to a fanboy goggle wearing dude telling other that they are misguided trolls for being unimpressed with the game, and that's about the extent of this.
Warm Machine
Member
Just played the beta for the first time! Much prettier than Halo 2. There is no comparison. Love the water effects.
meltpotato
Member
Teknopathetic said:
clearly you are not farmilar with round polygons. they are only present in round polygon technology.
m0dus said:
Didn't you just make a dozen posts about how Forza 2 was the most amazing looking car game as well?
Are there any 1st party MS titles you don't feel have the most amazing graphics?
I dunno, maybe you are just very easy to please, but that doesn't give you the right to blast people with standards, especially when they are in the majority and you are in the minority (see Forza 2)
Fwiw, Halo 3 looks acceptable IMO. Not worth complaining about, not worth raving about. Gets the job done without being flashy.
persiannight
Banned
I can't get over how many polygons are used on the bump mapped concrete... incredible. :lol
meltpotato
Member
Bebpo said:
which is pretty much how one would describe the overall design aesthetic of the Halo series.
Kai Dracon
Writing a dinosaur space opera symphony
After playing the beta all night and day, my main graphic comment is this:
The characterization of Halo 3's graphics (in multiplayer at least) is /heavily/ influenced by the fact that Bungie tried hard to keep the art style and atmosphere /just like Halo 1 and 2/. I believe people keep underestimating the impact that stylization has on visual eye candy. A game with technologically inferior visuals can look more sophisticated and "evolved" than a game with superior technology and a different art style - and vis versa.
The graphics in the beta are clearly not crammed with every possible bell and whistle that could have been incorporated, especially if the visual style of the Halo world had been changed to be optimized for them. The more I played it, the more I picked out subtle details however. I do also feel that it has a more "solid" visual presentation that a whole lot of what we've seen in next-gen stuff so far; while the lighting for instance does not instantly wow with dramatic, exaggerated bloom, shadows, HDR, etc, it really /is/ very natural and contributes a lot to the atmosphere the more you play and settle in.
Another aspect, I think, is that Halo multiplayer is being looked at largely as a sport by Bungie; they've said specifically that they didn't want graphics to get in the way of players playing the game as they always have. Thus, there's no depth of field effects during gameplay, no fog of war stuff, no motion blur. In point of fact, I actually don't think some things, such as motion blur, would hurt the play, and consider some of them "next-gen" prerequisites for making a game "look" more real and tangible. But I realize what Bungie is thinking here.
I figure this commentary will be labeled as fanboy goggles by some, but I don't think so; I can see plenty of ways Halo 3 could be doing more. I'm holding my judgment until we see single player. However, for multiplayer where the play is king, the graphics are "good enough" for me and don't leave me feeling disappointed. They're a big improvement in all the small vital areas that matter when you've racked up five hundred hours of multiplayer and the eye candy effect has worn off.
The characterization of Halo 3's graphics (in multiplayer at least) is /heavily/ influenced by the fact that Bungie tried hard to keep the art style and atmosphere /just like Halo 1 and 2/. I believe people keep underestimating the impact that stylization has on visual eye candy. A game with technologically inferior visuals can look more sophisticated and "evolved" than a game with superior technology and a different art style - and vis versa.
The graphics in the beta are clearly not crammed with every possible bell and whistle that could have been incorporated, especially if the visual style of the Halo world had been changed to be optimized for them. The more I played it, the more I picked out subtle details however. I do also feel that it has a more "solid" visual presentation that a whole lot of what we've seen in next-gen stuff so far; while the lighting for instance does not instantly wow with dramatic, exaggerated bloom, shadows, HDR, etc, it really /is/ very natural and contributes a lot to the atmosphere the more you play and settle in.
Another aspect, I think, is that Halo multiplayer is being looked at largely as a sport by Bungie; they've said specifically that they didn't want graphics to get in the way of players playing the game as they always have. Thus, there's no depth of field effects during gameplay, no fog of war stuff, no motion blur. In point of fact, I actually don't think some things, such as motion blur, would hurt the play, and consider some of them "next-gen" prerequisites for making a game "look" more real and tangible. But I realize what Bungie is thinking here.
