Microsoft lifts shroud off Halo 3 to mixed reviews

SAN FRANCISCO/NEW YORK, May 11 (Reuters) - Microsoft Corp.  gave a sneak peek at its "Halo 3" game on Friday, saying the next chapter of the fast-paced shooter trilogy will help it fend off competition from Sony Corp. and Nintendo Co. Ltd.

Gamers at the invitation-only preview gave mixed reviews.

"They've got five, six months until release, so they'll add some polish ... When I compare it to other things in the platform, it's not standout."

Microsoft held previews in New York and San Francisco on Friday in advance of the public test, or "beta," of the game, which goes live next Wednesday.

A public beta is unusual for a console game, and the one for the flagship title for Microsoft's Xbox 360 is being closely watched by gamers eager to know how it looks and plays, and whether it will live up to the considerable buzz.

"I definitely believe that 'Halo 3' is going to be bigger than 'Halo 2'. Retailers know what 'Halo 2' did and they are not going to want to be caught out of stock," Shane Kim, head of Microsoft Game Studios, told Reuters.

The first "Halo" helped the original Xbox gain a foothold in the highly competitive video-game market, while the second installment became the top-selling game ever for the system, with sales of $125 million -- roughly 2.5 million copies -- in its first 24 hours of availability.

Microsoft plans to launch "Halo 3" in the autumn, Kim said. The first two games were released in November of 2001 and 2004 ahead of the year-end holiday season.

"I believe this is going to be one of the three biggest consumer entertainment events of the year, along with 'Spider-Man 3' and the new 'Harry Potter' book," Kim said.

"This is going to be a huge competitive advantage for us. Sony has nothing like it."

The game once again puts players in control of "Master Chief," a futuristic soldier trying to save humanity from an alien coalition known as the Covenant.

To make things more realistic, game maker Bungie Studios made the movements in "Halo 3" more closely follow the laws of real-world physics.

Dead bodies float. Grenades tossed in snow stay in place, while those thrown on harder surfaces skip and roll. Bullets ricochet off walls. And gamers' characters straying too close to grenades will be maimed by their shrapnel effect.

The games have also driven adoption of the Xbox Live online gaming service, which offers some basic features for free but charges users about $50 a year for being able to play against other gamers.

In addition to being one of the year's hottest-selling games, the publicity surrounding "Halo 3" should also spur some consumers to run out and buy an Xbox 360, said Craig Davison, Microsoft's director of marketing.

"There's a significant number of people just waiting for that one game," he said, "and this is the game."

the only halo what I found good whas the first, 2 and 3 suckwhoody12

Last I checked, Halo 3 is not even out yet, so how can you say that you didn't like it? 

It's really disappointing to hear that the graphics still underwhelm. I mean, it doesn't have to look like a pre-render, but it also should not, under any circumstances, look like an Xbox game - that's just flat embarrassing if you ask me.

If this was any other game I'd say fine, no problem. This is Halo, though, and it's the biggest weapon Microsoft is going to have for pretty much the rest of the generation. It should look AND play fabulously, because that's what people expect from top-tier franchises.

And the thing is - we know for a certifiable fact now that the 360 can do some things graphically that are amazing. There's no reason that Halo 3 should be being compared visually to Halo 2 on the same system that has Gears of War on it. I'm sure the game is going to be a blast to play, but I intend to goose egg the hell out of it if the visuals look anything close to what I'm hearing they look like. There's simply no excuse for this game looking like an Xbox game, and I hope reviewers ding the living hell out of it if it does.

There's simply no excuse for this game looking like an Xbox game

Shame-usBlackley

IMO it looks really good, the models are extremely detailed and the textures are amazing. It might not have the same wow factor as for example Gears but that's just because of the art style. 

Funny, they said first the beta got mixed reviews, then only showed the negative side of the reviews :P. Most renown game reviewers are saying right now the game looks really good, definately no halo 2 HD, so with another half year to go I quess it will look really good. (which was to be expected)

Also, don't be fooled in a comparison between halo 3 and gears of war. Epic just added lots of unnecessary textures everywhere to make the game look impressive. Halo 3 also seems to be having the same textures (seen comparisons and it looked as good if not better than gears) it's just that they highlight them less, and by sticking to the halo style you're fooled into thinking it looks last gen. This title will deliver anyways.

