Halo 3 Trailer @ E3: Confirmed

mckmas8808 said:
Yeah the game so far looks great. Repeat this to some dimishing return guys in other threads.;)
Click to expand...
Not to mention the fact that the teaser was not exactly the best graphical showcase considering it was just a desert. I think Bungie wanted to emphasize the scale of the environments and save some other mind-blowing stuff for later.
 
While those you posted are excellent not in-game, PR images of Halo2.
icon14.gif
 
rabidrabbit said:
While those you posted are excellent not in-game, PR images of Halo2.
icon14.gif
Click to expand...

Sorry i'm not gonna spen alot of time searching the internet for direct capture screens, searched google that was one of the first links to come back. I just started replaying Halo 2 the other day on my 46" hdtv and it looks nothing like the screen he posted.

Is this better?
halo-2-20041105080525573.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
ouch! scobby u put your foot into that one, as has been pointed out these aren't actual ingame screenshots
http://www.bungie.net/images/Games/H...needler-GI.jpg
http://www.bungie.net/images/Games/H...s/h2_mp_01.jpg

the next one though u posted is an ingame screenshot, compare the quality of the red + blue soilders (very similar levels) lack of shadows etc
the undeniable fact is the original promotion video for halo2 looked far superior to the actual game, u cant deny this.
thus ild view the halo3 video keeping in mind this fact
btw scobby why were u all over killzone2, yet when halo/gears of war do similar misrepresentations u find it aceptable. is it anything to do with the platforms they appear on perhaps, on seconds thoughts dont answer that :D
 
scooby_dooby said:
Sorry i'm not gonna spen alot of time searching the internet for direct capture screens, searched google that was one of the first links to come back. I just started replaying Halo 2 the other day on my 46" hdtv and it looks nothing like the screen he posted.

Is this better?
halo-2-20041105080525573.jpg
Click to expand...

Seriously Scooby Halo 3 looks heads and shoulders better than that Halo2 screen. I still can't believe that you think we are in dimishing returns arena next-gen.:cry:

By the way I've now just noticed how much better Halo 3 looks over what the Xbox could do. MAN!! HUGE change.
 
zed said:
ouch! scobby u put your foot into that one, as has been pointed out these aren't actual ingame screenshots
http://www.bungie.net/images/Games/H...needler-GI.jpg
http://www.bungie.net/images/Games/H...s/h2_mp_01.jpg

the next one though u posted is an ingame screenshot, compare the quality of the red + blue soilders (very similar levels) lack of shadows etc
the undeniable fact is the original promotion video for halo2 looked far superior to the actual game, u cant deny this.
thus ild view the halo3 video keeping in mind this fact
btw scobby why were u all over killzone2, yet when halo/gears of war do similar misrepresentations u find it aceptable. is it anything to do with the platforms they appear on perhaps, on seconds thoughts dont answer that :D
Click to expand...

1. The Halo 2 announcement trailer was prerendered. The shot you posted is from the announcement trailer. Though they did come very, very close in the E3 2003 build, but they had to pull out the self-shadowing to get it to run acceptably.

2. Some people never learn. Unlike the Halo 2 announcement trailer, Halo 3 was demonstrated in real-time for the press after the MS press conference.

http://www.gamespot.com/xbox360/action/halo3/news.html?sid=6149725

"Shortly after Microsoft's presentation, we had an opportunity to get a close-up look at Halo 3 with Bungie representatives. We spoke with Brian Gerrard, one of Bungie's community managers, as well as CJ Cowan, the studio's cinematics director. Cowan stated that the trailer was a good example of where Halo 3 is going, in terms of fiction. By that, he means that the story is epic in scale, but dark as well, and Bungie is going for a distinct mood, since Halo 3 will represent the end of the trilogy.

