Halo 3 Trailer @ E3: Confirmed

[dukmahsik]

I want some battle like kameo where MC and a few dozen marines against a few hundred (at least) covies

 

[Type_Raver]

Forza 2 is a nice suprise, i wonder if it will go head to head with GT5 (is it being shown?) at E3? Halo 3, well it it looks better than Too human and Project offset then it'll be worth keeping an eye out on. Be interesting to see what direct the art in Halo 3 is taking.

 

[dantruon]

Do you guy/girl see any irony in your own expectation here, say if Halo 3 was shown and the graphic look so great and it might surpass Killzone E3 05 trailer, would you still consider Halo 3 to be pre-rendered or realtime ?

 

[AlNom]

Things always look better in cut-scenes... Many games have already showed us that.

(and there certainly was no need to bring up KZ :| )

 

[NRP]

I wouldn't put too much stock in gameplay trailers. Halo 2's E3 trailer was awesome, and it really got me excited for Halo 2. Unfortunately, the actual game turned out to be quite a bit different from the E3 trailer. It was still pretty good, but I'd be lying if I said I wasn't a little disappointed.

 

[AlNom]

So what do you people guess Halo3 is going to show?

I'm thinking they'll show the cutscene that follows the end of Halo 2. Maybe a supe'd up version of the ending plus a little bit more to tie in Halo 3. Or maybe something really teasing like what the Flood are up to with Cortana.

Joe Staten did mention recently that the last 3 levels of Halo 2 were cut (ha ha... 3...) due to time constraints. Presumably, I think it'd be "easy" for them to do that and not waste a lot of time working on a demo like they did for E3 2003.

It'd just be a "we're working on it, here's confirmation, and this is what the cutscenes will be like. Extrapolate from Halo 2 in-game." Or something like that.

If they show playable stuff... I hope they're going to launch next year otherwise, I'll be storming their gates....again. I won't fail next time! *maniacal laughter*

With all due respect, the art style of Bungie isn't exactly realistic, hyper-realistic (overexaggerated realism), nor as finely stylized as MGS for example. Both Halo episodes were limited by the hardware to an extent, but I wouldn't really expect them to be able to outshine the cream of the nextgen developers.

I completely agree with you. I mean, they have aliens and ray guns and blinky lights! (sorry, I couldn't resist ). But, for the facial work on the characters, at least for Admiral Hood and Keyes and Johnson, they did make a big jump from H1 to H2. I could accept just higher resolution textures and more polygons.

I'd guess that the big show-off in Halo 3 could be to heavily increase the scale of the combat.

If they do that, I hope they bring back the assault rifle.

As epic as it would be, it'd take some serious effort to present a 'Master Chief vs. 200 Covenant soldiers' battle in a convincing way...

But... substitute Covenant for Flood, and I think it'd be a perfect fit.

 

[TurnDragoZeroV2G]

Joe Staten did mention recently that the last 3 levels of Halo 2 were cut (ha ha... 3...) due to time constraints.

Interesting. Where/when was this?

Edit: Nevermind. HBO is my friend. Haha

If they do that, I hope they bring back the assault rifle.

Indeed. I love the thing, and it worked fine with burst. At the very least, it was fun to use when there wasn't a better weapon on hand. And it looked/sounded cool.

 

[AlNom]

Interesting. Where/when was this?

Edit: Nevermind. HBO is my friend. Haha

w00t, I made it on their front page (Alstrong). This makes number 2.

Indeed. I love the thing, and it worked fine with burst. At the very least, it was fun to use when there wasn't a better weapon on hand. And it looked/sounded cool.

Exactly my thoughts. Actually if there's one thing they made more realistic, it's the sound effects for the guns. There's hardly any bass. The chaingun sounds flat, the smgs sound flat... and that's how they would sound (as evident in the "making of" with that soldier firing live weapons). Taking things to utter ridiculous proportions just doesn't seem like " a good thing"anymore.
And they somehow made dual SMGs as effective as one assault rifle. And... the needler... what happened to the big pink bloom explosion that you could also make by shooting fallen enemies? The smoke explosion for it was pretty weak too.

