Halo 3 IQ discussion * - Stay civil and polite folks!

[archangelmorph]

Ok so I just got Halo 3 last night and started playing in on my 19" Samsung monitor at 720p..

I'm sorry guys but I *really* gotta say i'm with Dave on this one.. The game doesn't look anywhere close to the promotional shots I saw pre-release..

Now don't get me wrong, after reading so many peoples impressions of this game I was trying to remain as optimistic as possible and in all views trying to give the visuals the benefit of the doubt in terms of intentionally looking for the eye candy in the scenes i've played so far but these are the areas it seems to fall short:-

- NO AA.. I mean at ALL.. It's just not there.. Jaggies all over the place which really narks me because this was supposedly going to be fixed from the Beta..
- Low res textures and normal maps make the game look like Halo 2 so many times it was just annoying.. I kept saying to myself that maybe it was just me, maybe everyone else is seeing more than what i'm seeing, maybe there's a certain setting i have to select to turn on all the high quality visuals in the options or something? But it just wasn't the case..
- Pretty poor foliage geometry & nasty crawling pixels on all wire fencing & foliage in the distance (c'mon bungie! why no Alpha-to-coverage?!)
- Completely poor quality character faces in terms of both geometry & skin shaders..
- For some reason the entire screen just seems to me to be lower res than it should..?

Too be honest I bet the game would look tons better on an SDTV but after playing a could of rounds of gears and then dropping this game into the drive slot, Halo 3 just looks "underwhelming" considering the time this game spent in development, the amount of hype it's generated (especially for it's so-called Gears-beating visuals) & the expectations the franchise set for itself..

I have no qualms with the game itself since its f***ing awesome & some of the scenes seem to look really nice when you're look at monolithic structures that stretch off high into the sky above you.. The HDR is implemented well as is the lighting but the who effect is just ruined for me because of the shoddy image quality..

It's like the game occilates between scenes looknig really nice (mainly because of the art) and really bad (like the first area you encounter in campaign mode..)

It's a wonder to nme how few people agree with me on this especially since even my twin bro who only plays games occasionally & is a chemical engineer by profession, took one look at the game and instantly recognised how bad the game looked compared to alot of the other 360 games in my library..

I guess either it's just me & i'm missing something (is there an online update which gets installed on booting the disc while connected to Live, which makes the game look better..? I'm asking because I don't have Live anymore so maybe that's the reason..?) or too many people are evangelising the visuals of the game based off bullshots and SDTV gameplay..?

I'd love to know who else has had a similar experience playing this game so far?

 

[liolio]

While I agree with the fact that the game is not amazing (i've only seen vids so far), to me it still looks pretty good, lightning helps a lot it set a nice ambiance.

And it's unfair to compare Halo to GeoW or Bioshock, halo III engine (while not being perfect) allows for indoor/outdoor environment and even allow for flight.

Alli this talk is unfair, but It would be better to wanderer why bungie didn't come with a engine tweaked for indoor for example.
I guess bungie settle early on something solid for the engine and do tweak while the game was maturing, because BUNGIE had to push out the game by early autumn 2007, so they focused a lot on the gameplay first.

And again the game is beautiful, nobody dares to compare it to warkhawk.
Halo III has to be in the middle bigger environments than bioshock or GeoW tinnier than warhawk.
All comes at a cost...

 

[archangelmorph]

While I agree with the fact that the game is not amazing (i've only seen vids so far), to me it still looks pretty good, lightning helps a lot it set a nice ambiance.

And it's unfair to compare Halo to GeoW or Bioshock, halo III engine (while not being perfect) allows for indoor/outdoor environment and even allow for flight.

Alli this talk is unfair, but It would be better to wanderer why bungie didn't come with a engine tweaked for indoor for example.
I guess bungie settle early on something solid for the engine and do tweak while the game was maturing, because BUNGIE had to push out the game by early autumn 2007, so they focused a lot on the gameplay first.

And again the game is beautiful, nobody dares to compare it to warkhawk.
Halo III has to be in the middle bigger environments than bioshock or GeoW tinnier than warhawk.
All comes at a cost...

To be honest I really don't think that's any excuse.. There's many games available even now which do outdoor/indoor and large-scale worlds whilst still maintaining solid IQ..
I don't think the the fact that there's so much going on is much of a testiment of the limits of the hardware but more of the focus of the developer..
It just seems ot me like bungie didn't really care about gfx and once they got the visuals to a degree they were happy with (possibly about 12 months ago when so many of the better looking games were'nt around for reference) they turned all their attention onto other things..

I do think the game looks nice and when i squint and try my best to ignore the aliasing and textures I can appreciate the art for what it is..

But the fact of the matter is I really shouldn't have to.. Considering the weight/scope/calibur of this game..

 

[Daozang]

I think Halos graphic problems are not related to the technical aspect of things. I think that some of the decisions made in terms of art direction are the problem here.
Every good screenshot is taken into environments were the lighting provides great contrast. I'm an hour into the game and up till now, the game is plagued by low contrast... The little details are almost gone and everything looks almost flat…
In no way am I saying that the graphics are not good. They serve their purpose. It’s just that I like high contrast photography, in everything. It’s a personal preference.

