Halo 3 > CoD4 in Graphical terms

[QUOTE="ProtossRushX"]

halo 2.5 HD

Uncle_Uzi

Self-owned

You don't have to be a fanboy to see that Halo 3 looks pretty darned good. Admittedly it looked very rough during development, and that is where the Halo 2.5 thing came from. But saying that now just makes you look foolish. And I know you aren't foolish....:roll:

Looks pretty good? Halo 3 looks like a launch title, COD4 owns it.

Halo 3

+ Extremely High Res textures uniformely throughout the game

+ Certain player models are exquisitely detailed

+ Grand draw distance andNPC count

+ Amazing effects (explosions, motion blur, water)

- 30 FPS

- Ugly humans

- No real time environmental lighting

- Interesting Marine walking animation...

Call Of Duty 4

+ Great draw distance, loads of NPCs

+ Generally exquisetely detailed player models

+ Unbelievable real-time environmental lighting

+ 60 FPS

- Trashy and uneven texturing in environments

- Low AA

- No physics whatsoever

These are the pros and cons: all of which are true to a good extent and have led me to conclude that CoD4 is graphically inferior to Halo 3. It feels like Infinity Ward spent too much time on lighting and not nearly enough on texturing. Whereas Bungie was a bit more in favor of textureing when it came to graphical prowess.

You can't deny my logic...

Uncle_Uzi

Did you just say COD4 has no physics? I think you need to understand what the word physics means in a game.

Now for the point count!

Halo 3 = 4+'s, 4-'s.

CoD 4 = 4+'s, 3-'s.

So I guess CoD 4 wins!

/thread

There were better shooters out before Halo3. Halo3 isn't even HD.

Halo 3

+ Extremely High Res textures uniformely throughout the game

+ Certain player models are exquisitely detailed

+ Grand draw distance andNPC count

+ Amazing effects (explosions, motion blur, water)

- 30 FPS

- Ugly humans

- No real time environmental lighting

- Interesting Marine walking animation...

Call Of Duty 4

+ Great draw distance, loads of NPCs

+ Generally exquisetely detailed player models

+ Unbelievable real-time environmental lighting

+ 60 FPS

- Trashy and uneven texturing in environments

- Low AA

- No physics whatsoever

These are the pros and cons: all of which are true to a good extent and have led me to conclude that CoD4 is graphically inferior to Halo 3. It feels like Infinity Ward spent too much time on lighting and not nearly enough on texturing. Whereas Bungie was a bit more in favor of textureing when it came to graphical prowess.

You can't deny my logic...

Uncle_Uzi

No... just no. I don't see why everyone always praises Halo 3's graphics. They are NOT that great.

"Extremely High Res textures uniformely throughout the game"

:lol: No.

Here's why Cod4 isn't as pretty as Halo 3:

Effects (water, explosions, motion blur, real-time reflections) goes to Halo 3 hands down. If you say otherwise, you haven't played Halo 3.

Textures (environmental) also goes to Halo 3 hands down. Have no doubt that being behind cover in Halo 3 is far from an ugly experience. Again, if you differ then you are denying the very obvious.

Draw Distance (how far the game renders terrain without fog) also goes to Halo 3 hands down. You are sometimes seeing miles and miles away into the distance, always with atmospheric effects included.

Player Models (every moving character) is a tie. There are some truly jaw-dropping models in both games, but neither without their fair share of ugly counterparts (i.e. Humans in Halo 3 and the sleeveless Marine in CoD4 - both are fugly).

Lighting (evironmental and player models) is undoubtedly better in CoD4, with stunning moments where a flare will illuminate the battlefield with a dull red. It is time like these where I find myself begging for a more evenly distributed graphical experience. By no means is Halo bad here though.

Overall: Halo 3 wins. Its movielike presentation and brilliant use of effects, draw distance, texturing andplayer models makes it generally a prettier game than Halo 3.

