Best E3 2006 In-game Graphics

[inefficient]

Ok....and MGS4 was just...MGS.

Well it was MGS but with 1) Snake as a much much older man 2) in an urban setting we have never seen snake tackle before.

With that Halo trailer - though it did look good - the art assets & the audio assets were all based on pre-existing Halo content.

 

[NANOTEC]

Maybe because a some of the scenes were too violent for a mainstream press event. Especially the scene of him putting a gun in his mouth.

That scene was shown at SONY's conference.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I don't see how you can put MGS4 up there and leave off Halo 3, if we want to talk realtime cinematics Halo 3 is far more impressive.

There was very little to Halo 3 though. A sparse dessert, a very detailed single character, some ships and a big thing in a crater. It was very hi quality, but not much there, and very little animation. No facials, no characters. Apart from a little arm motion and crumbling ground, all the animation consisted of linearly moving and rotating objects. Compared with the cinematic intro of vehicles and detailed character animation of Snake in MGS, that had a lot more of note to me. It wasn't just next-gen visuals, but next-gen animation and styling too.

 

[Deepak]

Was Halo3 real time (like MGS4)? I just saw the trailer.

 

[drpepper]

There was very little to Halo 3 though. A sparse dessert, a very detailed single character, some ships and a big thing in a crater. It was very hi quality, but not much there, and very little animation. No facials, no characters. Apart from a little arm motion and crumbling ground, all the animation consisted of linearly moving and rotating objects. Compared with the cinematic intro of vehicles and detailed character animation of Snake in MGS, that had a lot more of note to me. It wasn't just next-gen visuals, but next-gen animation and styling too.

And as much as everyone loved the Raiden scene (I know I did). The cemetery scene was breathtaking. I have yet to see anything that rivals that.

Was Halo3 real time (like MGS4)? I just saw the trailer.

It was real time according to bungie.

 

[Ben-Nice]

Was Halo3 real time (like MGS4)? I just saw the trailer.

It was realtime, Gamespot confirmed it. I thought MGS4 and Crysis were the most impressive.

 

[inefficient]

I think one of the problems the guys working on Halo3 are going to run into is this.

Master Cheif "look" was designed for the Xbox1. The armor he wears was basically designed around the key advantages of the xbox1 hardware.

He wears hard armor that covers his entire body. The armor is designed to looks good with a lighting system that... well... makes shiny stuff look shiny. His armor is rigid and easy to animate with a simple animation system. And the same can be said about nearly all the other 3D art assets in Halo.

While the fact that the art is was designed around the xbox1 system's strong points was an advantage last gen, I worry it will be a liabilty this gen.

To make something really next gen and fresh, I feel they have to show us something we haven't seen before. I'm not saying they have to completely change their art direction or anything. I just think that just another round against the Covenant is going to dissapoint a lot of people.

 

[London Geezer]

There was very little to Halo 3 though. A sparse dessert, a very detailed single character, some ships and a big thing in a crater. It was very hi quality, but not much there, and very little animation. No facials, no characters. Apart from a little arm motion and crumbling ground, all the animation consisted of linearly moving and rotating objects. Compared with the cinematic intro of vehicles and detailed character animation of Snake in MGS, that had a lot more of note to me. It wasn't just next-gen visuals, but next-gen animation and styling too.

Hit it right on the head with that big hammer of yours. Once again. I'd rep u for that if i could.

 

[mestaice]

Heavenly sword
Heavy rain
FF 13
Eight dayz (if RT on shoot sequences)
Gears of wars (Physics was crap IMO)
Warhawk (water and clouds especially)
MGS 4
Rainbow Six vegas

- Waiting for assassin's creed in-game footage


ps: OMG, i realize that according to this top 8, i'm a sony ****** !?

 

[Bobbler]

It's realtime but it's certainly not in game.

The models and everything should be exactly the same in the actual gameplay as they are in the trailer -- unless Kojima changed his ways from the previous 3 games.

I don't see how you can put MGS4 up there and leave off Halo 3, if we want to talk realtime cinematics Halo 3 is far more impressive.

I wasn't that impressed with it, to be honest... there was nothing that really wowed me -- no faces, mostly empty terrain, far away crater which wasn't all that exciting, etc. From a technical/artistic perspective there wasn't much to get excited about -- it did have fantastic music though, I will say that (but so did MGS4). As a fan of Halo I can see getting excited, but otherwise it isn't something I'd show someone to impress them with realtime graphics, MGS4 trailer was/is -- if I had to pick one realtime rendered thing to show someone to impress them, MGS4 would definitely be it.

 

[scooby_dooby]

There was very little to Halo 3 though. A sparse dessert, a very detailed single character, some ships and a big thing in a crater. It was very hi quality, but not much there, and very little animation. No facials, no characters. Apart from a little arm motion and crumbling ground, all the animation consisted of linearly moving and rotating objects. Compared with the cinematic intro of vehicles and detailed character animation of Snake in MGS, that had a lot more of note to me. It wasn't just next-gen visuals, but next-gen animation and styling too.