[QUOTE="whoody12"]the only halo what I found good whas the first, 2 and 3 suckLanezy

Last I checked, Halo 3 is not even out yet, so how can you say that you didn't like it?

the infamous crystal ball 

[QUOTE="Shame-usBlackley"]

There's simply no excuse for this game looking like an Xbox game

inoperativeRS

IMO it looks really good, the models are extremely detailed and the textures are amazing. It might not have the same wow factor as for example Gears but that's just because of the art style.

I agree. It may not look as good as Gears of War, but I think it looks infinitely better than Halo 2 did. And besides, as the release date draws closer, the game is only going to look better.

I for one think the game looks fantastic based on the continuous pour of media we've receive in the past couple of days. I'm confident the final product will look even better, but for now it looks surprisingly polished and playable for a game that is 6 months off. Looks to be running much more smoothly and much more playable than PDZ or even GoW looked 6 months before release. Those were two other flagship MS franchises.

If the game looks like crap when released, then I definitely think it deserves to get a beating from the critics, but right now, I'm actually impressed with what they've got. The game already looks to play like a completed gamed half a year before release. I'd drop 60 on a game that plays that good as is. Much less how good I imagine it'll play upon release.

it doesnt take much to impress the majority of people visually and bungie knows it.

I did a little checking around, and I found some very impressive screenshots of Halo 3 over at Bungie. Look at the way the snow reacts when an intense battle erupts on Snowbound. Or, better yet, check out the detail of the Mongoose. :)

Pic #1

Pic #2

Pic #3

When people say that Halo 3 looks like Halo 2...to me they must be crazy. The art style hasn't changed at all, which is what I think a lot of people are getting hung up one, but this game looks great. It's got a lot of detail and the enviroments looks very large with their draw distances and the like. That and the framerate appears to be very smooth.

That, and when comparing it to Gears multiplayer wise, Im glad that Halo 3 doesnt look as good. Because for Gears to look as good as it did, there was only 8 players max multiplayer and the maps were not that big. Halo 3 might not look as good as Gears, but the maps are bigger, there are more players and it looks great.

I did a little checking around, and I found some very impressive screenshots of Halo 3 over at Bungie. Look at the way the snow reacts when an intense battle erupts on Snowbound. Or, better yet, check out the detail of the Mongoose. :)

Pic #1

Pic #2

Pic #3

 

 

Dutch_Mix

Sweet. Those pics look very nice. I like. :)

 The art style hasn't changed at all, which is what I think a lot of people are getting hung up one.nuttybar

i think thats what they mean when they say it looks like halo 2.

I did a little checking around, and I found some very impressive screenshots of Halo 3 over at Bungie. Look at the way the snow reacts when an intense battle erupts on Snowbound. Or, better yet, check out the detail of the Mongoose. :)

Pic #1

Pic #2

Pic #3

 

 

Dutch_Mix

It looks better than an Xbox game, sure, but for 360 games, it's bottom of the barrel, From those images anyway. Perfect Dark has 16, or 32 people online...? I forgot, but it looks better than this. And it was a release title

I did a little checking around, and I found some very impressive screenshots of Halo 3 over at Bungie. Look at the way the snow reacts when an intense battle erupts on Snowbound. Or, better yet, check out the detail of the Mongoose. :)

Pic #1

Pic #2

Pic #3

Dutch_Mix

[QUOTE="nuttybar"]

The art style hasn't changed at all, which is what I think a lot of people are getting hung up one.monie11k

i think thats what they mean when they say it looks like halo 2.

Not really, they're getting a bit confused with art sytle and technical power.

A lot of people are thiking that Halo 3 on a technical level looks like Halo 2, that is not the case. The art style is the same, and the graphics have been improved, but not by as much as people wanted.

I for one think the game looks fantastic based on the continuous pour of media we've receive in the past couple of days. I'm confident the final product will look even better, but for now it looks surprisingly polished and playable for a game that is 6 months off. Looks to be running much more smoothly and much more playable than PDZ or even GoW looked 6 months before release. Those were two other flagship MS franchises.

If the game looks like crap when released, then I definitely think it deserves to get a beating from the critics, but right now, I'm actually impressed with what they've got. The game already looks to play like a completed gamed half a year before release. I'd drop 60 on a game that plays that good as is. Much less how good I imagine it'll play upon release.

The_Duke_Lives

Its a safe bet Halo 3 is review proof.  Besides, reviewers tend to gush over highly anticipated games and then dial back their praise later on if/when gamers reach a different conclusion.  MGS2 and well, every RE inbetween 2 and 4 (the lack of progress of the series when it made the leap to then next gen consoles such as the DC and the GC didn't disminish the enthusiasm of most reviewers though it did turn off the majority of the fanbase) are good examples of the phenomena. 

