The First Halo 3 Single Player Screens + Video! Rules=#369
- Thread starter Hardknock
- Start date
- Status
I don't think it's the best use of HDR lighting in a game...
Perfect scores always seem strange to me after a review has made criticisms....it can't be perfect then. The graphics aren't too impressive, so shouldn't the score be docked for that? I don't quite see where they have to go in the future as graphics are way beyond this...can they give 11/10 for graphics (I'm not talking about generational leeps, I'm talking about other games this year)? Seems PS3 games are compared to some imaginary perfection for graphics, but 360 games live in their own world. A bit like how we ignore the graphics in Wii games.
What does Halo 3 get for originality and innovation?
Anyway sounds like a great game...as we knew it would be.
Nice scores, about as high as you can go I supposeI didnt read any english reviews yet but a Dutch with but I do feel like al the 9.6 and 10 scores might be a little bit to high. The single player is short with only 6 hours (increasing to difficulty for longer play doesnt change the fact there apparently isnt alot of content in the sp) and the GFX arnt that earth shocking so the high grades pretty much only rely on the MP, which is fine but given the short SP and the GFX and 9 might be better. Than again, wheater you give it a 9 or a 9.6 either way its a great game.
I'm personally not much of a halo fan (it always got a bit of a B-movie feeling to me) and im not exactly great with analoge sticks and shooters so im not sure if i'll ever play this if I get a x360. Maybe if they release a pc version?
I agree that a 10/10 rating is too high, especially when the reviewer itself admits that the game isn't flawless. Then again, 10/10 doesn't necessarily mean flawless when it comes to reviews as there has never been (nor will there ever be) a flawless game. Perhaps we should wait until actually playing it before saying it's over rated!
The Halo series has never really been about innovation, and I'll be surprised if that changes with Halo 3. I guess you can say it's unique in that it will likely do everything (or close to everything) incredibly well.
They are being docked for graphics but other aspects make up for it in the overall score. As you know overall score does not equal an average of scores.
As for innovation, call me easily pleased but 4player online co-op, "skulls" to modify the campaign, saved game features and forge fit that call well. If you're wanting innovation in gameplay, that's not going to happen in the 3rd part of a successful franchise. Dramatically changing an estabilished and highly successful concept isn't the best of ideas. Ofcourse they added the bubble shield, jump thingy and such to add more to the existing gameplay.
And better lighting with HDR, a significant upgrade in shadowing, a large bump in on screen polygons, better water shaders, much larger worlds with massive draw distance and populated with animated and interactive foliage, more characters on screen, mamoth vehicles, and so forth.
There is plenty of room to criticize the graphics (and the Beta did often look like Halo HD + HiRez textures) but the SP campaign has a lot of excellent stuff graphically that to call it an xbox game is... Go watch the Gamersyde.com videos. Or just look at some new screenshots from users.
http://www.xboxperu.com/foro/new/Halo31.jpg
http://www.xboxperu.com/foro/new/Halo32.jpg
http://www.xboxperu.com/foro/new/Halo34.jpg
http://www.xboxperu.com/foro/new/Halo35.jpg
http://www.xboxperu.com/foro/new/Halo36.jpg
http://www.xboxperu.com/foro/new/Halo37.jpg
http://www.xboxperu.com/foro/new/Halo38.jpg
http://www.xboxperu.com/foro/new/Halo39.jpg
http://www.xboxperu.com/foro/new/Halo40.jpg
http://www.xboxperu.com/foro/new/Halo41.jpg
Halo 3 ISN'T the best looking game out there. But it is good by 360/PS3 standards. Comments like " it looks like a xbox1 game (albeit at 720p + higher res textures)". I have been critical of Halo graphics (past and present actually) and do think it tends to get overhyped. But your comment is just trolling.
Looks like an Xbox game
I just find these 10/10 scores highly questionable that's all! Whenever I see such a score...I expect perfection! I know 10/10's come from some places all the time, but when it's so widespread - it just smells of BS when most of them criticise the game. Eurogamer for one, criticise the graphics and more...but still give it 10/10. They have similar crits for Resistance, but give it 6/10!
I know, I know...it's Halo. It must be incredibly good fun...but when you have games that have incredible graphics and presentation...it seems slightly unfair that the gameplay of a game can override all of that. Seems Halo3 is being reviewed on a scale of how it compares to the other Halo games, but when a new PS3 game comes out it has to have graphics that "blow everyone away", as well as great gameplay, otherwise it's just not that impressive (Can you argue with that?...from the evidence we have so far, from how Sony has hyped their console...can we argue with what I just said?)
Anywho I can't wait for a game on the PS3 that has average graphics, but incredible 10/10 gameplay to prove me wrong!
Halo 3 is going to be a blast...and Sony should take a leaf out of Microsoft's book to get reviewers to release reviews at the same time, and after playing a RETAIL build!
Curious? What games do you think are better? I have a couple I think are as good/better, but Halo 3 is definately top 5 imo.
Before people whine about ratings, they should go read what said ratings mean at their site. Must rate on some sort of curve, with 10 NOT meaning perfect but denotes the rare game far and above everything else. Likewise, an 60% game isn't 2/3rds as good as a 90% game--it doesn't work that way.
Go read some of the reviews. A number do dock the graphics. But review scores are NOT averages of indivial parts, but a sum of the whole experience.
You could have CGI quality graphics and lame, horrible gameplay and a crappy discombobulated story and get 2s and 3s scores even though your graphics are off the chart.
The wind up, and the pitch!
Every review is different, as are reviewers. Go read the reviews.
