archangelmorph
Veteran
I love the art style.. It has character..
I'm just not a fan of the current games' IQ..
Halo 3 IQ discussion * - Stay civil and polite folks!
- Thread starter palamede
- Start date
- Status
I love the art style.. It has character..
I'm just not a fan of the current games' IQ..
ihamoitc2005
Veteran
I have not played this game my friend but Arstechnica review says Halo3 background is fake, like painted backdrop in a movie set. He says he cannot free roam. Is this true? I thought Halo you can free roam. What is the truth?
http://i95.photobucket.com/albums/l127/webmonkeybaker/halo3.jpg
Noone has ever claimed Halo is a 'free roaming' game. You have set paths and designated "sandbox" areas just like any other FPS.
The mountain and the clouds in that background are not being rendered if that's what you're talking about. Everything else is. It's no different from Granturismo's bitmapped backdrops.
Argh, at least say Gran Turismo 4's bitmapped backgrounds.
Did many people really think those clouds in this screenshot were realtime though? That'd have been a frontpage feature if they had been, I reckon.
TurnDragoZeroV2G
Regular
Er, the mountain is "real" in the sense it's made of geometry. "Clouds" are part of the skybox or alpha quads where necessary.
Overall: The lack of AA, AF, and a crapload of shadows (more like the cutscenes) is disappointing in the game. However, the lighting is among the best in any game, and I'd probably say the best in any console fps. Screenshots do no justice whatsoever. HDR is implemented well. The motion blur is good, but I wish they made it work when you "pause" the game in replays as well, or be able to turn it on/off. The atmospheric scattering simulation looks incredible in some levels. There's a moment where the water looks absolutely phenomenal as well, and overall it looks great.
And unlike some of the games it's being compared to, Halo 3 sticks dozens of enemies on screen at once.
Unfortunately, the lack of AA and AF make my eyes bleed continuously, and I can't help but think it was a completely retarded decision. WTF Bungie?
I'm out of town, so no Halo 3 for me yet, but it is about scope IMO.
Warhawk is big (massive sometimes), but it is 720P 4x AA and at least 30fps.
Halo 3 is more like the scope of some Resistance (720P, 2x AA) levels I think, maybe bigger.
Comparing it to Bioshock and GoW isn't fair, those two are very limited corridor shooters. Maybe UT3 will be a more fair comparison.
Keeping the frame rate up and all the shader effects/HDR but sacrificing res and AA/AF is fair. I'm not sure anyone wants to play a better looking Halo 3 at 20fps, GRAW2 made this kind of trade off it seems.
Johnny Awesome
Veteran
I think this game is an 8/10 graphics-wise. I think some people are forgetting just how much is going on this game at times and the fact that you can use the replay camera anywhere etc... The gameplay additions necessistate scaling the graphics back a little.
From the screenshots I've seen, one thing Bungie have to be heavily complimented on are their artistic use of bloom. It's subtle, and actually gives an impression of brightness rather than a slab of gaussian blurred white composed over the top!
Oboro Shogun
Newcomer
Even if it doesn't match the visuals of Bioshock and Gears in terms of polish. The scope of the levels is much larger and also, those games get hammered by Halo in the actual gameplay development. Gears is a glorified, shooter version of whack a mole, with a laggy online mode and a cocky development team. Bioshock is a fantastic game absolutely. It stilll doesn't begin to touch Halo's depth though. Even just in the campaign mode. I won't discuss multiplayer cause it's too one sided
Bioshock is the visual champ on the 360 IMO. Halo is far and away the best game though. Gears is a 7 out of 10 game with 11 (when it came out) out of 10 productin values.
hm... I guess for me, in the comparison with Gears of War, I much prefer the lighting in Halo. Epic lights the character models rather strangely at times, giving the model edges extremely bright highlights.
But, I do not entirely agree with Bungie's plentiful colours for everything. It just doesn't fit with the story IMO, and those live-action commercials give off a better feeling for the universe, so it just confuses me why they chose this path. Even the original Halo 2 teaser and demo gave off that dark gritty atmosphere.
But, I do not entirely agree with Bungie's plentiful colours for everything. It just doesn't fit with the story IMO, and those live-action commercials give off a better feeling for the universe, so it just confuses me why they chose this path. Even the original Halo 2 teaser and demo gave off that dark gritty atmosphere.
