The First Halo 3 Single Player Screens + Video! Rules=#369

[ultragpu]

just saw some halo3 gameplay vids and does the game worth 9-10 in graphics? no no. i know it has large open field when taking into account, but all i see was one big flat textured green and brown terrain with no convincing vegetations nor any detailed structures. buildings are very primitive in shape, some of the vehicles are detailed in geometry but still lack some texture work. the only thing that stands out from the game is the HDR but even that is pretty much the norm nowadays. the character design and color pallet really annoy me. pink, green, blue low poly meshes are just not my cup of tea, they remind me power rangers. the game maybe fun to play but it does lack the nextgen visual substance which is wat the nexten hardwares are all about. ok, i been harsh on the game so sue me.

 

[Falkster]

just saw some halo3 gameplay vids and does the game worth 9-10 in graphics? no no. i know it has large open field when taking into account, but all i see was one big flat textured green and brown terrain with no convincing vegetations nor any detailed structures. buildings are very primitive in shape, some of the vehicles are detailed in geometry but still lack some texture work. the only thing that stands out from the game is the HDR but even that is pretty much the norm nowadays. the character design and color pallet really annoy me. pink, green, blue low poly meshes are just not my cup of tea, they remind me power rangers. the game maybe fun to play but it does lack the nextgen visual substance which is wat the nexten hardwares are all about. ok, i been harsh on the game so sue me.

Well, it's definitely beyond what the previous generation of consoles were capable of, so no it doesn't lack "nextgen visual substance". There's no way the original xbox could have pulled off the water, draw distance, particle effects, number of enemies/allies per area, and DOF that we're seeing with Halo 3... and then there's HDR lighting and 720p added on top of that... and then there are all the cool things that I'm forgetting about. Of course there are better looking games, but to say it lacks next-gen qualities is too harsh and just plain wrong.

I don't know why you're complaining about the colours now, I thought you would have got that out of your system when Halo 1 came out. And what's wrong with the power ranger!

Until you or I actually play the game instead of scoring the game based on screenshots and videos, I'm going to trust the average of all reputable reviewers without a suspicious history.

 

[betan]

Er, no. How in the world do you only review half of a game? Especially when most of the innovation is done in the other half.

From consumer's point of view, there is a lot of value in reviewing MP and SP separately.
Not everyone cares about one or the other.
I, for one, care more about multiplayer part for which I'm sure Ars will give a higher score.

 

[Platon]

What I like about Halo 3 is that they seems to have gone more towards Halo 1 than 2, more open space, much bigger battles and so on. No doubt the graphics will not compare to the likes of Gears or KZ2 as, at least from what we have seen, they don't seem to be near the scope of Halo3 and another thing that was mentioned in the gametrailers review, it seems that the AI is as good as it gets, that to me has always been the Halo trademark, excellent AI...

 

[pipo]

...increasing to difficulty for longer play doesnt change the fact there apparently isnt alot of content in the sp...

Content as in more levels to walk/fight true.

That's the problem with your statement. If a game (any game) is harder, it takes more time to go through. So it's fair to pick a harder difficulty level as standard too. Also, if you had to figure out a puzzle in a game, do you count that as play time or not?

Zelda: WW had a lot of content, but I got bored out of my skull from all the sailing.

SotC is essentially a game with 16 bosses and a horse. You could beat it in no time if you were a really great player. Normal players however die lots of times trying to kill one of the colossi.

You'd have to define content a bit better than that. It's not as simple as you try to make it.

 

[iceberg187]

From consumer's point of view, there is a lot of value in reviewing MP and SP separately.
Not everyone cares about one or the other.
I, for one, care more about multiplayer part for which I'm sure Ars will give a higher score.

Sorry, but I can't agree or co-sign with this. It's like reviewing the upbeat songs on a CD or just the scenes in a movie where there is only men. It's incomplete. I understand that people have more interest in one portion of the other, but to complete disregard it is asinine to me so it appears to me that they didn't finish the fight so they need to finish the review.

 

[Jesus2006]

just saw some halo3 gameplay vids and does the game worth 9-10 in graphics? no no. i know it has large open field when taking into account, but all i see was one big flat textured green and brown terrain with no convincing vegetations nor any detailed structures. buildings are very primitive in shape, some of the vehicles are detailed in geometry but still lack some texture work. the only thing that stands out from the game is the HDR but even that is pretty much the norm nowadays. the character design and color pallet really annoy me. pink, green, blue low poly meshes are just not my cup of tea, they remind me power rangers. the game maybe fun to play but it does lack the nextgen visual substance which is wat the nexten hardwares are all about. ok, i been harsh on the game so sue me.

