Microsoft lifts shroud off Halo 3 to mixed reviews

[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.

Yes, finaly there are people who are makinng sense when it comes to Halo 3 graphics, thank you so much for this commentaries, it is the same art style but it is inmensly much more detailed.

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

 

UpInFlames

I completely agree with you.

I enjoyed Halo 2 much more than I did Halo 1.  For starters, Halo 2 looks better than Halo 1, not that this makes the game better, it just makes it easy on the eyes.  Also, the level design in Halo 2 is MUCH better than Halo 1's level design.  Finally, Halo 2 has online play, which Halo 1 (at least the Xbox version) lacks.MysticDynamite

I completely disagree with that statement.  Excluding the Library, the majority of Halo:CE's maps were far more creative, wide open and enjoyable than what was in Halo 2.  A lot of the areas in H2 felt cramped and just plain poorly laid out.  In CE, you had hugely massive battles with dozens of enemies which H2 didn't even come close to comparing to.

IMO anyways.

Argue, banter, muse and sputter: you are all still buying this game regardless.GodModeEnabled

That's probably what bothers me the most about this game.  I almost get the feeling that Bungie knows we will all buy this game regardless, and as a result they don't feel they need to make a game stands out in any way other than simply being 'Halo'.  Not that I know or even assume this to be true, but it nags at me from time to time.

[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. ;)

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

[QUOTE="MarcusAntonius"]

The_Duke_Lives

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. ;)

Yeah... I've been here for a very long time (not just this board either) and Halo WAS the standard for the time. We NEVER use fighters as standards as the graphical baseline, because we all know they're much easier games to push graphically. Why on Earth do you think we always have shooters as the standard (EX: Half Life 2, Gears, Doom 3, and Crysis!!!). I'm sure all the Halo fans (myself included) can remember the days of "no other console can run Halo... it would be impossible for XYZ reason" or "you can't buy a $300 PC that can run a game like halo!".

So yeah, up until about a year and a half after the launch, Halo WAS the standard, which is why we didn't think twice to believe that Halo 2 would be the best at the time (gameplay and GRAPHICALLY). 

[QUOTE="The_Duke_Lives"][QUOTE="Dutch_Mix"][QUOTE="Ernesto_basic"][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. ;)

Yeah... I've been here for a very long time (not just this board either) and Halo WAS the standard for the time. We NEVER use fighters as standards as the graphical baseline, because we all know they're much easier games to push graphically. Why on Earth do you think we always have shooters as the standard (EX: Half Life 2, Gears, Doom 3, and Crysis!!!). I'm sure all the Halo fans (myself included) can remember the days of "no other console can run Halo... it would be impossible for XYZ reason" or "you can't buy a $300 PC that can run a game like halo!".

So yeah, up until about a year and a half after the launch, Halo WAS the standard, which is why we didn't think twice to believe that Halo 2 would be the best at the time (gameplay and GRAPHICALLY). 

why didn't I get the memo that it's cool to bash games while they're still in development stages with months left for improvement?smerlus

I've said it before and I'll say it again...its simply unrealistic to expect major changes in a game that's going to be released in 6 months.  At this point its too late to go back and work on the graphics engine, and I don't see how they could somehow make every model and texture look drastically better.  The beta is probably very close to how the final game will look. 

[QUOTE="smerlus"]why didn't I get the memo that it's cool to bash games while they're still in development stages with months left for improvement?Teufelhuhn

I've said it before and I'll say it again...its simply unrealistic to expect major changes in a game that's going to be released in 6 months.  At this point its too late to go back and work on the graphics engine, and I don't see how they could somehow make every model and texture look drastically better.  The beta is probably very close to how the final game will look. 