[QUOTE="The_Duke_Lives"]

I for one think the game looks fantastic based on the continuous pour of media we've receive in the past couple of days. I'm confident the final product will look even better, but for now it looks surprisingly polished and playable for a game that is 6 months off. Looks to be running much more smoothly and much more playable than PDZ or even GoW looked 6 months before release. Those were two other flagship MS franchises.

If the game looks like crap when released, then I definitely think it deserves to get a beating from the critics, but right now, I'm actually impressed with what they've got. The game already looks to play like a completed gamed half a year before release. I'd drop 60 on a game that plays that good as is. Much less how good I imagine it'll play upon release.

CarnageHeart

Its a safe bet Halo 3 is review proof.  Besides, reviewers tend to gush over highly anticipated games and then dial back their praise later on if/when gamers reach a different conclusion.  MGS2 and well, every RE inbetween 2 and 4 (the lack of progress of the series when it made the leap to then next gen consoles such as the DC and the GC didn't disminish the enthusiasm of most reviewers though it did turn off the majority of the fanbase) are good examples of the phenomena. 

The game will review well no doubt. I kind of thought the first two were somewhat average affairs, but after many months I found Halo 2 really shined in it's multiplayer portion. The multiplayer is what I am most hyped about in Halo 3. Matchmaking is simply a must these days.

Anyway I think the problem for most people is that regardless of what the game has achieved technically (which IMO is not that much, but I haven't actually played it), they've managed to make the game look darn similar to Halo/Halo 2.  I think people just expect more of a noticiable improvement when a flagship series makes its next-gen debut.  Teufelhuhn

That's exactly how I feel, too. I mean, it looks...good, but I kind of expected more. The kind of stuff they're emphasizing is a bit rediculous - bodies float now, granades bounce off of hard surfaces...whoa, that's incredible, you're totally blowing me away! Also, it's time people realize that this is how the multi-player is going to look. Bungie will probably put some finishing touches nearing the release, but this is it. Now let's see the single-player already.

I know it's the hip thing to bash highly anticipated games or popular games, but those saying Halo 3 looks like Halo 2 should either pop Halo 2 back in or take a look at some of the Halo 3 vids in HD.  There are so many small effects the each time I watch one of the movies I see someting new and impressive.  The textures and lighting are so far beyond Halo 2 that they're not even comparable.  The animations have also been greatly improved and the game looks a lot more polished (probably because of the saved films feature which will have a lot more gamers watching replays in third person).

And while the graphics don't look like GeoW's, that's to be expected.  The Halo 3 engine has to be able to perform well with 16 players in much larger multileveled environments, with vehicles and other things like turrents running.  Lastly, for a game to be running this well a half of a year before release assures me that the final product will be more polished then any other first person shooter thus far. 

I know it's the hip thing to bash highly anticipated games or popular games, but those saying Halo 3 looks like Halo 2 should either pop Halo 2 back in or take a look at some of the Halo 3 vids in HD.  There are so many small effects the each time I watch one of the movies I see someting new and impressive.  The textures and lighting are so far beyond Halo 2 that they're not even comparable.

EazyB

well of course the textures and lighting are going to be better on the more powerful system, you must have taken it too literally when they say halo 3 looks like halo 2. They could have easly taken halo 2 replaced the textures with bigger ones add some nice little effects passed it off as halo 3.

It comes off as really desparate and lame that so many are willing to pan a beta version's graphics which are without question, still better than 9 out of 10 next gen games that are out right now.

I fail to comprehend what people are wanking over. To think that what looks great now is only going to get better over the next five months should leave enough to the imagination.

Well durrrr. The game is in beta. complain about the games graphics when the game is released.

Generally speaking, the more you hype up a game, the more unrealistic the expectations are.  MS has been talking about Halo 3 and how unbelieveable it is going to be since the 360 was announced, and markets Halo 3 every single chance it could get.  With all that positive spin, people are going to be expecting the greatest thing ever.  And the only one that can hold the blame for the negative reaction is MS itself.  If this game wasn't Halo 3, people would be drooling over it.  But it IS Halo 3, which is supposedly the biggest most anticipated game of the generation and will elevate video games to a new level, or whatever that other stuff is that MS has been saying.