Here's why Cod4 isn't as pretty as Halo 3:

Effects (water, explosions, motion blur, real-time reflections) goes to Halo 3 hands down. If you say otherwise, you haven't played Halo 3.

Textures (environmental) also goes to Halo 3 hands down. Have no doubt that being behind cover in Halo 3 is far from an ugly experience. Again, if you differ then you are denying the very obvious.

Draw Distance (how far the game renders terrain without fog) also goes to Halo 3 hands down. You are sometimes seeing miles and miles away into the distance, always with atmospheric effects included.

Player Models (every moving character) is a tie. There are some truly jaw-dropping models in both games, but neither without their fair share of ugly counterparts (i.e. Humans in Halo 3 and the sleeveless Marine in CoD4 - both are fugly).

Lighting (evironmental and player models) is undoubtedly better in CoD4, with stunning moments where a flare will illuminate the battlefield with a dull red. It is time like these where I find myself begging for a more evenly distributed graphical experience. By no means is Halo bad here though.

Overall: Halo 3 wins. Its movielike presentation and brilliant use of effects, draw distance, texturing andplayer models makes it generally a prettier game than Halo 3.

Uncle_Uzi

I don't know why everyone's going on about CoD 4's lighting model. From the Beta I played and the demo I played on the PC, it was pretty stock standard lighting. I guess I'll rent it out and see what all the fuss is about.

That being said, only Crysis's lighting model has been more impressive than Halo 3's. And even so, whereas Crysis has a truly realistic lighting model, Halo's is stylized.

COD4 wins hands down, especially when yo're playing in NOIR mode: (pic)Vandalvideo

You also argued to me that even whilst Crysis is on medium, it's technically better than any other good looking game because a whole lot more is going on. You proceeded to say your statement still stands.

Double standards then Vandal?

COD4 wins hands down, especially when yo're playing in NOIR mode: Vandalvideo

That looks really cool. Is that an option for the PC version? What would be spectacular is if noir mode still had red blood. :P I know that's sort of cliche, especially in films, but it's still a great effect.

[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"]COD4 wins hands down, especially when yo're playing in NOIR mode: (pic)FrozenLiquid

You also argued to me that even whilst Crysis is on medium, it's technically better than any other good looking game because a whole lot more is going on. You proceeded to say your statement still stands.

Double standards then Vandal?

IMO COD4>>>>HALO 3 in Graphics, gameplay and mp and overall fun.

I still loved Halo 3, but COD4 is better imo

Low AA in CoD4? Halo 3 is 640, so how would its resolution even compare to CoD4?

COD4 1080p 60 fps > Halo 3 680p 30 fps

caseypayne69

thats why your a cow. oh and the PS3 is 3 times more powerful than the moons gravitational pull on the oceans.

[QUOTE="caseypayne69"]

COD4 1080p 60 fps > Halo 3 680p 30 fps

A-LEGEND

thats why your a cow. oh and the PS3 is 3 times more powerful than the moons gravitational pull on the oceans.

CoD4 is also on the 360. :|

[QUOTE="A-LEGEND"][QUOTE="caseypayne69"]

COD4 1080p 60 fps > Halo 3 680p 30 fps

leviathan91

thats why your a cow. oh and the PS3 is 3 times more powerful than the moons gravitational pull on the oceans.

CoD4 is also on the 360. :|

lol i know. but that comparison has nothing to do with graphics. halo 3 being 640p (640p actualy) is the reason it look MUCH better than cod4 technicaly. if cod4 did what halo 3 did it would NEVER be 1080p at 60FPS. or antyhig close

IMO COD4>>>>HALO 3 in Graphics, gameplay and mp and overall fun.

I still loved Halo 3, but COD4 is better imo

-D3MO-

... Halo 3 looks like halo 2 just a bit more buffed... COD4 looks real. expecially the sniper mission with price.High_Fly

what you just described was an art style. not graphics.