IMO they haven't done much innovation in SP gameplay. The core mechanics are... Halo. Refined. Adding in 4 player coop with meta scoring is innovative to a degree. The theater (movie stuff) is extremely innovative. Forge is innovative in the console space, but in terms of gameplay augmenting (adulteration) it puts some basic game scripting power into the players control. The wealth of online modes is... insane. Industry standard setting.
They took the right path for them IMO. They didn't toy with the core game (which millions like), and instead went the "supersized" route. They decided to innovate in the broader experience (Forge, Theater, Coop) and leave the core game as, "Halo".
Some will hate those decisions, most Halo fans (all 7M+ of them) will like that. Gauging innovation broadly across the game, though, Halo 3 is absolutely innovative and very aggressive.
The Theater and Forge (with Bungie.net tie ins) will change the industry IMO. They have brought tried and true concepts to the masses in a huge way with the biggest game release of the last 3 years.
We will soon be expecting Machinima/Movie tools, sandbox editors, and social tools in most flagship games eventually. I really think they will change how we look at games.
Until then it is the ultimate viral marketing tool with millions of willing marketers flooding YouTube and cramming Halo 3 down their friends throats for the next 3 years.
tongue_of_colicab
Veteran
That is on the harder difficulty like the review I read also stated. But for me that just means there is a lack of SP content because a harder difficulty doesnt give you anymore content.
I agree that a 10/10 rating is too high, especially when the reviewer itself admits that the game isn't flawless. Then again, 10/10 doesn't necessarily mean flawless when it comes to reviews as there has never been (nor will there ever be) a flawless game. Perhaps we should wait until actually playing it before saying it's over rated!
Thats why no game deserves a 10 imo.
Yeah, Sony's introduced LBP's community stuff at the GDC as a new an innovative concept (Game 3.0) - but surprisingly it turns out that Bungie has been working on the sharing stuff for quite a while, too. And as good as LBP gets, Halo3 may still reach a lot more people just because of its popularity. They deserve a lot of credit for this, too; and I wonder why there's no such PR push there...
Joe DeFuria
Legend
Oddly, I feel just the opposite. Gameplay should override "less than perfect" graphics / presentation.
Anyway...most of what I read in terms of graphics is that it is definitely next-gen, "just" not the "best" of this gen. I've also read that framerate very rarely falters. Seems like Bungie struck the right balance of visual fidelity and performance to me...performance for an action FPS should take priority over increased graphics fidelity.
The overall "presentation" from most reviewers is getting good praise...particularly in the sound department. While the graphics might not be the "best" of this gen, by most accounts the sound is.
IGN on their Ratings:
Most sites the give a "10" (typically those on a 10 point scale with .5 incriments or less) have similar caveats. It is one thing to disagree with the philosophical approach to how they review a game, but imposing a definition of "perfect" when the score doesn't convey that within their system gets silly after a while because it doesn't change anything...
The score is just a relative benchmark in how they compare the game to industry quality at the point in time. A 10 means it is at the top, a 9 very near the top, 8 in the upper eschelon, etc. And it is the TEXT that is most relevant as it will tell you more about whether it appeals to your tastes or not.
Most sites the give a "10" (typically those on a 10 point scale with .5 incriments or less) have similar caveats. It is one thing to disagree with the philosophical approach to how they review a game, but imposing a definition of "perfect" when the score doesn't convey that within their system gets silly after a while because it doesn't change anything...
The score is just a relative benchmark in how they compare the game to industry quality at the point in time. A 10 means it is at the top, a 9 very near the top, 8 in the upper eschelon, etc. And it is the TEXT that is most relevant as it will tell you more about whether it appeals to your tastes or not.
Don't get me wrong, I'm being devil's advocate here! I'm not a massive fan of FPS games, but I see the appeal...and Halo must be the perfect FPS.
I'm not looking for conspiracy or anything lame like that, I'm just poking at these questions as other games may be more deserving in the future or now.
What if there's a game that comes out that has far better graphics, and the gameplay to match - they can't give it 11/10. If I dock something in one area I'd expect to see a dock in the final score. In all honesty all I'm looking for is a 9.7 haha... Reviews and their reasoning behind their scores is getting harder and harder to understand...I'm not sure what they are looking for. They criticise some games for not having amazing graphics to live up to their expectations, and give one that has average graphics a perfect score. All in all it's confusing, Next-gen brings us the power for beautifully rendered games - is this what they want? I'm not so sure.
I may have to mull this over some more...I'm hoping that any discussion of this, and questioning 10/10 scores won't be frowned upon as it would in other forums, such as neogaf. Perhaps I should be more precise with quotations from reviews to make sure i stay on topic?
PS. HDR is incredible in Motorstorm, and Heavenly Sword - the later being the best lighting I think we'll see in a game for a very long time.
Joe DeFuria
Legend
Define "content".
The harder difficulty requires you to actually think and plan out an attack strategy, rather than just going in guns blazing.
You can't define FPS "content" by basically doing a "fly-by" of the single campaign in god-mode. You get satisfaction by getting "stuck" at points, and then working out a strategy you haven't needed to use before in order to progress.
Oh of course...but what I'm saying is...that gameplay shouldn't override average graphics to form a perfect score. Because all in all....all talk of what is beautiful, what looks great, screenshot comparisons, praising of animation, praising of draw distance, GFX etc all seems highly irrelevant in this generation - if really, it doesn't really matter to a final score at all.
Seriously, I'm asking this. Why look at screenshots? Why rave about animation? Why gush over textures...when in the end, it doesn't appear to matter when any of these aren't hit. Why are developers striving to get the very best out of consoles...when really ALL they should be working for is the best gameplay, well balanced, and with a nice next-gen sheen to it?
I'm being completely serious here, but of course perhaps I'm veering way of course. If so I apologise (I majored in philosophy...so I tend to question quite a lot)
Halo 3 Halo 3!
- Status
Similar threads