Since when are high rez textures and some other graphical tweak major changes? The pictures from Bungies website look a lot better than the stuff they've released to the press, do you think they're doctoring photos in hope that no one notices?

also the way the beta is going to work, you have to download it. Imagine how much it would take to download Halo 3's beta if they made it perfect and the final build.

and lastly, this is a beta. just because there is 6 months left doesn't mean they're going to pack up their bags and call it a day... the purpose is to fix any issues they can and if there is a huge backlash against this game, i think they'll be smart enough to delay it.

so in the end, the graphics might not need to be GoW quality if the gameplay is there... so hold all the whining until the game comes out because there's no use debating over something that doesn't exist yet.

but if we must....I hear Final Fantasy XX looks hideous compared to Final Fantasy XVIII

[QUOTE="Teufelhuhn"]

[QUOTE="smerlus"]why didn't I get the memo that it's cool to bash games while they're still in development stages with months left for improvement?smerlus

I've said it before and I'll say it again...its simply unrealistic to expect major changes in a game that's going to be released in 6 months.  At this point its too late to go back and work on the graphics engine, and I don't see how they could somehow make every model and texture look drastically better.  The beta is probably very close to how the final game will look. 

Since when are high rez textures and some other graphical tweak major changes? The pictures from Bungies website look a lot better than the stuff they've released to the press, do you think they're doctoring photos in hope that no one notices?

also the way the beta is going to work, you have to download it. Imagine how much it would take to download Halo 3's beta if they made it perfect and the final build.

and lastly, this is a beta. just because there is 6 months left doesn't mean they're going to pack up their bags and call it a day... the purpose is to fix any issues they can and if there is a huge backlash against this game, i think they'll be smart enough to delay it.

so in the end, the graphics might not need to be GoW quality if the gameplay is there... so hold all the whining until the game comes out because there's no use debating over something that doesn't exist yet.

but if we must....I hear Final Fantasy XX looks hideous compared to Final Fantasy XVIII

[QUOTE="Teufelhuhn"]

[QUOTE="smerlus"]why didn't I get the memo that it's cool to bash games while they're still in development stages with months left for improvement?smerlus

I've said it before and I'll say it again...its simply unrealistic to expect major changes in a game that's going to be released in 6 months.  At this point its too late to go back and work on the graphics engine, and I don't see how they could somehow make every model and texture look drastically better.  The beta is probably very close to how the final game will look. 

Since when are high rez textures and some other graphical tweak major changes? The pictures from Bungies website look a lot better than the stuff they've released to the press, do you think they're doctoring photos in hope that no one notices?

why do people keep bring up the textures?... whats being discussed is the look of the game and how it looks like a resed up version of halo 2, the environments look uninspired and just plain dull.

[QUOTE="Teufelhuhn"]

[QUOTE="smerlus"]why didn't I get the memo that it's cool to bash games while they're still in development stages with months left for improvement?smerlus

I've said it before and I'll say it again...its simply unrealistic to expect major changes in a game that's going to be released in 6 months. At this point its too late to go back and work on the graphics engine, and I don't see how they could somehow make every model and texture look drastically better. The beta is probably very close to how the final game will look.

Since when are high rez textures and some other graphical tweak major changes? The pictures from Bungies website look a lot better than the stuff they've released to the press, do you think they're doctoring photos in hope that no one notices?

also the way the beta is going to work, you have to download it. Imagine how much it would take to download Halo 3's beta if they made it perfect and the final build.

and lastly, this is a beta. just because there is 6 months left doesn't mean they're going to pack up their bags and call it a day... the purpose is to fix any issues they can and if there is a huge backlash against this game, i think they'll be smart enough to delay it.

so in the end, the graphics might not need to be GoW quality if the gameplay is there... so hold all the whining until the game comes out because there's no use debating over something that doesn't exist yet.

but if we must....I hear Final Fantasy XX looks hideous compared to Final Fantasy XVIII

LOL, are you suggesting that developers don't clean up their shots?!?!?!? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

I'd be willing to make some sort of a sig bet that these graphical assets are the same ones that will be in the final multiplayer portion of the game. You just don't reengineer a system in the last 6 months, because this is the TESTING phase, not the development phase. Any additions to the project can drastically affect everything else and would require extensive testing in order to make it passed the certification and accredidation phase that MS will put this game through (all games go through it... actually, anyone that knows about a system development life cycle would know exactly what I'm talking about from a development standpoint). The engine is built first, that way the rest can be made to fit the established specifications (in order to maintain a measureable level of performance here).