And....and....that's the end of my rant!

 

[Deepblue]

In that case I'll start.

They nerfed the friggin frag grenades!!!

 

[mckmas8808]

So what do you people guess Halo3 is going to show?

With all due respect, the art style of Bungie isn't exactly realistic, hyper-realistic (overexaggerated realism), nor as finely stylized as MGS for example. Both Halo episodes were limited by the hardware to an extent, but I wouldn't really expect them to be able to outshine the cream of the nextgen developers.

Which leads me to a more important question: gameplay. Halo was IMHO quite different from other FPS games in that it heavily increased the tactical part of the combat, forcing the player to make heavy use of different weapons, grenades, covers, and even turn enemy tactics against the AI. Remember, it's a 2001 game, PC shooters have been stuck trying to copy Half Life at that time. Part 2 seems to be more of the same, so I think they've managed to gather some new design ideas for the sequel.

I'd guess that the big show-off in Halo 3 could be to heavily increase the scale of the combat. More allied and enemy soldiers, and higher level tactics maybe? Several nextgen TPS hack and slash games are introducing hundreds, even thousands of enemies, but we have yet to see that implemented in a shooter. A massive battlefield would look very impressive even with 'simply good' art assets, and it'd also build on the strenghts of Bungie: game design and engineering.
On the other hand, the game has been in development for about 18 months. It might be a lot, but nextgen stuff is now counted in years and I wonder if Halo could grow significantly in such a short amount of time. As epic as it would be, it'd take some serious effort to present a 'Master Chief vs. 200 Covenant soldiers' battle in a convincing way...

So what do you think, can they do something like this? Or will we get a bit of advancement and flashy graphics? Or will it be a letdown?

I expect us to be blown away. I expect the game to be a slight step above the best of what Mass Effect and Gears of War will have. I think it will make over 100 million people say "WOW"!

Hopefully for X360 owners they will have next-gen animation and LOTS of motion blur (done correctly of course).

 

[Shifty Geezer]

So what do you people guess Halo3 is going to show?

With all due respect, the art style of Bungie isn't exactly realistic, hyper-realistic (overexaggerated realism), nor as finely stylized as MGS for example. Both Halo episodes were limited by the hardware to an extent, but I wouldn't really expect them to be able to outshine the cream of the nextgen developers..etc...

Precisely. Halo games aren't reknowned for their graphics, but gameplay. And gameplay doesn't show so well in a brief video clip on a giant E3 screen. There's a lot of attention (annoyingly) on eyecandy, especially for the next-gen consoles where people seem more interested in looking for better graphics than better gameplay. Perhaps that's just because graphics can be measured from internet screengrabs without having to actually invest time in the game? How can MS turn heads with gameplay, especially if it's going against games that are eyecandy based, like say, Lair? I would expect something of a following of KZ's lead, showing perhaps tarted up gameplay footage simulation, giving an idea of what the game is about without actually being rendered on the game hardware. If what they show looks like GOW or similar, it'll be old news by now. I'm used to seeing pics of detailed looking FPSes and another standard fare FPS isn't going to grab my attention. And to tackle games that are different looking, like huge cinematic dragons, standard fare isn't going to be enough.

 

[Laa-Yosh]

If they show playable stuff... I hope they're going to launch next year otherwise, I'll be storming their gates....again. I won't fail next time! *maniacal laughter*

Don't quote me on this but all sources indicate a 2007 release...

 

[Laa-Yosh]

Shifty, I think that if they can get the AI part to work well, then a massive battle could be quite amazing to look at as well.

And Halo may be overrated, but then it's a fake even bigger than the landing on Moon...

 

[AlNom]

Don't quote me on this but all sources indicate a 2007 release...

I trust no source other than Bungie.

