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

Status
Not open for further replies.
The last two Halo games were visual masterpieces. They nearly suckered the graphics whore in me to buying an Xbox even though I detest FPS.

I was very close to buying a 360 today due to AC6 and wanted one other game to push me over the edge. I was hoping it would be Halo 3. However watching trailers, seeing screens and having seen for myself in person a friend playing the game it is graphically impotent.

The hype was predicting better than Gears fidelity. Only thing better than Gears is Bioshock.

Now there's murmurings it's not even native HD...that's pretty disappointing. I thought it was just artistically dated but now there is a legitimate complaint against its technical competence.
 
The lack of AA and AF are jarring at times, but the game still looks very good at places on my 60", it just has it's moments of not looking that hot.

But comparing to BioShock or Gears is laughable. Those are great games, and look great, but the encounters in Halo are much larger scale and always have been.
 
avaya said:
The last two Halo games were visual masterpieces. They nearly suckered the graphics whore in me to buying an Xbox even though I detest FPS.

I was very close to buying a 360 today due to AC6 and wanted one other game to push me over the edge. I was hoping it would be Halo 3. However watching trailers, seeing screens and having seen for myself in person a friend playing the game it is graphically impotent.

The hype was predicting better than Gears fidelity. Only thing better than Gears is Bioshock.

Now there's murmurings it's not even native HD...that's pretty disappointing. I thought it was just artistically dated but now there is a legitimate complaint against its technical competence.
Click to expand...

It's native 720p. And the game looks brilliant in certain situations, especially a couple later levels. The hype was not predicting better than Gears fidelity. Bungie themselves said a while back not to expect that because they had a different goal. Even so, I think the main difference is the use of post processing. Bungie has kept the game very clean and filter free for the most part, but the explosions have a cool filter effect when you fly in them which produce pictures like the one of Guardian above - pictures that look like concept art.
 
Deepblue said:
It's native 720p. And the game looks brilliant in certain situations, especially a couple later levels. The hype was not predicting better than Gears fidelity. Bungie themselves said a while back not to expect that because they had a different goal. Even so, I think the main difference is the use of post processing. Bungie has kept the game very clean and filter free for the most part, but the explosions have a cool filter effect when you fly in them which produce pictures like the one of Guardian above - pictures that look like concept art.
Click to expand...

Its not 720p, we know its 640p native thanks to Quaz51's extensive work.

http://forum.beyond3d.com/showpost.php?p=1070774&postcount=276
 
avaya said:
The hype was predicting better than Gears fidelity. Only thing better than Gears is Bioshock.
Click to expand...
To anyone saying visual fidelity was being hyped, can you please provide links? I don't recall that. I remember the Forza crew talking all their amazing graphical features which didn't really happen, and likewise Factor 5 on lair, but Halo's graphics is not something I recall the developers of MS talking up. Halo as far as I'm concerned has always been first and foremost about the gameplay. In the prior discussions on this title, we've seen less than incredible graphics and the consensus has been that Halo is more about the game.

Thus I don't see that less than the world's best ever graphics is a disappointment, because I don't recall the world's best ever graphics being a target. Nothing of the sort. Maybe I missed the PR though?
 
Yeah, I'm playing at 8' from a 50" 1366x768 plasma, and not just comparing to games on my HTPC but other 360 and PS3 games as well. Put simply; while the polygon counts, texture resolutions, lighting and such are all quite nice as seen in the bullshots posted above, the rendering fidelity is barely a set up from original Xbox quality. The rendering resolution has increased, but the lack of AA and the crappy texture filtering are decidedly last-gen compared to most modern console games.
 
All I can say is "Wow". If you people think Halo 3's graphics are "impotent" and "unimpressive", then I feel sorry for you because it is quite possible that you will not like any console game's graphics this generation. The screen shots posted earlier look just like what I am seeing on my TV. This is getting comical.

In my experience, the framerate has been pretty stable. There is some occassional "hitching", but it seems like it is related to streaming rather than framerate dips.