The Bungie representatives made it clear to us that the trailer was running in real-time on the Xbox 360. The trailer is set in the African desert, and it was taken from roughly a third of the way through the game. Cowan noted that the constant battling has taken its toll on Master Chief, and you can see that by the many scratches and gouges in his armor. The flashes of Cortana seen in the trailer fill you in on the state of her mind, and the Forerunner structure seen in the distance at the end of the trailer represents a pivotal point in the story.

We next met with Marcus Lehto, Bungie's art director, who filled us in on the technology as he gave us a fly through of the locations in the trailer. The crater seen in the trailer is three miles across, and it's all rendered in real geometry. Halo 3 has a new global lighting system that now lights everything uniquely from the same source, which explains just how that setting sun looked that good as it illuminated everything in the trailer. Halo 2, on the other hand, used a lighting system that lit everything separately. Meanwhile, parallax mapping is able to give depth to structures in the distance, such as the clouds above the crater. A new particle system offers different levels of light diffusion to take the quality of the atmosphere into account, and that makes for different layers of light.

The demo shifted away from the crater to the part of the level you see the Master Chief walking in from. He was controllable, which means that the trailer indicates just how good the game will look. Lehto was able to zoom in on the Master Chief with the camera, and you could see the many different ways light reflected objects onto him. For example, you could see light reflect off the ground and onto his armor. A new materials system shows the difference between his armor and the rubber undersuit. It's so detailed that if you bring the camera close to the Master Chief's visor, you see everything in front of him reflected in it, right down to the ammo counter in his rifle."
 
Though a trailer is said to be done "in engine", doesn't necessarily mean the finished game will look as good (as proven by Halo2)
The "in-engine" trailer often has effects enabled that would bring the framerate in-game down to unaccepatable levels. Also it could have bumped up polycount and textures and higher resolution.

An "in-game engine" comment really doesn't say much how the game will look when you play it in your tv. It does show you the art direction and a "general look" of the game, but it is not reliable when judging the complexity of graphics, effects, AA and such.

A comment like this:
He was controllable, which means that the trailer indicates just how good the game will look
Click to expand...
tells only that it can look that good when there's nothing else taxing the system but graphics processing, no AI, no character control, no realtime physics, no realtime sound processing.... just a cinematic that can be zoomed in and out, like the cinematics in PS2 MGS3 for example.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
rabidrabbit said:
Though a trailer is said to be done "in engine", doesn't necessarily mean the finished game will look as good (as proven by Halo2)
The "in-engine" trailer often has effects enabled that would bring the framerate in-game down to unaccepatable levels. Also it could have bumped up polycount and textures and higher resolution.

An "in-game engine" comment really doesn't say much how the game will look when you play it in your tv. It does show you the art direction and a "general look" of the game, but it is not reliable when judging the complexity of graphics, effects, AA and such.

A comment like this:

tells only that it can look that good when there's nothing else taxing the system but graphics processing, no AI, no character control, no realtime physics, no realtime sound processing.... just a cinematic that can be zoomed in and out, like the cinematics in PS2 MGS3 for example.
Click to expand...

MGS3 looked exactly the same in gameplay as it did in cutscenes.

Furthermore, Halo 2 used a target render.

This is what the "in-engine" stuff looked like in 2003.

h2_e3_03.jpg


Minus the self-shadowing and style changes, it is remarkably similar to what we got in the final game.
 
Yea, and that's a big minus (the self shadowing and lighting in general, and obviously higher resolution and AA).
Still, it's "in-engine" as in devkit in-engine with everything possible enabled for a screenshot or pseudo-interactive trailer, so they're clean (Bungie).
 
rabidrabbit said:
Though a trailer is said to be done "in engine", doesn't necessarily mean the finished game will look as good (as proven by Halo2)
The "in-engine" trailer often has effects enabled that would bring the framerate in-game down to unaccepatable levels. Also it could have bumped up polycount and textures and higher resolution.

An "in-game engine" comment really doesn't say much how the game will look when you play it in your tv. It does show you the art direction and a "general look" of the game, but it is not reliable when judging the complexity of graphics, effects, AA and such.