Fully agree here. IMO this is just another example of reviewers tending to overrate games' graphics (and other review attributes) if the rest of the game is great (or hyped).

The same thing happens when the gameplay is bad (graphics tend to get rated worse then as well, even if they aren't) or the reviewer doesn't like a game.

Btw. what about 1080p in this game? Read something about it in one of those reviews...

 

[rabidrabbit]

Now on to the question of graphics, so far I've only read Gamespot and IGN's reviews. Those are the two biggies. Both seemed very positive on the graphics.

IGN:
The replays also create a greater appreciation for the beauty of Halo 3. This is a gorgeous game that has such a quick pace, it's easy to miss out on some of the things it does well. Pause during any explosion and fly the camera by to view a marvelous shot. The particle effects are truly top notch. It never fails to impress. There's the smoke and dust from the back of the Brute Chopper, the blinding red bolt of the Spartan Laser in action, the subtle shine of Master Chief's armor. Considering that Bungie had to have every nook and cranny of the environment detailed and rendered constantly (because you can detach the camera for replays), Halo 3 really is a marvelous technological achievement. It may not be the prettiest game on Xbox 360, but it's also doing far more than any other game. For that, I can forgive the occasional moments when the framerate jitters or there's some minor texture pop in. I get texture pop in just trying to butter a bagel.

Gamespot:
Halo has always had a very strong artistic vision, and the graphics have always been just good enough to convey the necessary imagery without becoming huge technical powerhouses. That's not to say that the game isn't technically impressive, because it maintains a smooth frame rate throughout, and looks very sharp overall with plenty of great lighting and other nice effects. But the visual design overpowers its technical side and really stands out. Given that the game takes place in a wider range of locales than the previous two games, you'll see a lot of different, colorful environments, including deserts, snow, jungle settings, great-looking building interiors, and more. The enemies, many of which are returning from past games, also look great.
So I dont know, the entire premise that the graphics are "average" seems flawed to me.

Does or does not the framereate jitter?
Did or did not either of the sites actually play the game beyond first minutes before "deciding" on the score?
I'm sure many sites were busy to be the first to review Halo3, so how reliable can these quick reviews be?
I think it's the problem wit many massively hyped games, not just Halo 3.
It'll be interesting to see what Edge gives Halo 3.

 

[rusty]

xbox 1 game? average graphics? lol... enough said I think.

I'm really glad the reviews are so positive, I was slightly disappointed with halo 2 - although still thought it was a great game, just not as great as it *should* have been - but more or less every review seems to infer that halo 3 has been done the way it should of been done. As for the graphics, opinions clearly vary widely but it looks pretty damn nice to me, so I'm happy (and that's all that really matters!).

Unfortunately I'm seperated by approximately half a planet from my xbox 360 for the next 2 months, but I'll be picking up Halo 3 the moment I get back... along with about 5 other games that are going to decimate my bank account/free time. This autumn/winter is a good time to own a 360 it would seem!

 

[betan]

Sorry, but I can't agree or co-sign with this. It's like reviewing the upbeat songs on a CD or just the scenes in a movie where there is only men. It's incomplete. I understand that people have more interest in one portion of the other, but to complete disregard it is asinine to me so it appears to me that they didn't finish the fight so they need to finish the review.

I'd have no problem with people reviewing upbeat songs and the rest of the CD separately, but scenes are different, highly correlated, that's unlike single player and multiplayer experience which don't share much besides a common universe.
Still, it's not about not having a common score but having separate scores/reviews. Reviewers can still give an overall score for the product, but readers should be able to use their own weights.

 

[woundingchaney]

Does or does not the framereate jitter?
Did or did not either of the sites actually play the game beyond first minutes before "deciding" on the score?
I'm sure many sites were busy to be the first to review Halo3, so how reliable can these quick reviews be?
I think it's the problem wit many massively hyped games, not just Halo 3.
It'll be interesting to see what Edge gives Halo 3.

I have a hard time believing that nearly every respectable site on the internet simply gave halo 3 high/perfect scores because it is HALO 3. If the game wasnt top notch Im sure they would have loved to give it a lower score.

I think its fair to say that the game does deliver and is an excellent end to a beloved franchise.

