The First Halo 3 Single Player Screens + Video! Rules=#369

That pic looks great.

Adding AA to photomode is no different than many other games that have photomode.

 

I just watched the review on gametrailers ... There are other games that arguably look "better," but if you're at all disappointed in how the game looks you need to relax. The game looks fantastic. And this is coming from a guy that didn't like Halo and never played Halo2, so not a fanboy. Maybe individual models aren't the best, though they're very good, but there's a hell of a lot going on in some of those battles, big scenery and some big bosses. Despite my not being a big fan of the series, I'd actually run out and buy this game if I had a 360. Multiplayer co-op looks awesome and even the competitive looks pretty good.

 

I've explained why I think the mip-filter could be moving (due to being downsampled), but it definitely does have better filtering in screenshot mode.

I haven't commented on those shots at all. Others have explained however why they don't give an accurate representation.

I'm not the one who seems emotionally invested in this issue, you're acting as if I'm insulting your family name. Relax.

I'm relating what I see, and giving the reasons for it. Again, my setup may differ from most of you as I play on a 20" LCD - my display and the nature of Halo's levels make these drawbacks stand out for me perhaps more than you.

 

now that I buy.

my set up 50" 720p DLP looks STUNNING. when I take a photo it goes form in game to snapshot and all I see change (it filters it right in front of your eyes) is some smoothing on the edges.

the thing that actually looks best (on my display since the aliasing is not an issue at all in game) is the LIGHTING.

it is godly in any mode and I'd wager on any Hidef display.

 

I have a 46" 1080p LCD TV ( Sharp Aquos), if I want to sit two feet away and look for aliasing on Halo3 there's no question I can find it. When I sit back 8 or 10 feet like I normally do, I barely notice it.

 

Actually if the scaler is good (and it is on the 360, and this monitor), it can help things slightly in this area. If it was purely my setup, then I would have this same gripe with every 360 game, but I don't.

 

I was not questioning your display.

I was agreeing with you that YOUR image (due to size and res and proximity to screen) could cause you to have a different perception than others in regard to IQ of this game.


What I also said which you quoted (effectively):

the lighting looks godly regardless of your display, my display or my grandma's display.

 

547,000 players online in matchmaking atm.

 

and also "development shots"

 

I pretty much agree with some others, that for me the graphics were a mixed bag. Some things looked really impressive, some not so much. It didn't effect my ability to enjoy the game, though. And you really need to take into account how flexible this engine needed to be to enable all the different environments. It has to render indoor levels, huge outdoor levels and even has to allow for flight. Getting all that working with acceptable fidelity and performance couldn't have been trivial.

I finished the game solo on Normal (need to re-learn Halo since I haven't had any significant playtime since the original) and enjoyed it. It wasn't life-changing, but I wasn't disappointed, either. I intend to go through it again (already passed the first lvl on Heroic) and try out some co-op when I can coordinate with some of my friends. This contrasted with Halo 2 which I played once and was so disappointed that I never touched it again (except briefly in MP). The bottom line for me is that H3 was and is fun! Which I think is the whole point, no?

I also signed up on Bungie.net and checked out some of the web-integration features. I marked a saved film of a MP match between the EGM and GTR crew on the website for d/l and when I got into Halo 3 it automatically d/l'ed that content. This also gave me a chance to try out the saved films functionality. People are going to go crazy with this. I'm also looking forward to messing around with some more of these value-added features, especially Forge.

 

Does it matter? I do, and it certainly didn't long before I was labelled a fanatical zealot because I don't think it's the second coming.

I don't think it looks poor compared to most games, I just think it's graphical defects stand out more compared to other AAA 360 tiles, and especially with the preceeding and subsequent hype.

Dropping the res of my display down to 1280x960 gives a pretty accurate representation of how it looks with those screenshots actually, those are pretty much bang-on. There are poorer shots, there are better scenes in the game, but to me those are still far more accurate than the heavily AA/downsampled shots that have been posteed so far. The only exception is that they don't feature the Master Chief as prominently as some other promo shots, which is not surprising as he's by far the best modelled character.

Hey, if you think those look great and the aliasing doesn't bother you, fine! It's purely subjective and I have no desire to convince you otherwise. I'll probably put 50+ hours more into this game yet, so while it's a gripe it's not making me bitter that I shelled out for it on launch day.

If you see those shots though and state that "It looks far better than that on my display!", then I would suggest your display is helping you by muddying the image.

 

A few "cinematic" type shots I took from some campaign gameplay. All are resized down from 1920x1080 for easier viewing (click on thumbnails for the full images)...

 

My 2cents.... The game is really fun but I enjoyed GoW more. Like most I am dissapointed with the graphics, the jaggies and shimmering is really an annoyance. I am surprised they released it in this state.

 

I'm not going to say its all this good, because it isn't, but this crap needs to stop now:



Non-photo mode - still beautiful.

The truth is, you can find bad pics for any game, especially if you're a fanboy looking to defend his turf.

 

Well the entire first level looks like that screen, for starters. Though even better, as that shot is missing the gorgeous background and skybox.

And imo the vista's and graphics get more impressive as the game goes on.

Most of those screens have horrible brightness levels which wash out the lighting, which is the probably the game's nicest feature.

It has nothing to do with a trend, this is a very nice looking game, period.

This is more representative of what the game looks like on screen, with proper contrast levels:
http://screenshots.teamxbox.com/screen-hires/66471/Halo-3/
http://screenshots.teamxbox.com/screen-hires/66470/Halo-3/
http://media.xbox360.ign.com/media/734/734817/img_4911248.html

Now, if you just choose to ignore those, not play the game, and go on your little trollfest, so be it.

 

Well I knew the AA was going to be terrible, it was obvious when every shot with a hud had massive jaggies. When you take a screen shot you actually see it apply AA.

The game also has a framerate that stutters a bit constantly whenever you turn and move which is really bad considering it does not have alot going on screen.
+ the levels and really the maps are very small, the hype about huge maps is false.

Also the 1st level has terrible pop-in at this one spot, you turn left the trees dissapear, turn right and they pop-in, very noticble glitch.

 

There are better looking titles on consoles, no doubt about it. But I don't think the game has ever been hyped to be the next graphical masterpiece, nor has its developer ever claimed its graphics to be the best there is, at least, not that I recall of (as, IMO, it would be foolish to claim so with games like Crysis and UT3 just around the corner, and games like Gears and BioShock around). In the end, I think it looks good, and gameplay is all that matters anyway.

 

Locked for obvious reasons. There are now two fresh threads: one for gameplay, one for gfx discussion. Do not mix them.