Lastly, I think the idea that we're getting a beta with low resolution textures and models with less geometry than the final product is retarded at best... this is a very public beta that MS and Bungie both know will be critically scrutinezed (they're under the microscope!), because it is THE flagship title of this generation. 

What we see here, fellas, is what the final MP portion of H3 will look like. Is it bad? No, but it certainly isn't nearly what you'd expect with the hype that's been generated (by Bungie and MS!).

[QUOTE="smerlus"][QUOTE="Teufelhuhn"]

[QUOTE="smerlus"]why didn't I get the memo that it's cool to bash games while they're still in development stages with months left for improvement?monie11k

I've said it before and I'll say it again...its simply unrealistic to expect major changes in a game that's going to be released in 6 months.  At this point its too late to go back and work on the graphics engine, and I don't see how they could somehow make every model and texture look drastically better.  The beta is probably very close to how the final game will look. 

Since when are high rez textures and some other graphical tweak major changes? The pictures from Bungies website look a lot better than the stuff they've released to the press, do you think they're doctoring photos in hope that no one notices?

why do people keep bring up the textures?... whats being discussed is the look of the game and how it looks like a resed up version of halo 2, the environments look uninspired and just plain dull.

[QUOTE="monie11k"][QUOTE="smerlus"][QUOTE="Teufelhuhn"]

[QUOTE="smerlus"]why didn't I get the memo that it's cool to bash games while they're still in development stages with months left for improvement?The_Duke_Lives

I've said it before and I'll say it again...its simply unrealistic to expect major changes in a game that's going to be released in 6 months.  At this point its too late to go back and work on the graphics engine, and I don't see how they could somehow make every model and texture look drastically better.  The beta is probably very close to how the final game will look. 

Since when are high rez textures and some other graphical tweak major changes? The pictures from Bungies website look a lot better than the stuff they've released to the press, do you think they're doctoring photos in hope that no one notices?

why do people keep bring up the textures?... whats being discussed is the look of the game and how it looks like a resed up version of halo 2, the environments look uninspired and just plain dull.

yeah, you wouldnt make a good art director, keep the same old mountainous terrain with some concrete structures in the center.

I'd be willing to make some sort of a sig bet that these graphical assets are the same ones that will be in the final multiplayer portion of the game. You just don't reengineer a system in the last 6 monthsErnesto_basic

Lastly, I think the idea that we're getting a beta with low resolution textures and models with less geometry than the final product is retarded at best... this is a very public beta that MS and Bungie both know will be critically scrutinezed (they're under the microscope!), because it is THE flagship title of this generation. 

Ernesto_basic

[QUOTE="The_Duke_Lives"][QUOTE="monie11k"][QUOTE="smerlus"][QUOTE="Teufelhuhn"]

[QUOTE="smerlus"]why didn't I get the memo that it's cool to bash games while they're still in development stages with months left for improvement?monie11k

I've said it before and I'll say it again...its simply unrealistic to expect major changes in a game that's going to be released in 6 months.  At this point its too late to go back and work on the graphics engine, and I don't see how they could somehow make every model and texture look drastically better.  The beta is probably very close to how the final game will look. 

Since when are high rez textures and some other graphical tweak major changes? The pictures from Bungies website look a lot better than the stuff they've released to the press, do you think they're doctoring photos in hope that no one notices?

why do people keep bring up the textures?... whats being discussed is the look of the game and how it looks like a resed up version of halo 2, the environments look uninspired and just plain dull.

yeah, you wouldnt make a good art director, keep the same old mountainous terrain with some concrete structures in the center.

[QUOTE="Ernesto_basic"]

I'd be willing to make some sort of a sig bet that these graphical assets are the same ones that will be in the final multiplayer portion of the game. You just don't reengineer a system in the last 6 monthsThe_Duke_Lives

Lastly, I think the idea that we're getting a beta with low resolution textures and models with less geometry than the final product is retarded at best... this is a very public beta that MS and Bungie both know will be critically scrutinezed (they're under the microscope!), because it is THE flagship title of this generation.