Having played the origonal and seen many screenshots from the second i actually disagree. The moments when the game actually opens up to really vast areas are few and far between, many times you're indeed trudging through rather small areas. Just because the environment is outdoors so you can see a few rocks some trees and the sky doesnt mean its wide open and cant be classified as a corridor shooter. Most of the levels were pretty linear, i dont think anyone can disagree.
Now in respect to the third i dont know, but i sorta doubt the levels are huge and completely open given what i've both seen and experienced with the last 2. To be honest im not surprised at all. Im not a fan of poor IQ so i have to say that i would really love to hear their reasoning for such a lackluster IQ choice. AA you can let slide because its a console, but bilinear filtering doesnt belong in any game in this day and age, and to be honest with the very real way Halo 3 is treated as a massive power house peice of the 360, i am pretty shocked they'd even settle for using it.
wow some of you guys need to get off of those little PC displays and get nice big HDTVs where you can sit back at the proper 8-10 feet. comparing them to PC games up close on your monitors does not work for how these games are designed. IMO
Graphics look stunning ang jaggies, unless you pause the game to examine, are not a factor in my enjoyment of it AT ALL. they are hardly noticeable in motion
I'm not saying you are not seeing jaggies, I'm saying you are seeing them FAR more on your set ups than I am on mine. I think the different perceptions are that and that alone.
the other effects and details and sheer number of things going on at once are mind boggling. the small smoke and lighting that radiates from every light source (seemingly) during the battle. the rockets are even detailed down to the bolt as they fly through the air leaving particle effects and lighting trails (beautiful) and in multiplayer there are sometimes 25 of these things going off at once along with the explosions from impact, the effects from several orbs that generate other light and particle effects, the grenades glowing and exploding, the flame throwers and bullets flying. the game is breathtaking. Those of you who have not played the game and replayed in FILM mode and are judging be screens (harshly) need to back off until you play it on a properly calibrated HDTV.
BTW multiplayer actually looks as good if not better to me at times than SP.
comparing them to PC games up close on your monitors does not work for how these games are designed. IMOGraphics look stunning ang jaggies, unless you pause the game to examine, are not a factor in my enjoyment of it AT ALL. they are hardly noticeable in motion
I'm not saying you are not seeing jaggies, I'm saying you are seeing them FAR more on your set ups than I am on mine. I think the different perceptions are that and that alone.
the other effects and details and sheer number of things going on at once are mind boggling. the small smoke and lighting that radiates from every light source (seemingly) during the battle. the rockets are even detailed down to the bolt as they fly through the air leaving particle effects and lighting trails (beautiful) and in multiplayer there are sometimes 25 of these things going off at once along with the explosions from impact, the effects from several orbs that generate other light and particle effects, the grenades glowing and exploding, the flame throwers and bullets flying. the game is breathtaking. Those of you who have not played the game and replayed in FILM mode and are judging be screens (harshly) need to back off until you play it on a properly calibrated HDTV.
BTW multiplayer actually looks as good if not better to me at times than SP.
Well Halo3 doesn't even keep a steady 30fps as there are framerate drops below that some times during the game.
But i agree that the game's graphics are an absolute disappointment especially since its been titled to even surpass Gears visuals and after this bull-trailer MS and Bungie claimed to be "100%" realtime during E3...
scooby_dooby
Legend
Ouch. Technically, that is extremely dissapointing...
But, I still think it's getting a bum rap here, as I play through Halo 3 on my 46" projection, it looks awesome.
I can't speak for people playing on 20" monitors from 12" away, but for me the game looks gorgeous.
As I already stated in my lengthy review post (which was totally deleted?? WTF??
) it certainly is a mixed bag, but for me the lighting and art elevates the game and makes it a joy to play through.The jaggies are hardly noticeable at all on my RPTV, they only really stand out on structures in the background.
You have not played the game have you? Cutscenes look better than E3 06.
scooby_dooby
Legend
Ya. Best cut scenes I've scene on 360, easily.
Especially in the later missions, there's one scene where the plot twists, and it has a long movie style cut scene, I was really blown away at what they were doing in realtime.
- Status