 

[Daozang]

I have a hard time believing that nearly every respectable site on the internet simply gave halo 3 high/perfect scores because it is HALO 3. If the game wasnt top notch Im sure they would have loved to give it a lower score.

I think its fair to say that the game does deliver and is an excellent end to a beloved franchise.

Exactly.
If the first few were giving high score reviews for the game I might have found it plausible... Now that every review is positive, I'm preparing my self for one hell of a game!
With all these AAA games being released from now to December, I'm going to file for bankruptcy... Not to mention the fact that I can’t find the time to play them all…

 

[rabidrabbit]

Now on to the question of graphics, so far I've only read Gamespot and IGN's reviews. Those are the two biggies. Both seemed very positive on the graphics.

IGN:






Gamespot:



So I dont know, the entire premise that the graphics are "average" seems flawed to me.

I have a hard time believing that nearly every respectable site on the internet simply gave halo 3 high/perfect scores because it is HALO 3. If the game wasnt top notch Im sure they would have loved to give it a lower score.

I think its fair to say that the game does deliver and is an excellent end to a beloved franchise.

No, I'm just wondering on the conflicting reports on such issues as framerate.
Ars-Technica was said earlier to have big errors on their review, I'd be interested to kn ow what they were, you know, just to help me form my opinion on the game before I decide jumping on the bandwagon.
I've been disappointed before on the 9 or 10 score games, even if they were by "reputable" sites.
But that's mainly because my tastes and priorities might differ from those of the review sites. For example, I'm generally more sensitive to graphics glitches and jittering framerate than reviewers usually are, they can kill the experience to me totally.

 

[pipo]

Not sure if it's posted before, but the manual is up...

http://www.microsoft.com/silverlight/halo3.aspx

This one was new to me too:

[gt]25423[/gt]

 

[scooby_dooby]

Does or does not the framereate jitter?
Did or did not either of the sites actually play the game beyond first minutes before "deciding" on the score?
I'm sure many sites were busy to be the first to review Halo3, so how reliable can these quick reviews be?
I think it's the problem wit many massively hyped games, not just Halo 3.
It'll be interesting to see what Edge gives Halo 3.

Wow, some of you guys are REALLY reaching here.

I guess you don't realize all reviews were embargoed until Sunday@12pm, so there was no 'first', they all released at the same time.

It's pretty pathetic that Halo gets high scores, and all of a sudden reviews are no longer reliable, and there is a systematic problem of 'over rating' games in the industry if the gameplay is good!?

Sounds like you need a good hi-def video review

I don't know how you can watch that review, and not agree that Halo GFX are among top of the heap on 360. Absolute best in class? No, but Top 5? I'd say so. It looks very nice to me, HUGE battles, beautiful backgrounds, very realistic lighting and shadows on everything.

 

[DuckThor Evil]

Yup there is some very inculent Sony fanboy/vermin activity going on in this thread... Maybe some of you should stop bitching about every possible thing you're imagination can create and let us enjoy the biggest gaming event of the year. We already knew you guys think it sucks or is overhyped etc.

 

[22psi]

New live action short: (very worth watching)

http://dsc.discovery.com/tv/last-one-standing/halo-sweeps/halo-sweeps.html

 

[scooby_dooby]

On the topic of difficulty settings, gamelength etc, I think you could probably argue that no review would be complete if they did not play 4 player CO-OP on Legendary difficulty.

I'd imagine that would pretty much be the shit.

 

[Neb]

It's pretty pathetic that Halo gets high scores, and all of a sudden reviews are no longer reliable, and there is a systematic problem of 'over rating' games in the industry if the gameplay is good!?

It is pure crazyness. If a game gets low ratings then the reviewers are unreliable/biased, if a game gets high ratings the reviewers are unreliable/biased... what is going on!?

I don't know how you can watch that review, and not agree that Halo GFX are among top of the heap on 360. Absolute best in class? No, but Top 5? I'd say so. It looks very nice to me, HUGE battles, beautiful backgrounds, very realistic lighting and shadows on everything.

Yes top 5 and in contrary to others I really like the intense colors that goes hand in hand with the artwork and Halo theme.

 

[DuckThor Evil]

On the topic of difficulty settings, gamelength etc, I think you could probably argue that no review would be complete if they did not play 4 player CO-OP on Legendary difficulty.

I'd imagine that would pretty much be the shit.

The four player CO-OP is probably quite easy though even on legendary, as the amount of enemies probably stayes the same. Still quite likely lot's of fun.