What I never hear anyone else mention is that it seemed like in Halo 1 you could go right up to any surface texture you wanted and no matter how close you got it still looked tits. In Halo 2, a lot of them looked like absolute shit even from a distance.
I remember that was one of the first things I noticed when I first played Halo 2 in 2004. I forgot who I was talking to about this, but it was explained to me that the texture resolution took a hit (or maybe it was detail maps were cut, I forget) to fit the normal maps into memory. Makes sense.
Thanks for giving the definition of a bullshot again. Good to have this out of the way. And I still need to see ingame shots that show this definition of lighting. The shots in the op are bland compared to the old footage lighting wise. Just look at the reflections on the armor. There were more of those ridiculous gifs in the old thread. For example the master chief in a vehicle, can't find it now. Same applies for AA and DOF obviously. So yes, those shots were misleading.
You do realize there are different lighting conditions that can produce different results, right? Can you point out the
exact differences that lead you to believe the "definition" of the lighting has been downgraded? Sorry but saying it looks "bland" doesn't really tell us much.
Also, what reflections in the armor? You're going to have to show us screens demonstrating these changes you're harping on about.
Maybe also performance? Looking forward to the Xbox720 Halo with ingame DOF. I am not juding the game just on the DOF, I am just disappointed that people do not mind the devs releasing the typical Halo bullshots long before release and the final game looking much worse.
There is no ADS in Halo, so there isn't that opportunity to use DoF as it's typically used in a shooter. I'm sure it's in use where it's appropriate and until we actually play the game, neither of us can say anything.
Also, what's with this mentality that some of you people have with "Halo bullshots"? Every company releases bullshots, it's not something only done with Halo games. This right here indicates to me that you have some kind of agenda against Halo.
How do you know? What AA method is it using? How good/demanding is MLAA on 360 at this point? Otherwise I suspect FXAA.
It's using FXAA. It's likely similar to the iteration used in Halo CEA which is very clean.
Don't confuse texture resolution with AF. However, it's probably an odd exception or the textures were not fully loaded yet.
The filtering is one area that I wish would be improved, agree with you there. Though, poor filtering isn't anything new with console games.
Actually, most of this forum thinks it's going to like like the screenshots, anti aliased and all. They also think that FXAA is equivalent to super sampling.
I wish people would post direct capture from the uncompressed videos Microsoft has released instead of these bullshots. It's not like there isn't actual 720p gameplay footage to look at but it never gets posted in these threads except in the form of minature gifs.
There might be a person or two who actually believe the game will be completely jaggy free, but the vast majority of the people posting here do not think the game will be as clean as the bullshots.
There is no opinion involved here. And Eurogamer also says that the final game looks worse, and they maybe actually played it.
They could be talking about the aliasing alone and their comment would still apply. Not sure why you have this mission to prove that 343i has been misleading us from day one.
Some people never appreciated the ultra fucking ace texture work that went into Halo 3 and Reach. Ever took a sniper and zoomed in a million times at the floor? What, the quality still holds up? Damn.
Hard to appreciate the texture in Halo 3 with the piss poor filtering =p
Why do so few games use this technology? It amazes me so much.
Plenty of games use them this gen, usually to help hide or cover up lower resolution textures. Halo games typically have good resolution textures and have detail maps on top of them.