Is the crotch plate for tea-bagging?
Is the crotch plate for tea-bagging?
It was passed as ingame because outside of the bump in resolution, it was created ingame. Yes they were bullshots, but everything else is still present in the game.
I'm pretty sure those shots had tons of DOF because they were showing off what the in-game engine was capable of doing in real-time. Ultimately its 343's artistic direction that dictates when such an effect is needed (in this case they've reserved it for cutscenes). However, you judging the quality of the game's graphics based on DOF, or the lack thereof, doesn't make that much sense.
Crysis 2 is a very good looking game on both 360 and ps3. I know they showed DOF in the early videos but there was no indication that it was part of the single player campaign. Maybe they'll use it in cutscenes. Either way it's not a big deal to me, I don't feel duped over the lack of blur filter.
The game will have very few jaggies. Top notch on what consoles provide espicially.
Ground textures won't be a problem
What you are seeing in that second shot is what other games have problems too with. When you view a texture at a angle near parallel to the surface it will get blurry. But as you are playing the actual game you are no where near that low to the ground.
Wait, you already said Halo 4 is the best looking Halo, by far. So you agree it does look *that* much better?But I know from experience that I'm in the minority, no, Halo 3 looked like shit, I'm wrong, blah blah blah. I admit Halo 4 is the best looking Halo so far, by far. It shouldn't be *that* surprising, each new game does tend to look better than the last. And it doesn't look *that* much better. If anyone honestly thinks Halo 3 and Reach don't look amazing, then it really just speaks to the extremely high standards Halo is held to.
Wait, you already said Halo 4 is the best looking Halo, by far. So you agree it does look *that* much better?
I'm sure you've been judging screenshots long enough to know that developers tend to over-exaggerate DOF to make them look good. That's basically what they've done, although I don't see anything unique or spectacular with the DOF alone since its just a simple gaussian blur, no real bokeh effects at play here. And to be fair, those early in-game shots didn't imply gameplay shots, so it's not like they're misleading anyone there. Is the engine capable of such DOF effect? Yes. But we only get to see them in cutscenes.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.
I always feel like I fell through a wormhole into some other bizarre Twilight Zome dimension when I read this shit. In a world... where the Graphics Whores are in control of the Truth.
The only Halo I know of that had anything remotely resembling "unimpressive graphics" was Halo 2. And even that was mostly pretty stunning for late 2004. We all know how badly troubled and flat out fucked up its dev cycle was, and it resulted in a severe lack of polish. The most obvious example everyone knows is the terrible constant texture loading and pop-in. 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.
With Halo 3 and Reach, I don't get it. I don't get the complaints. You can put every supposed "graphical area it was lacking" on paper and make a list as long as your arm. It means nothing to me, because when I put in Halo 3 and play it on my 42" Bravia and look at it from my own subject POV, it looks fucking sweet to me. It did in 2007 and it still does today. I don't give a fuck if it's 240p. I don't care if you saw a jaggy. I don't care if you found a shitty texture. I look at it, and it looks brilliant. Same goes for Reach. Is it about punishing Bungie for their Halo 2 fuck ups? Seems like it sometimes.
But I know from experience that I'm in the minority, no, Halo 3 looked like shit, I'm wrong, blah blah blah. I admit Halo 4 is the best looking Halo so far, by far. It shouldn't be *that* surprising, each new game does tend to look better than the last. And it doesn't look *that* much better. If anyone honestly thinks Halo 3 and Reach don't look amazing, then it really just speaks to the extremely high standards Halo is held to.
Yes. It is even mentioned in the description that those screens are from the 4th mission?By the way, just noticed there was a subtitle on Waypoint for the screenshots labeling them "Infinity"
So that would make this the Fourth Level based on the achievements (this follows Forerunner the one shown to the press).
whoah there pickle i never said i thought any of the Halo games looked bad. i just think 343 are doing technically more impressive graphics for the time than Bungie did in their time. that's all. i've always liked the way Halo games looked but they've never wowed me before on a technical level as Halo 4 does. Halo 3's lighting was amazing, but the concessions made to pull it off were obvious to anyone. personally i always thought it was worth it mind, but the game definately suffered in areas to pull it off.
Play Crysis 2 and see. They look almost identical. Bad angle.Not sure if serious
It doesn't "put Bungie Halo to shame" or whatever shit people are talking, was my point.
That's not in quotes, so it is Eurogamers opinion.
It should be obvious to anyone that the game won't use Supersampling.
No. They have a similarity but definitely not "almost identical".Play Crysis 2 and see. They look almost identical. Bad angle.
Don't read too much into it or let those words get to you. But you should realize that when people make sweeping statements like that, it's a testament to how much of a drastic visual improvement 343's work is, enough for them to get excited by it even.
Speaking too the wall here I see... I will shut upNo. They have a similarity but definitely not "almost identical".
I'm sure you've been judging screenshots long enough to know that developers tend to over-exaggerate DOF to make them look good. That's basically what they've done, although I don't see anything unique or spectacular with the DOF alone since its just a simple gaussian blur, no real bokeh effects at play here. And to be fair, those early in-game shots didn't imply gameplay shots, so it's not like they're misleading anyone there. Is the engine capable of such DOF effect? Yes. But we only get to see them in cutscenes.
Smh at this thread. People trying way too hard on the bullshot crap, if it's a bullshot to you then move on you don't have to force your opinion on everybody else.
They didn't? Then why did so many people would think the final game would have this level of IQ and lighting? That's what I call misleading and the Halo franchise has a sad history of this. (Pre Halo 3 CG...) In 2012 only AA increase should be allowed in pre release screenshots...
No, they didn't. It was the author "opinion". Just like I say that ACIII doesn't look as good as the screenshots released so far. See, an opinion.There is no opinion involved here. And Eurogamer also says that the final game looks worse, and they maybe actually played it.
They didn't? Then why did so many people would think the final game would have this level of IQ and lighting? That's what I call misleading and the Halo franchise has a sad history of this. (Pre Halo 3 CG...) In 2012 only AA increase should be allowed in pre release screenshots...
gameplay is just the parts you are in control of. that shot was obviously not from gameplay since it was seeing Chef (*sic*) from a third person perspective. the lighting in the final game is to my eyes equally impressive, and in motion the game has really good IQ for a game based on the videos i've seen.
yeah, clearly it won't have the IQ that screenshot had, but the final game does have fantastic lighting, great IQ and your beloved depth of field effects.
They all look like mechs.
Looks exactly as shitty as the old Halo games.
There is no opinion involved here. And Eurogamer also says that the final game looks worse, and they maybe actually played it.
*image snipped
i'm amazing at photoshop, obvz
Mac crashed as I was loading 4K screenshot, but totally worth it.The Press Site has been updated with all of this weeks and last weeks pics at HUGE sizes.
That detail.
And other, including IGN, have said it looks as good as the pics. Obviously its not going to look as perfect as the pictures, but the I have seen the game in motion via videos (e3, etc) and it looks fucking fantastic.
are you being serious?Ok, that's offensive and needs to be removed.
Metal Gear?!
Need Forge info so bad
I lost a lot of faith in Bungie after Halo 2. I knew they were not the same company.
Doesn't look goo to me. I always got really hyped with Halo games and i am not getting that vibe at all .There's just something about Bungie man.