I figure this commentary will be labeled as fanboy goggles by some, but I don't think so; I can see plenty of ways Halo 3 could be doing more. I'm holding my judgment until we see single player. However, for multiplayer where the play is king, the graphics are "good enough" for me and don't leave me feeling disappointed. They're a big improvement in all the small vital areas that matter when you've racked up five hundred hours of multiplayer and the eye candy effect has worn off.
RiskyChris
Banned
Mojovonio said:
Design aesthetics have no direct correlation to technical graphics. Halo 3's *design and style* make it very suitable to the gameplay the series offers.
meltpotato
Member
Mojovonio said:
yes, because they were designed for the XBox. It was phenomenal art direction within the technical limitations.
RiskyChris said:
I meant technically.
Art wise, the Halo games (including this one) really aren't all that great, and it was the eye candy that really made the difference. This time around its short on both fronts.
jmdajr said:
pretty much.
UE3 is a beast. Even Area 51 looks amazing with UE3.
Micromegas
Member
Piper Az said:I just want Halo 3 to look like the E3 trailer with all the textures, shiny lightings and details.
I'm with you on that. I really hope that they can meet their stated bar, which was that trailer.
So far though, I can't see any evidence of FSAA or the HDR lighting that made that trailer so great. No screen-tearing so far though, so there is an upside.
Yeah, PDZ is way ahead of Halo 3, technically speaking. Unfortunately, Rare basically crammed every feature they could into the game and completely missed the boat when it came to art direction and framerate.michaeld said:
In the end, Halo 3 should look nicer simply due to its art direction and smooth performance...but I still think PDZ will have the edge technically.
StevieP said:
I'm not trying to dc or anything here, but the compression in that video makes the textures look very washed out, and you don't notice all of the actual grass and small shrubs that are structured on the landscape. Combine that with the fluid motion of the game and the nice effects their using to clean up the image, it looks quite nice IMO
meltpotato
Member
GSG Flash said:
i think you missed the point. the primary art direction for halo 3 was developed at the turn of the century to fit perfectly with the technology available at the time. so i guess the answer to your question would be no. although its not that i think it; it is a fact.
remorseless
Member
ok guys we know its not horrible, but some people are trying to make it sound like the graphics in the beta are amazing and thats a pure lie
I was playing prey a few days ago and its based off the doom 3 engine and i would argue that prey multiplayer(although actual gameplay is kinda crappy) looks significantly more detailed, more colorful, and overall more visually impressive than the halo 3 beta. Guys im one of the biggest halo fans around but this is disappointing
I was playing prey a few days ago and its based off the doom 3 engine and i would argue that prey multiplayer(although actual gameplay is kinda crappy) looks significantly more detailed, more colorful, and overall more visually impressive than the halo 3 beta. Guys im one of the biggest halo fans around but this is disappointing
remorseless
Member
>.<
it better look more impressive than pdz (it was a launch title for crying out loud)
it better look more impressive than pdz (it was a launch title for crying out loud)
dark10x said:Noticed I mentioned their framerate failure? It was a serious problem. The game was a seriously flawed piece of software, but it did some things very well. It should never have been a launch title.
Some PDZ shots for comparison fun...
Those look better than Halo 3 beta, and as a Halo fan, that makes me very very sad. (fingers crossed for the final ver)
meltpotato said:
Well, I still don't think that's a good excuse, the first trailer for Halo 3 showed us that it can be one of the best looking games on the 360, no matter if they meant the art direction to be in place for the Xbox, if they reached that target, I still think that trailer looks great but the Halo 3 we're seeing right now doesn't.
Instigator
Banned
Piper Az said:
Feels claustrophobic as a game as well.
Can't have it all, I guess,
AltogetherAndrews
Member
Eh, PDZ was a mess though. Technologically competent, but visually it really was a mess. Overstated texture work, although I suppose it was all done in some failed effort to create a stylized game. Prior to PDZ I would have scoffed at this, but comparing characters between PDZ and Timesplitters, it'd certainly seem as if there was some truth to key art and design talent leaving Rare.
Halo 3 MP doesn't have much flair, but there's a consistency there that is quite nice. Feels solid.
Halo 3 MP doesn't have much flair, but there's a consistency there that is quite nice. Feels solid.