I haven’t noticed aliasing that much and the hdr is very well implemented. The textures are kind of low res but I don’t think that’s a problem.
For me the best looking game for the 360 is still Bioshock. I’m interested into what a platform can achieve technically only to see it implemented in a game with the right art direction. Strange as it may sound, I think that Halo could look way better with hdr and bloom… Bloom, if used right can give so much depth into the picture…
I’m not impressed but I’m not disappointed either. The truth is I wasn’t expecting it to be the best looking game in the world. I just want it to play nice and be fun.

 

[archangelmorph]

I think Halos graphic problems are not related to the technical aspect of things. I think that some of the decisions made in terms of art direction are the problem here.
Every good screenshot is taken into environments were the lighting provides great contrast. I'm an hour into the game and up till now, the game is plagued by low contrast... The little details are almost gone and everything looks almost flat…
In no way am I saying that the graphics are not good. They serve their purpose. It’s just that I like high contrast photography, in everything. It’s a personal preference.

I haven’t noticed aliasing that much and the hdr is very well implemented. The textures are kind of low res but I don’t think that’s a problem.
For me the best looking game for the 360 is still Bioshock. I’m interested into what a platform can achieve technically only to see it implemented in a game with the right art direction. Strange as it may sound, I think that Halo could look way better with hdr and bloom… Bloom, if used right can give so much depth into the picture…
I’m not impressed but I’m not disappointed either. The truth is I wasn’t expecting it to be the best looking game in the world. I just want it to play nice and be fun.

There is bloom.. & HDR..

& how can you not see aliasing? what screen are you playing on out of curiousity?

 

[liolio]

To be honest I really don't think that's any excuse.. There's many games available even now which do outdoor/indoor and large-scale worlds whilst still maintaining solid IQ..
I don't think the the fact that there's so much going on is much of a testiment of the limits of the hardware but more of the focus of the developer..
It just seems ot me like bungie didn't really care about gfx and once they got the visuals to a degree they were happy with (possibly about 12 months ago when so many of the better looking games were'nt around for reference) they turned all their attention onto other things..

I do think the game looks nice and when i squint and try my best to ignore the aliasing and textures I can appreciate the art for what it is..

But the fact of the matter is I really shouldn't have to.. Considering the weight/scope/calibur of this game..

To some extend it was what i tried to mean
Gameplay (mainly MP) live integration etc. seem to have been the main focus as well as present a well rounded product.

 

[Daozang]

There is bloom.. & HDR..

& how can you not see aliasing? what screen are you playing on out of curiousity?

I never said that I can't see any aliasing! I'm only saying that I it's not that distracting, for me at least.
As for bloom, I didn't notice that... Perhaps I'd like it to be more pronounced.
I tried the game both on a Sony Bravia KDL 40V2000 and on an Epson TW700 (cinema pro 700 I think it's called in the US market) projector. Both were connected with component cables.

 

[DJ12]

I did wonder why some screenshots over at IGN looked 10 times better than others, I guess this thread explains it.

Still, if another company had a screenshot mode in one of their flagship games and released them as "in game" shots, this thread would be going in an entirely different direction right now.

 

[DieH@rd]

Can someone post few "real in-game" screenshots of Halo 3?

 

[archangelmorph]

I never said that I can't see any aliasing! I'm only saying that I it's not that distracting, for me at least.
As for bloom, I didn't notice that... Perhaps I'd like it to be more pronounced.
I tried the game both on a Sony Bravia KDL 40V2000 and on an Epson TW700 (cinema pro 700 I think it's called in the US market) projector. Both were connected with component cables.

Maybe because i'm playing on a smaller screen, sitting closer to it and with each tightlyclustered pixel highly visible then that's why it doesn't quite look amazing.. But regardless, I use the same setup to play all my other games & to be quite honest most of them look better..

 

[Megadrive1988]

aside from the HDR, the graphics are absolutely disappointing in most respects given that Halo 3 is an extremely high profile killer app game. you'd think with the level of graphics Halo3 is pushing, they'd be able to run it at a butter-smooth, constant 60fps. I realize there are a number of graphical effects and techniques going on in addition to HDR that made it difficult or perhaps impossible to get 60fps, but overall it's not worth it IMO. I wouldn't say the graphics are bad, just not very good.

 

[Daozang]

Maybe because i'm playing on a smaller screen, sitting closer to it and with each tightlyclustered pixel highly visible then that's why it doesn't quite look amazing.. But regardless, I use the same setup to play all my other games & to be quite honest most of them look better..

It's not that different than playing on a 100" screen when it comes to jaggies...
But on a big screen aliasing is always a problem, especially if it's selectively implemented. The parts of the scenery that are aliased stand out like hell. So I'm quite used to it.
I agree that the game is not that beautiful to look at. Besides I mentioned before that for me the best looking game for the 360 is Bio. But I think that Halos graphics do their job. Nothing less, nothing more.
What would ruin the experience for me would be a choppy frame rate. But Halo runs smoothly at least to this point.