A comment like this:

tells only that it can look that good when there's nothing else taxing the system but graphics processing, no AI, no character control, no realtime physics, no realtime sound processing.... just a cinematic that can be zoomed in and out, like the cinematics in PS2 MGS3 for example.
Click to expand...

The same can be said for the new MGS game then since the only thing we have seen so far are just movies and some pausing and zooming around some characters and stuff. I do not dissagree that a game and real time in engine rendering can variate in quality, on the contrary, there is no doubt that they can very big differences although both are real time.

For the Halo2 they were able to have that image quality as seen in their teaser even in game, they had made the engine that was needed for the job and everything but realized that it was too taxing for the system and a steady performance could not be guaranteed so they had to scale it back. Many times that is the only way to know what the system really goes for, you have to try just to realise it is not doable. As for Halo 3 we will have to wait and see. We know atleast what they are shooting for, we know they have the engne for it and the future will tell if everything is doable in game as well...
 
zed said:
but the actual game release, graphics are way downgraded
http://img.gamespot.com/gamespot/images/2005/188/562116_20050708_screen004.jpg
Click to expand...

That picture looks really washed out and stretched compared to this
http://screenshots.teamxbox.com/screen/31072/Halo-2/

As for comparisons, Scoob's super HD pick obviously is too hi-rez, but I noticed most of the Halo 2 screens you guys are picking out are MP. I have not played a ton of Halo/Halo 2, but from what I have seen the SP graphics frequently look a lot better (probably because MP has to account for possibly 4 people on 1 TV in 4-way split screen). I don't have Halo 2 or an Xbox and no screen capture stuff, and there seems to be limited in-game direct feed shots, but here are some examples that look significantly btw imo than the MP shots being shown.

http://screenshots.teamxbox.com/screen/31080/Halo-2/
http://screenshots.teamxbox.com/screen/31106/Halo-2/
http://screenshots.teamxbox.com/screen/31107/Halo-2/
http://screenshots.teamxbox.com/screen/31086/Halo-2/

As for past Halo 2 demos, Bungie did explain that. They were aiming for stencil shadows (ala Chronicles of Riddick and Doom 3, both of which did this on the Xbox) but it did not work out so it was cut. The 2003 footage was rendered the same technique Heavenly Sword used in 2005: In-game engine and assets weaved together post-process.

The Halo 3 trailer was shown to be in realtime and working to a number of game journalists and in the recent video. To lump it in with the Halo 2 2003 footage, which they admitted was not realtime, is kind of stretching it. True, the finalized game may have far too much on screen to maintain the quality shown in the trailer. Or vice versa, with 12-18 months of development they may add features (as they indicated at E3). All we know is it is in-engine, and the camera can be moved, ditto the player, which is a step up from a cut-scene with a very fixed camera to cover up all the flaws and engine problems.

But the jury will remain out until we see actual gameplay... just like every other game. But like I posted before E3, Bungie's strengths are more AI and game design and story imo. The fact their MC looks a LOT better than the DoA4 Spartan *and* has more effects (like self shadowing) is very impressive. Hopefully since they are using content cut from Halo 2 and have a 3 year dev window and more staff Halo 3 will be what people had hoped Halo was and wished Halo 2 would be.
 
Acert93 said:
That picture looks really washed out and stretched compared to this
http://screenshots.teamxbox.com/screen/31072/Halo-2/

As for comparisons, Scoob's super HD pick obviously is too hi-rez, but I noticed most of the Halo 2 screens you guys are picking out are MP. I have not played a ton of Halo/Halo 2, but from what I have seen the SP graphics frequently look a lot better (probably because MP has to account for possibly 4 people on 1 TV in 4-way split screen). I don't have Halo 2 or an Xbox and no screen capture stuff, and there seems to be limited in-game direct feed shots, but here are some examples that look significantly btw imo than the MP shots being shown.

http://screenshots.teamxbox.com/screen/31080/Halo-2/
http://screenshots.teamxbox.com/screen/31106/Halo-2/
http://screenshots.teamxbox.com/screen/31107/Halo-2/
http://screenshots.teamxbox.com/screen/31086/Halo-2/

As for past Halo 2 demos, Bungie did explain that. They were aiming for stencil shadows (ala Chronicles of Riddick and Doom 3, both of which did this on the Xbox) but it did not work out so it was cut. The 2003 footage was rendered the same technique Heavenly Sword used in 2005: In-game engine and assets weaved together post-process.