Ernesto_basic

Sorry man, but you sound very naive as to their intentions here. Do you really believe that MS and Bungie don't think everyone is watching this like a hawk?!?!? Just look at how many preorders and the number of people that bought crackdown... this isn't for stress tests alone.

From the assumptions you make about how changes affect a system/application's development, I gather you've never been part of any major project related to system/application development. When you make ANY changes, everything must be assessed to compensate that change. When you're in the testing phase (READ: BETA TEST!!!), you don't make any kind of radical changes without drastically increasing scope creep (or lag). If you haven't had experience with this, then I can understand your point of view.

[QUOTE="monie11k"][QUOTE="The_Duke_Lives"][QUOTE="monie11k"][QUOTE="smerlus"][QUOTE="Teufelhuhn"]

[QUOTE="smerlus"]why didn't I get the memo that it's cool to bash games while they're still in development stages with months left for improvement?The_Duke_Lives

I've said it before and I'll say it again...its simply unrealistic to expect major changes in a game that's going to be released in 6 months.  At this point its too late to go back and work on the graphics engine, and I don't see how they could somehow make every model and texture look drastically better.  The beta is probably very close to how the final game will look. 

Since when are high rez textures and some other graphical tweak major changes? The pictures from Bungies website look a lot better than the stuff they've released to the press, do you think they're doctoring photos in hope that no one notices?

why do people keep bring up the textures?... whats being discussed is the look of the game and how it looks like a resed up version of halo 2, the environments look uninspired and just plain dull.

yeah, you wouldnt make a good art director, keep the same old mountainous terrain with some concrete structures in the center.

i suck just as much as you do at art directing, but it will definitely be something other than a bunker in a forest / snow / beach.

I'm hoping Bungie is pulling a fast one on us with the current graphics of Halo 3. In all honesty, after Gears of War came out for the XBOX 360, I'm not expecting anything less from high profile games. Halo 3 is supposed to be THE game of 2007 and it looks just a "little" better than Halo 2. MGS4 looks way better than MGS3 and SMG looks way better than SMS so why can't Halo 3 look way better than Halo 3?Kreatzion

At the most basic of levels, I completely agree with you. We don't even need to get technical here, because it is what it is (and it wouldn't be so if there wasn't an overwhelmingly large number of individuals of the same opinion here).  

[QUOTE="Teufelhuhn"]

[QUOTE="smerlus"]why didn't I get the memo that it's cool to bash games while they're still in development stages with months left for improvement?smerlus

I've said it before and I'll say it again...its simply unrealistic to expect major changes in a game that's going to be released in 6 months.  At this point its too late to go back and work on the graphics engine, and I don't see how they could somehow make every model and texture look drastically better.  The beta is probably very close to how the final game will look. 

Since when are high rez textures and some other graphical tweak major changes? The pictures from Bungies website look a lot better than the stuff they've released to the press, do you think they're doctoring photos in hope that no one notices?

also the way the beta is going to work, you have to download it. Imagine how much it would take to download Halo 3's beta if they made it perfect and the final build.

and lastly, this is a beta. just because there is 6 months left doesn't mean they're going to pack up their bags and call it a day... the purpose is to fix any issues they can and if there is a huge backlash against this game, i think they'll be smart enough to delay it.

so in the end, the graphics might not need to be GoW quality if the gameplay is there... so hold all the whining until the game comes out because there's no use debating over something that doesn't exist yet.

but if we must....I hear Final Fantasy XX looks hideous compared to Final Fantasy XVIII

Funny thing is that Halo 3 actually exist. While you try to be sarcastic with FFXX and FFXVIII, which by the way don't exist, it doesn't mean a thing because Halo 3 has been in development ever since Halo 2 has been in development while your sarcastic sequels to Final Fantasy are not.

What I'm trying to say is this. A game can be criticized for the lack of graphics, or anything for that matter, when it is so close to being released. I don't understand why you wouldn't want some form of discussion until the day the game is launched. I don't think a lot of people wanted to stay quiet about this game for 2 years.