By the way, has any console game had better fire? Man, the fire is beautiful!
 
In some ways this proves that spending a lot of the budget on HDR and lighting, soft shadows and self shadowing, foliage, view distance, a lot of characters on screen and massive scope/size in some areas
two scarabs for example
, and so forth may not (for some users) be very relevant--although the feedback I am seeing from techie games is mixed and from casuals they are loving it. Going with fewer, higher detailed characters as well as confined areas with more detailed textures seems to be more appreciated in the technical sectors.

I think Halo 3 has some really nasty uglies (poly count, especially in characters, skin shaders, AA/AF, lack of dynamic shadows from dynamic lights like the Warthog, etc) but some of the stuff they do well (mentioned above) is really good.

The question is were the "good" elements worth the compromises. There seems to be a pretty big divide on this issue with many people in the middle.
 
From NYTimes as about summarizes the point...

"Halo 3 is Halo 2 with somewhat better graphics."...

"The Halo games have always had a great sense of scale, and some of the most notable visual moments are those in which dozens of monsters are running and firing over vast, picturesque landscapes. The last sequence is an especially striking example of vast vistas, big explosions and lots of enemies. Still, the game never achieves the visual heights of top Xbox 360 games like BioShock and Gears of War."....

"It doesn’t really matter what reviewers say, though. Halo 3 is not just a game: it is a phenomenon fueled by obsessed fans, slick advertising and excessive press coverage (of which I find myself a part).

But even though the hoopla Microsoft has generated around this game is, in a way, a greater achievement than the game itself, it cannot be denied that there are people who will take greater pleasure in this game than in any other entertainment this year."

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/27/technology/circuits/27games.html?ref=circuits
 
Shifty Geezer said:
To anyone saying visual fidelity was being hyped, can you please provide links? I don't recall that. I remember the Forza crew talking all their amazing graphical features which didn't really happen, and likewise Factor 5 on lair, but Halo's graphics is not something I recall the developers of MS talking up. Halo as far as I'm concerned has always been first and foremost about the gameplay. In the prior discussions on this title, we've seen less than incredible graphics and the consensus has been that Halo is more about the game.

Thus I don't see that less than the world's best ever graphics is a disappointment, because I don't recall the world's best ever graphics being a target. Nothing of the sort. Maybe I missed the PR though?
Click to expand...

E32006 trailer and Luke Smith formerly of 1up now at Bungie.

I think it's intellectually dishonest to deny that Gears and Bioshock look a decent step beyond what Bungie has produced visually. I'll stick by my statement that it's graphically impotent.

Nevertheless this a side issue, from all accounts people are happy with the game and that's all that matters in the end!
 
avaya said:
E32006 trailer and Luke Smith formerly of 1up now at Bungie.
Click to expand...

On the E3 trailer, I think Bungie is totally vindicated. I have seen quite a few user screenshots that are better than those in that trailer. Further, the technology in place in the trailer is in the game (minus AA).

If you re-watch the video documentary they show the trailer from NON-cinema angles and they are quite... plain. The trailer has the lighting perfectly placed to emphasize everything. I do the same things when I take photographs of food (light boxes, multiple light sources, etc). The same food with a standard house light on the kitchen table looks inferior.

As for Luke's comment, he said he saw some campaign footage and said, "Gears of What?" If he saw the intro cinematics I could absolutely agree.

I think it's intellectually dishonest to deny that Gears and Bioshock look a decent step beyond what Bungie has produced visually. I'll stick by my statement that it's graphically impotent.
Click to expand...

So a general question: Do you like the lighting and shadowing in Gears better? What is better about it?

Nevertheless this a side issue, from all accounts people are happy with the game and that's all that matters in the end!
Click to expand...

Oddly, my best friend just called me up and one of his comments was this was the best looking game he has ever seen. I don't agree with him, but I think the opinions are polarized. Technically I find myself polarized... I am not sure I like/dislike their tradeoffs and I am not impressed on the basis of this is a 1st party flagship title--the flagship title at that.