 

[archangelmorph]

It's not that different than playing on a 100" screen when it comes to jaggies...
But on a big screen aliasing is always a problem, especially if it's selectively implemented. The parts of the scenery that are aliased stand out like hell. So I'm quite used to it.
I agree that the game is not that beautiful to look at. Besides I mentioned before that for me the best looking game for the 360 is Bio. But I think that Halos graphics do their job. Nothing less, nothing more.
What would ruin the experience for me would be a choppy frame rate. But Halo runs smoothly at least to this point.

True...

Although I did notice slow downs here and there but It's rare at least..

 

[Daozang]

True...

Although I did notice slow downs here and there but It's rare at least..

I'm still very early in the game. Up to this point I didn’t notice anything. I'm sure that the hardware straining parts are later in the game with many enemies simultaneously on screen and heavy battles...

 

[BoardBonobo]

Played on both a 40" Bravia and also a 37" Hannspree, both at 1080i.

I have to say this is the only reason I bought a 360. My games library now adds up to 2... Gears and Halo 3.

After waiting all this time and having played a few games in between (mostly on PC, but quite a few on PS3), I have to say for all the hype and ardent fervour that surrounded the launch of the game I was mostly unimpressed.

Played through the first section lastnight and my initial reactions to the visuals was meh. I've seen much better. Some of the interaction with the scenery was good, the way vegetation bends out of the way etc. Water effects are distinctly poor. Textures were for the main part flat, and everything was so jaggedy. But at least master chief has feet and a shadow. Something that is missing from nearly all FPS's (including later ones like Bioshock).

All in all a little underwhelming, but as long as the story has a few twists and turns it'll be a little above average FPS. The bar for story telling and cutscenes has been forever raised by heavenly sword and I get a feeling it'll be a while before it's beaten.

 

[Dr. Meaty]

For me, the bilinear filtering is pretty irritating in some spots, and a few of the marines are a little funky looking, but overall, I think the game looks fantastic. I can't see how someone can make a fair comparison between Halo 3 and UE3 games. Aside from the obvious difference in scale,(how again is this not a factor?) these are all different games with entirely different art styles. Personally, I wouldn't want Halo 3 to look like Gears.
Sure, I'm disappointed by the lack of AA and AF, but when I'm watching a replay from the campaign and scrolling the camera to look at enemies a half mile away, with all of the (really nice, imo) textures and shaders at work, I can't help being really impressed.
The last thing I want is to start a Halo 3/ Bioshock pissing contest, but I'll say this to illustrate my point: Bioshock is a beautiful game, but the character models are either shoddy crap, or an art style, depending on how you look at it.

 

[Daozang]

My preference of Bioshock over Halo when it comes to grapphics is a purely personal one. It has to do with art direction and not with the engine itself. I'm quite aware that the games are very different apart from the fact that they are both first person shooters, both in terms of scale and purpose.

 

[fearsomepirate]

I never was terribly impressed with the graphics of the Halo series. I think most people swooned over Halo's graphics because it was the first time they'd seen certain DX8 shader effects, and it had some nice, big environments. But it had its issues, too...low geometry, uninspired textures, repetitive environments, etc. Halo 2 had some really bad texture choices in areas and had issues with pop-in and framerate. But again, people went ape over normal mapping. By this time, a lot of those kinds of effects are par for the course, so it's no surprise that Halo 3 isn't blowing people away.

 

[ultragpu]

judging from what 360 can do at this stage, i would say halo3's visual is held back by its own design. it's never a realistic looking game to start off with, character models are very cartoonish, kinda remind me of serious sam. thus the devs have designed the visual accordingly. for me i dig the ultra realistic photorealism approach in visual such as crysis, gears, ut3, lair and killzone2, and for me the realistic design or use of technology in those games outshine halo3's cartoony visual greatly. should halo3 go on the route of photorealism, im sure it would look alot better than it is now coz the 360 can. but haunted by its predecesor's design, halo3 fails to impress to those who's moved on from the cartoonish design. jsut my thought.

 

[Daozang]

judging from what 360 can do at this stage, i would say halo3's visual is held back by its own design. it's never a realistic looking game to start off with, character models are very cartoonish, kinda remind me of serious sam. thus the devs have designed the visual accordingly. for me i dig the ultra realistic photorealism approach in visual such as crysis, gears, ut3, lair and killzone2, and for me the realistic design or use of technology in those games outshine halo3's cartoony visual greatly. should halo3 go on the route of photorealism, im sure it would look alot better than it is now coz the 360 can. but haunted by its predecesor's design, halo3 fails to impress to those who's moved on from the cartoonish design. jsut my thought.

Gears, to me at least, never tried to look photorealistic. I find it to be very stylised and differentiated from the rest of the bunch. In fact only Crysis tries to go the ultra realistic way.

Halo could be better if it wasn't trying to be something in between. The point is to be distinctive when it comes to graphics/presentation. There is no middle ground that will please everyone… And even if there is, artistically it (almost always) has no soul.

I think that Halo, has a distinctive look, but tries to hard to cater to everyone’s esthetics.