For all the people saying graphics are last, I played Lost planet a year before it came out and it looked the same a year later at best.  These are pretty much the final graphics imo.  Lets hope its 60 fps that will be better than better graphicsF1Lengend

[QUOTE="F1Lengend"]For all the people saying graphics are last, I played Lost planet a year before it came out and it looked the same a year later at best. These are pretty much the final graphics imo. Lets hope its 60 fps that will be better than better graphicsThe_Duke_Lives

Right... then you have a lot of games, like Halo 2 for instance, that give impressive showings at trade shows and produce downgraded graphics on release day. You can't tell me that Halo 2 looks as good as the original screens, vids, and that famous E3 demo on the streets of Mombosa. 

[QUOTE="smerlus"]why didn't I get the memo that it's cool to bash games while they're still in development stages with months left for improvement?Teufelhuhn

I've said it before and I'll say it again...its simply unrealistic to expect major changes in a game that's going to be released in 6 months. At this point its too late to go back and work on the graphics engine, and I don't see how they could somehow make every model and texture look drastically better. The beta is probably very close to how the final game will look.

Well, in defence of Bungie, they've always said the graphics is the last part they work on in a game. Only a few weeks ago they still used textures directly imported from halo 2 as placeholders (see bungie weekly updates). I'd wait and see, they might just surprise us.

[QUOTE="smerlus"][QUOTE="Teufelhuhn"]

[QUOTE="smerlus"]why didn't I get the memo that it's cool to bash games while they're still in development stages with months left for improvement?Kreatzion

I've said it before and I'll say it again...its simply unrealistic to expect major changes in a game that's going to be released in 6 months.  At this point its too late to go back and work on the graphics engine, and I don't see how they could somehow make every model and texture look drastically better.  The beta is probably very close to how the final game will look. 

Since when are high rez textures and some other graphical tweak major changes? The pictures from Bungies website look a lot better than the stuff they've released to the press, do you think they're doctoring photos in hope that no one notices?

also the way the beta is going to work, you have to download it. Imagine how much it would take to download Halo 3's beta if they made it perfect and the final build.

and lastly, this is a beta. just because there is 6 months left doesn't mean they're going to pack up their bags and call it a day... the purpose is to fix any issues they can and if there is a huge backlash against this game, i think they'll be smart enough to delay it.

so in the end, the graphics might not need to be GoW quality if the gameplay is there... so hold all the whining until the game comes out because there's no use debating over something that doesn't exist yet.

but if we must....I hear Final Fantasy XX looks hideous compared to Final Fantasy XVIII

Funny thing is that Halo 3 actually exist. While you try to be sarcastic with FFXX and FFXVIII, which by the way don't exist, it doesn't mean a thing because Halo 3 has been in development ever since Halo 2 has been in development while your sarcastic sequels to Final Fantasy are not.

What I'm trying to say is this. A game can be criticized for the lack of graphics, or anything for that matter, when it is so close to being released. I don't understand why you wouldn't want some form of discussion until the day the game is launched. I don't think a lot of people wanted to stay quiet about this game for 2 years.

so can you tell me who the last guy is? what does level three look like? what's the plotline in the game? better yet... where can i get my copy?

oh that's right... we're all talking and complaining about something we know nothing about

[QUOTE="GodModeEnabled"]Argue, banter, muse and sputter: you are all still buying this game regardless.dvader654

Right, this is like the weirdest thread. If this is like this now I cant imagine whats going to happen when review scores start to hit.

[QUOTE="The_Duke_Lives"]

[QUOTE="F1Lengend"]For all the people saying graphics are last, I played Lost planet a year before it came out and it looked the same a year later at best. These are pretty much the final graphics imo. Lets hope its 60 fps that will be better than better graphicsErnesto_basic

Right... then you have a lot of games, like Halo 2 for instance, that give impressive showings at trade shows and produce downgraded graphics on release day. You can't tell me that Halo 2 looks as good as the original screens, vids, and that famous E3 demo on the streets of Mombosa.