I also agree that this game is reviewproof.  Lots of reviewers get caught up in the hype, give great scores, and a month or two later realize that maybe it shouldn't have received it.  Hell, I saw on IGN the intro of a review to a game in a series flat out admit that they definitely overrated the previous game, but this game is without doubt the best in the series and all that other stuff.  Hint: revealing that you did a terrible job reviewing a game publicly probably isn't the greatest thing for your credibility.

It comes off as really desparate and lame that so many are willing to pan a beta version's graphics which are without question, still better than 9 out of 10 next gen games that are out right now.

I fail to comprehend what people are wanking over. To think that what looks great now is only going to get better over the next five months should leave enough to the imagination.

MarcusAntonius

I was right there with you until you went there. That statement is just not true at this point. The graphics are nothing to get excited about but as you say it's still early and graphics are only one of many reason HALO has been so popular up to this point.

 

Are these complaints only about graphics or is there actually something wrong with the gameplay, cause it seems everyone loves the actual game which is all that matters.dvader654

I was thinking the same thing. Pretty much every impression I saw said it was a blast to play.

Are these complaints only about graphics or is there actually something wrong with the gameplay, cause it seems everyone loves the actual game which is all that matters.dvader654

Are these complaints only about graphics or is there actually something wrong with the gameplay, cause it seems everyone loves the actual game which is all that matters.dvader654

We haven't seen the levels yet, so we can't complain about those yet.:P

   I completely agree with Shame-us Blackley.  This is Halo 3, Microsoft's flagship title and there is no excuse for even being closely comparable to the first Xbox games.  There is a noticeable difference between the E3 teaser trailer(which they claimed was entirely in engine) and what we are seeing now.  I can't believe that people are defending these visuals, which honestly look no better than a high res Xbox title.  If it were any other game I wouldn't be suprised, but Halo 3?  Why are you letting this pass people?

I've posted this previously, but here is what I think is happening:

  I honestly believe that the majority of what we will see in Halo 3 is content that has been cut from what was to be originally included in Halo 2.  I thought Halo2 single player was absolutely terrible compared to the first, for a variety of reasons that I'm sure you all have heard numerous times. 

 Anyways, it makes perfect sense: MS tells Bungie to gut the better parts of Halo2 and use them for 3.  Not only will it speed up the development process of H3, but they know damn well that Halo 2 would garner undeserved praise based off of hype and the first's reputation and would subsequently sell well, which it definitely has.

Now, by looking at the visuals, it makes me believe even more that the majority of content has been brought over from Halo 2, albeit polished up and optimized for the 360.

This is probably gonna piss some of you off, well hey.....that's the way it goes.

Halo 3 is probably more than likely Halo 2.5.

Anyhow, yea I'm dissapointed.

 

[QUOTE="MarcusAntonius"]

It comes off as really desparate and lame that so many are willing to pan a beta version's graphics which are without question, still better than 9 out of 10 next gen games that are out right now.

I fail to comprehend what people are wanking over. To think that what looks great now is only going to get better over the next five months should leave enough to the imagination.

yomi_basic

I was right there with you until you went there. That statement is just not true at this point. The graphics are nothing to get excited about but as you say it's still early and graphics are only one of many reason HALO has been so popular up to this point.

 

Wha, wha, whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat?

I'm not going to make this contentious, but that comment is borderline system wars fodder. The first Halo's graphics weren't that great at the time it was released, being easily outclassed by a XBOX launch title Crimson Skies.

Halo 2's graphics were right on par that period in the last gen, but still a pretty big let down compared to a game released in the previous year in the form of Ninja Gaiden.

Why do people complain about Halo 3s graphics? Really the only explanation is that we're expecting a next gen leap for our money's worth. Are they as good as can be at this point? Clearly not, there is still a good deal of room for improvement.

Grpahics have never really been the high point of the Halo franchise, surprising given that its MSs flagship title.

Stylistically, the game is the same. Graphically, the game is super sharp looking. There's one thing we would do well to remember, though. It's Halo 3...the people complaining about the graphics are still likely to buy the game, and those people will be a minority anyway. And, I still hold by that Bungie is going to make this game look better before release.

If this game wasn't Halo 3, people would be drooling over it.argianas

I would actually argue the opposite - if this wasn't Halo 3, nobody would give a crap about it. It really isn't anywhere near being impressive. The need to point out that it looks better than Halo 2 (!) basically proves this. But it is Halo and people are confident it will be a great game - which is the most likely scenario.