 

[Acert93]

Do you guy/girl see any irony in your own expectation here, say if Halo 3 was shown and the graphic look so great and it might surpass Killzone E3 05 trailer, would you still consider Halo 3 to be pre-rendered or realtime ?

If Bungie answers questions like, "Is this ingame? Will we play this" with answers like, "You will play Halo 3" and "Was that gameplay?" with "Everything you saw is gameplay" and "Will we see this on our Xbox 360s?" with "You will play Halo 3 on your Xbox 360" then heck yeah! If they show a cinema and either don't control it or do realtime interaction then we can assume it probably is not realtime.

As for Halo 3, I did a thread recently elsewhere noting other Xbox games and how, honestly, Bungie is solid in graphics but NOT the best in the MS portfolio in regards to graphical skills. Good, yes. Top dog? No. MS has a deal with Epic for UE3 licensing for MGS titles. There has been no word on Halo using the engine, so my guess it is a custom engine and probably better suited for the art goals/assets and general game design than a jack of all trades engine. Bungie seems to do well with AI and online and story creation, whereas graphics they are good and level design... egads! They also are SLOW.

As for Killzone... why did you mention it? There seems to be ample evidence based on the evasive answers and partia "compromising" later and outright statements of VFX studious (and people here) that squarly peg KZ E3 2005 as CGI. A short survey of such.

 

[scooby_dooby]

If Bungie answers questions like, "Is this ingame? Will we play this" with answers like, "You will play Halo 3" and "Was that gameplay?" with "Everything you saw is gameplay" and "Will we see this on our Xbox 360s?" with "You will play Halo 3 on your Xbox 360" then heck yeah! If they show a cinema and either don't control it or do realtime interaction then we can assume it probably is not realtime.

lol, good one

 

[scooby_dooby]

Precisely. Halo games aren't reknowned for their graphics, but gameplay.

What console game looked better than Halo 1 back in 2001? I remember I was playing red faction on my PS2 which I thought was pretty damn cool, and Halo absolutely blew that out of the water.

Halo 2 was less impressive for it's time though.

Gamespot (2001):

Halo's a stunning-looking game, full of huge environments that are packed with eye candy. Turn on your flashlight in a hallway, and you'll see a plastic reflective sheen to the wall. Walk up close to a marine, and you'll notice that the visor on his helmet reflects light too. Throw a grenade outside, and the explosion will send up a cloud of dust. Turn your jeep sharply, and clumps of dirt go flying. The game isn't as hyperdetailed as Quake III Arena, but its immense levels, excellent textures, and great special effects put it in the same class.

One of only a few possible complaints that can be lodged against Halo's graphics is that its frame rate is only 30 frames per second. Fans of GoldenEye 007 and Perfect Dark won't even notice this (and people who sometimes get nauseous playing first-person shooters will in fact appreciate it), but those who've been playing games like Quake III Arena for the last few years will be constantly checking for a run button. That said, the game keeps a rock-solid frame rate in the single-player mode, even when there are numerous enemies onscreen, explosions happening everywhere, Banshees flying by, cannons firing at you, and so on (although there are some dips in frame rate during multiplayer matches).

Got a 9/10 for GFX, with the only knock being framerate.

 

[pc999]

What console game looked better than Halo 1 back in 2001? I remember I was playing red faction on my PS2 which I thought was pretty damn cool, and Halo absolutely blew that out of the water.

Halo 2 was less impressive for it's time though.

IMO I agree with Shifty Geezer and I think that what impressed more is the gfx that are tied with the features of the game, like large scale batles (ATM) and such.

 

[scooby_dooby]

As long as you realize this was a top tier FPS when halo came out in 2001:

Red Faction - 2001

To say Bungie are not really known for it's graphics is probably the wrong way to word it. Rockstar, Bethesda, those are companies not known for their graphics. Halo was definately a graphical showpiece. A more accurate statement would be that halo's GFX were overshadowed by it's even better gameplay.

 

[Tap In]

Halo's graphics were the best I'd seen to date when they arrived (on console) PC games do not count in this comparison.