But how much do you really need to see to tell how great the GFX are? It seems people expect everyone to be Kojima and make short-films. If you're talking graphics the Halo trailer gives you plenty of time to check out the character model, the lighting, the textures, the edge quality, the draw distance, some particle effects.

Granted there was little to no animation, but the entire MGS trailer is mo-capped, so neither one shows any true animations.

From a cinematics POV, obviously MGS hands down, but that's a rather silly comparison anyways, one is a 2minute teaser, the other is a 15minute shortfil, I thought we were comparing actual graphics...

 

[Ike Turner]

Rainbow Six Vegas........

 

[scooby_dooby]

The models and everything should be exactly the same in the actual gameplay as they are in the trailer -- unless Kojima changed his ways from the previous 3 games.

Still the title of the thread is "in-game graphics", the cinematic camera angles alone make it an unfair comparison to other actual games. Not to mention the massive amount of scripting and motion captured animations.

 

[DuckThor Evil]

I think one of the problems the guys working on Halo3 are going to run into is this.

Master Cheif "look" was designed for the Xbox1. The armor he wears was basically designed around the key advantages of the xbox1 hardware.

He wears hard armor that covers his entire body. The armor is designed to looks good with a lighting system that... well... makes shiny stuff look shiny. His armor is rigid and easy to animate with a simple animation system.

I agree with you, but Master Chief's look is not very important in Halo, because you don't see him that much, because you play as him. I think the other characters are easier to improve.

 

[Tap In]

Still the title of the thread is "in-game graphics", the cinematic camera angles alone make it an unfair comparison to other actual games. Not to mention the massive amount of scripting and motion captured animations.

I agree

as impressive the MGS movie was, it is not nominated for Game of the Show at E3 because it is not playable.

I think we can appreciate it for what it is (amazing) but it certainly is not fair to not recognize the other titles that are playable and are doing some amazing stuff without the benefit of cinematic camera angels and non in game animation.

And I agree with who said FFXIII lighting is non existent..

 

[Tap In]

I agree with you, but Master Chief's look is not very important in Halo, because you don't see him that much, because you play as him. I think the other characters are easier to improve.

exactly

you don't even see the MC character in game (except in cut scenes)

There are miles of possibilities with the game's art.

 

[czekon]

Rainbow Six Vegas........

agree !!

 

[drpepper]

Granted there was little to no animation, but the entire MGS trailer is mo-capped, so neither one shows any true animations.

Not everything was motion captured, Raiden's little bit of fame would be difficult to motion capture as I doubt people can actually move like that.

Also, the metal gears were definitely not mo-capped, yet they moved very well. Especially the part where the metal gear moved his (her?) leg 180 degrees and grabbed on to a ledge to prop itself up.

Also note the watermelon scene where the camera moves to the crushed watermelons as they wobbled around due to the vibrations on the ground. (Kojima physics?)

A lot of technology was also demonstrated, let's give the benefit of the doubt and say that destructable environments was shown. And not to mention the chamleon suit.

Another intangible that touched me was how well emotions were conveyed, I was convinced that Otocon existed and he was crying. Again, most in thanks to the artist but showed how well they were able to get the point accross.

The one thing I like about the Halo 3 teaser was the massive area being 13 miles wide. The scope of that was amazing but it was the only thing that impressed me.

BTW, have we seen MC unmasked?

 

[Shifty Geezer]

But how much do you really need to see to tell how great the GFX are?

Um, lots! A simple cutscene isn't indicative of what you'll get from the game. The Halo 3 showing may have used 100% of system resources to show that scene, and the moment real complex scenes are involved they'll need to cut back on quality. I'm sure you've indicated as much on PS3 showreels(?). We don't know how this engine performs with a couple dozen people battling in a smashed up city, say (or whatever the battleground will be). eg. If Master Chief looked so good because they blew most of the GPUs poly budget on him, the moment more characters and scenery polys are needed they'll need to cut back. Or adding 4xAA my have more of an impact the moment you add a lot more geometry crossing the tile borders. Unless Halo 3 is played in sparse deserts with only one character running around, the demands made of the system in that trailer are not going to be anywhere near what the game will have, and so won't be indicative of in-game graphics unless that trailer was using only, say, 50% or less of system resources.

 

[czekon]

Um, lots! A simple cutscene isn't indicative of what you'll get from the game. The Halo 3 showing may have used 100% of system resources to show that scene, and the moment real complex scenes are involved they'll need to cut back on quality. I'm sure you've indicated as much on PS3 showreels(?). We don't know how this engine performs with a couple dozen people battling in a smashed up city, say (or whatever the battleground will be). eg. If Master Chief looked so good because they blew most of the GPUs poly budget on him, the moment more characters and scenery polys are needed they'll need to cut back. Or adding 4xAA my have more of an impact the moment you add a lot more geometry crossing the tile borders. Unless Halo 3 is played in sparse deserts with only one character running around, the demands made of the system in that trailer are not going to be anywhere near what the game will have, and so won't be indicative of in-game graphics unless that trailer was using only, say, 50% or less of system resources.

i'm sorry but how in this case you see a playing Halo3 ?? one character just exploring ???