I'm not the biggest Halo fan and I don't have any sorts of unrealistic expectations, but Halo 3 does look kind of underwhelming. From what I've seen, it looks and plays very similar to Halo 2. Most sites--including GameSpot--confirmed this. The changes (both graphics and gameplay-wise) are there, but they're far too subtle, in my opinion. I always value the single-player far more, so I'm still hoping Bungie delivers something more there.

[QUOTE="argianas"]If this game wasn't Halo 3, people would be drooling over it.UpInFlames

I would actually argue the opposite - if this wasn't Halo 3, nobody would give a crap about it. It really isn't anywhere near being impressive. The need to point out that it looks better than Halo 2 (!) basically proves this. But it is Halo and people are confident it will be a great game - which is the most likely scenario.

I'm not the biggest Halo fan and I don't have any sorts of unrealistic expectations, but Halo 3 does look kind of underwhelming. From what I've seen, it looks and plays very similar to Halo 2. Most sites--including GameSpot--confirmed this. The changes (both graphics and gameplay-wise) are there, but they're far too subtle, in my opinion. I always value the single-player far more, so I'm still hoping Bungie delivers something more there.

See, this is Halo, so people are going to buy it regardless. But in that way, it's almost like an unnecessary transition to a new platform. The changes, as you say, are really subtle, but people are still going to gobble it up. I figure, if you're looking to get your Halo-Multiplayer fix in, you're going to find the people on Halo 3, with the numbers severely dwindled on Halo 2. The question is, then, are the changes being made enough to truly warrant all the hype? And will it change things enough?

As for SP, I'm keeping my hopes as far down as possible. I know I can expect some quality--familar--multiplayer from Halo 3, but the single player is up in the air. The first game had its moments, and its atmosphere and quality made even the more annoying parts barable. But Halo 2 changed that, since at the time it was released there had already been better shooters on consoles, and some design choices were just completely confusing, and made very little sense to me.

[QUOTE="sCaReCr0W]But Halo 2 changed that, since at the time it was released there had already been better shooters on consoles, and some design choices were just completely confusing, and made very little sense to me.

No kidding. Master Chief's levels were boring enough to put meth freaks to sleep. The Arbiter's levels were what kept the game going.

[QUOTE="yomi_basic"]

[QUOTE="MarcusAntonius"]

It comes off as really desparate and lame that so many are willing to pan a beta version's graphics which are without question, still better than 9 out of 10 next gen games that are out right now.

I fail to comprehend what people are wanking over. To think that what looks great now is only going to get better over the next five months should leave enough to the imagination.

MarcusAntonius

I was right there with you until you went there. That statement is just not true at this point. The graphics are nothing to get excited about but as you say it's still early and graphics are only one of many reason HALO has been so popular up to this point.

 

Wha, wha, whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat?

I'm not going to make this contentious, but that comment is borderline system wars fodder. The first Halo's graphics weren't that great at the time it was released, being easily outclassed by a XBOX launch title Crimson Skies.

Halo 2's graphics were right on par that period in the last gen, but still a pretty big let down compared to a game released in the previous year in the form of Ninja Gaiden.

Why do people complain about Halo 3s graphics? Really the only explanation is that we're expecting a next gen leap for our money's worth. Are they as good as can be at this point? Clearly not, there is still a good deal of room for improvement.

Grpahics have never really been the high point of the Halo franchise, surprising given that its MSs flagship title.

Ok, you don't know what you're talking about, because:

A: Crimson Skies is NOT a launch title... in fact, it came out MUCH later, after xbox live launched.

B: Halo was the defacto standard for not only console graphics, but PC as well during th early days of the xbox launch. 

If you don't believe that, then well, I don't care, because you also believe Crimson Skies was a launch title! :roll:

[QUOTE="MarcusAntonius"][QUOTE="yomi_basic"]

[QUOTE="MarcusAntonius"]

It comes off as really desparate and lame that so many are willing to pan a beta version's graphics which are without question, still better than 9 out of 10 next gen games that are out right now.

I fail to comprehend what people are wanking over. To think that what looks great now is only going to get better over the next five months should leave enough to the imagination.

Ernesto_basic

I was right there with you until you went there. That statement is just not true at this point. The graphics are nothing to get excited about but as you say it's still early and graphics are only one of many reason HALO has been so popular up to this point.

 

Wha, wha, whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat?