Ugh...don't remind of the nonsense leading up to Halo 2's release.  Those infamous early trailers created a lot of high expectations that couldn't be met, much like the Halo 3 E3 trailer.    

The pictures from Bungies website look a lot better than the stuff they've released to the press, do you think they're doctoring photos in hope that no one notices?

 smerlus

[QUOTE="dvader654"]

[QUOTE="GodModeEnabled"]Argue, banter, muse and sputter: you are all still buying this game regardless.GodModeEnabled

Right, this is like the weirdest thread. If this is like this now I cant imagine whats going to happen when review scores start to hit.

It's an incredibly high profle game thats bound to be one of (if not the) biggest releases all year, why not discuss it?  And if you don't care at all about the graphics then thats your perogative, but many of us do care and quite simply we expected more out of a flagship title. 

You people understand that the textures are on par or better than gears of war right? I can't find the comparison right now, but it's there. In gears of war they just added a wow factor which was the characters that are always in the middle of your screen. That's all. If you look at it technically you'll probably find almost every graphical aspect of halo 3 better. Textures, water effects explosions, just not the character models. It's just the wow factor that's missing now. You can also expect that wow factor to be totally present in the singleplayer, and with any luck also in the finished multiplayer.

As I think IGN said it, most people will feel it's halo 2 HD, but those people are fooled because of the style it's kept. Next to that, the beta had excellent gameplay (from credible sources all), great sound, very fluid and the most impressive of all, the networking is next to perfect. As where in gears you can easily notice bullet lag, in the halo 3 beta noone has actually been able to tell if they're host or not yet, and there's no hit detection issues too.

I watched the gameplay video just posted on gamespot and halo 3 looks like the best thing since sliced bread... no really, it has long draw distance, particle effects, hdr lighting.  looks very nice.  i unfortunately will not be a part of the mp beta on wednesday, as my wireless connection has gone down.  but i am anxiously awaiting the release of the game which i believe will be in november.  i have played gears of war, and this game looks even better than that!  if that's possible.  i could not ask any more from microsoft and bungie for creating a really great game.  i played halo and halo 2 and they were both very entertaining.  thanks to xbox compatability for halo 2.  awesome game and i look forward to playing halo 3.

I'm really looking forward to the game, I wish they would lay off the multiplayer and show us the campaign I don't care about any story spoilers.

Graphically it has such a strong unchangeble art style that it makes it very hard to distinguish it from past games. I still think they should have gone with the black and white look in those sty-lish mini documentaries. I'm weird though.

I'm hoping Bungie is pulling a fast one on us with the current graphics of Halo 3. In all honesty, after Gears of War came out for the XBOX 360, I'm not expecting anything less from high profile games. Halo 3 is supposed to be THE game of 2007 and it looks just a "little" better than Halo 2. MGS4 looks way better than MGS3 and SMG looks way better than SMS so why can't Halo 3 look way better than Halo 3?Kreatzion

Agreed on the Halo part, but Metal Gear looked pretty underwhelming too when it was last shown, featuring canned animations and smeary texture work. MGS4 looks better than Snake Eater, sure - but it was disappointing seeing it in action compared to the first shots we were shown way back at TGS '05 or whenever it was revealed.

You people understand that the textures are on par or better than gears of war right? ...

As I think IGN said it, most people will feel it's halo 2 HD, but those people are fooled because of the style it's kept. 11Marcel

i think halo 3 will sell very well but it would porbably disappoit people when they get itDevouring_One

I doubt Halo 3 will dissapoint people actually, Halo 2 did a very good job of dissapointing people so most will probably not be getting their hopes up too high for Halo 3.  After Halo 2 im not expecting this to be perfect, but it will be brilliant.

[QUOTE="Devouring_One"]i think halo 3 will sell very well but it would porbably disappoit people when they get itnuttybar

I doubt Halo 3 will dissapoint people actually, Halo 2 did a very good job of dissapointing people so most will probably not be getting their hopes up too high for Halo 3.  After Halo 2 im not expecting this to be perfect, but it will be brilliant.