Of course expecting two dozen Gears of War Locusts on screen with a handful of marines, a warthog, and a couple of banshees and a scarob in the distance is expecting far too much as well.
 
NRP said:
The screen shots posted earlier look just like what I am seeing on my TV. This is getting comical.
Click to expand...
That is quite a comical claim from you considering those "screenshots" are ofline renders which are produced at far greater fidelity than acutal gameplay.
Deepblue said:
For now I'll take Bungie's word over a some testing.
Click to expand...
Were did Bungie ever state their "word" on the rendering resolution?
 
Yeah, Frankie's posting on GAF but as far as I now he's never commented on the issue.
 
Shifty Geezer said:
To anyone saying visual fidelity was being hyped, can you please provide links?
Click to expand...

Thank you.

It was never billed to be a showstopper cutting edge graphical tour de force.

Having said that, I was pleasanty surprised at how well the graphics looked when the game loaded.

I think a lot of it has to do with one's expectations going into it. Anyone expecting cutting edge graphics I'm not sure where you would get such expectation as the series hasn't been leading in the Graphics dept. since Halo1 and the pr/marketing didn't hint at any such aspirations...
 
Joshua Luna said:
On the E3 trailer, I think Bungie is totally vindicated. I have seen quite a few user screenshots that are better than those in that trailer. Further, the technology in place in the trailer is in the game (minus AA).

If you re-watch the video documentary they show the trailer from NON-cinema angles and they are quite... plain. The trailer has the lighting perfectly placed to emphasize everything. I do the same things when I take photographs of food (light boxes, multiple light sources, etc). The same food with a standard house light on the kitchen table looks inferior.

As for Luke's comment, he said he saw some campaign footage and said, "Gears of What?" If he saw the intro cinematics I could absolutely agree.
Click to expand...

Maybe I'm recalling that trailer with rose-tinted vision. Having said that I wasn't overly impressed by that trailer either.

The 640p result however is pretty poor. Natively this should look a lot better without the AA, I mean Gears has no AA. Your point about this being viewed as the flagship 1st party title, that hits the nail on the head. With that budget and all that support, to be so graphically underwhelming is disappointing. Going from the first two instalments which were definitely top echelon technically to this is disappointing….or maybe this is my own ignorance and I was just a bit awestruck by seeing DX8 shaders for the first time. Could be.

To answer your question about Gears/Bioshock, I generally detest the way UE3.0 games look. Plastic fantastic.

The Darkness is frankly a disgrace and Stanglehold is not much better. However Gears and Bioshock have nailed the lighting and shadowing. They truly are marvellous to behold. I realise there are trade-offs between what Bungie have tried to achieve and what Epic did but in the end the result on the screen is what counts. I was pilloried for pouring scorn on Lair ever since the move to 1080p. Whatever fancy simulation is going on in the background is irrelevant unless it's critical to gameplay. Lair looks rubbish. Halo 3 for what it is, is graphically impotent.

I've said my piece and no longer wish to perpetuate the same meme in this thread. This is B3D and hopefully some of the technically gifted among us will shed some light on the decisions that led to 640p.
 
avaya said:
Maybe I'm recalling that trailer with rose-tinted vision. Having said that I wasn't overly impressed by that trailer either.

The 640p result however is pretty poor. Natively this should look a lot better without the AA, I mean Gears has no AA.
Click to expand...
Gears at least uses some sort of AA on certian objects, and some selective edge bluring as well; but I haven't seen anything of the sort in Halo 3 in and the lower rendering resolution just makes the jaggies that much thicker.
avaya said:
However Gears and Bioshock have nailed the lighting and shadowing. They truly are marvellous to behold.
Click to expand...
To a point, I've seen quite a bit of shadows coming out the other side of floors and walls in UE3, and that is a big peave of mine I haven't seen in Halo 3. Granted in Halo 3 I saw a lot of enemies missing shadows all together. The whole last level was full of it, they didn't even bother to use blobs, and that looks rather absurd too.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top