I'm not going to make this contentious, but that comment is borderline system wars fodder. The first Halo's graphics weren't that great at the time it was released, being easily outclassed by a XBOX launch title Crimson Skies.

Halo 2's graphics were right on par that period in the last gen, but still a pretty big let down compared to a game released in the previous year in the form of Ninja Gaiden.

Why do people complain about Halo 3s graphics? Really the only explanation is that we're expecting a next gen leap for our money's worth. Are they as good as can be at this point? Clearly not, there is still a good deal of room for improvement.

Grpahics have never really been the high point of the Halo franchise, surprising given that its MSs flagship title.

Ok, you don't know what you're talking about, because:

A: Crimson Skies is NOT a launch title... in fact, it came out MUCH later, after xbox live launched.

B: Halo was the defacto standard for not only console graphics, but PC as well during th early days of the xbox launch. 

If you don't believe that, then well, I don't care, because you also believe Crimson Skies was a launch title! :roll:

I got the XBOX version release date mixed up with the PC version, sue me. Was that post your one brilliant accomplishment of the decade? Otherwise you could learn to be a little more civil.

See, this is Halo, so people are going to buy it regardless. But in that way, it's almost like an unnecessary transition to a new platform. The changes, as you say, are really subtle, but people are still going to gobble it up. I figure, if you're looking to get your Halo-Multiplayer fix in, you're going to find the people on Halo 3, with the numbers severely dwindled on Halo 2. The question is, then, are the changes being made enough to truly warrant all the hype? And will it change things enough?

As for SP, I'm keeping my hopes as far down as possible. I know I can expect some quality--familar--multiplayer from Halo 3, but the single player is up in the air. The first game had its moments, and its atmosphere and quality made even the more annoying parts barable. But Halo 2 changed that, since at the time it was released there had already been better shooters on consoles, and some design choices were just completely confusing, and made very little sense to me.sCaReCr0W

Halo is a true phenomenon in that regard. I always thought of it as a great series with an insane amount of mindless (and mostly unwarranted) hype - exceeding most franchises that were even more popular/successful than Halo. I doubt we'll see many changes, but the multi-player is quality as it is so that's not necessarily such a bad thing.

I'm an oddball regarding Halo's single-player. I didn't think much of Combat Evolved's campaign (extremely repetetive level design, painfully average and boring overall), but I enjoyed the hell out of Halo 2. The controls were tightened (especially the vehicles which I felt were way too clunky in Combat Evolved), and I really appreciated the story being told from The Covenant's point of view. The Arbiter was a great character who complemented Master Chief surprisingly well.

Let's not forget: dual-wield > the entirety of Halo: Combat Evolved. :P

[QUOTE="MarcusAntonius"][QUOTE="yomi_basic"]

[QUOTE="MarcusAntonius"]

Ernesto_basic

Ok, you don't know what you're talking about, because:

A: Crimson Skies is NOT a launch title... in fact, it came out MUCH later, after xbox live launched.

B: Halo was the defacto standard for not only console graphics, but PC as well during th early days of the xbox launch.

If you don't believe that, then well, I don't care, because you also believe Crimson Skies was a launch title! :roll:

Actually, Dead or Alive 3 technically looked much sharper than Halo. Sure there wasn't much behind the actual game, but we are talking about graphics here, no?

So, I guess you could say that Dead or Alive 3 was the defacto standard for not only console graphics, but PC as well during the early days of the Xbox launch. ;)

[QUOTE="Ernesto_basic"][QUOTE="MarcusAntonius"][QUOTE="yomi_basic"]

[QUOTE="MarcusAntonius"]

Dutch_Mix

Ok, you don't know what you're talking about, because:

A: Crimson Skies is NOT a launch title... in fact, it came out MUCH later, after xbox live launched.

B: Halo was the defacto standard for not only console graphics, but PC as well during th early days of the xbox launch.

If you don't believe that, then well, I don't care, because you also believe Crimson Skies was a launch title! :roll:

Actually, Dead or Alive 3 technically looked much sharper than Halo. Sure there wasn't much behind the actual game, but we are talking about graphics here, no?

So, I guess you could say that Dead or Alive 3 was the defacto standard for not only console graphics, but PC as well during the early days of the Xbox launch. ;)

Sure, you could, if people actually used fighters as a standard (which they DON'T!). If you were around any of these message boards from the span of 01-02 or so, you'd know that Halo was considred to be the standard for quite a while (though debated furiously).