Laa-Yosh said: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.
I'd guess that the big show-off in Halo 3 could be to heavily increase the scale of the combat.
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...
Alstrong said:Joe Staten did mention recently that the last 3 levels of Halo 2 were cut (ha ha... 3...) due to time constraints.
If they do that, I hope they bring back the assault rifle.
TurnDragoZeroV2G said:Interesting. Where/when was this?
Edit: Nevermind. HBO is my friend. Haha
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.
Laa-Yosh said: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?
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 said: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...
Alstrong said: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*
Laa-Yosh said:Don't quote me on this but all sources indicate a 2007 release...
dantruon said: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 ?
Acert93 said: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.
Shifty Geezer said:Precisely. Halo games aren't reknowned for their graphics, but gameplay.
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).
scooby_dooby said: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.