The Halo 3 trailer was shown to be in realtime and working to a number of game journalists and in the recent video. To lump it in with the Halo 2 2003 footage, which they admitted was not realtime, is kind of stretching it. True, the finalized game may have far too much on screen to maintain the quality shown in the trailer. Or vice versa, with 12-18 months of development they may add features (as they indicated at E3). All we know is it is in-engine, and the camera can be moved, ditto the player, which is a step up from a cut-scene with a very fixed camera to cover up all the flaws and engine problems.

But the jury will remain out until we see actual gameplay... just like every other game. But like I posted before E3, Bungie's strengths are more AI and game design and story imo. The fact their MC looks a LOT better than the DoA4 Spartan *and* has more effects (like self shadowing) is very impressive. Hopefully since they are using content cut from Halo 2 and have a 3 year dev window and more staff Halo 3 will be what people had hoped Halo was and wished Halo 2 would be.
Click to expand...

They have made it a point in the Weekly Update to mention that most of the graphics are not near finalized yet (aka they will get much better). Furthermore, as impressive as the MC looked, I think the scale of the trailer was the most impressive aspect.
 
Deepblue said:
They have made it a point in the Weekly Update to mention that most of the graphics are not near finalized yet (aka they will get much better). Furthermore, as impressive as the MC looked, I think the scale of the trailer was the most impressive aspect.
Click to expand...

I agree with that, there are many intersting effects and stuff going on, but what is the most striking is the sense of scale, maybe a bit of return to the original Halo level design/gameplay...
 
Acert93 said:
To lump it in with the Halo 2 2003 footage, which they admitted was not realtime, is kind of stretching it.
Click to expand...
Bungie said:
By the way, this ‘aint just another movie. The original Halo 2 announce trailer was an in-engine cinematic that was prepared in advance and released to the world. This time around, the E3 demo will consist of 100% bona fide in-engine gameplay and cinematics.
Click to expand...
A direct quote from Bungie, from http://news.teamxbox.com/xbox/4441/Halo-2-New-Screens-E3-Demo-Info/
I remember all the Halo 2 trailers from the very first where he was seen onboard some spaceship and exiting it in space and somesuch, was always touted to be in-engine.
So I'm not stretching anything.
 
I remember all the Halo 2 trailers from the very first where he was seen onboard some spaceship and exiting it in space and somesuch, was always touted to be in-engine.
So I'm not stretching anything.
Click to expand...
thats how i remeber it also, thats why i was most disappointed with the game, cause my expectations were built up.
i believe youve gotta judge based on past results + whilst halo2 was a good game, it didnt achieve graphically what was expected, whos to say halo3 wont be the same nased on bungies track record.
We know atleast what they are shooting for
Click to expand...
[shitstirring mode engaged]i guess u could say we know what killzone2 is aiming for as well :) [/shitstirring mode engaged]i im certainly not condoning what they done though
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Cyan
Now Nintendo 64 games are native C games (console, PC, phone, etc, compatible).
Replies
17
Views
4K
Remij
R
N
Review scores versus game quality *spawn
2
Replies
22
Views
2K
Deleted member 11852
D
E
Microsoft / Xbox Developer_Direct [2023-01-25]
3 4 5
Replies
97
Views
9K
Johnny Awesome
J
T
GPU Stability testing for Nvidia cards - PowerSweep
Replies
0
Views
432
T2098
T
A
Understanding game performance through profiler trace graphs *spawn
2 3 4
Replies
66
Views
3K
XboxKING
X
Back
Top