Halo 3 is one the BEST damn looking games yet! *PICS*

Credit goes to: jet1911 from NEOGAF! Oh, and this is all from ONE level.

-Almost all of these are in-game shots, taken in theater mode.
-Most of these are from ONE level
-Haters want to sit there and count pixels, great, you do that, we'll enjoy this great looking game while you can find something wrong with this game.

-Halo 3's graphics are vastly UNDERRATED (I said it)

-*waits for cows to call it generic, while hyping HAZE*
-*waits for hermits AND cows to say , "But..but..HALO 3 WASNT THE FIRST TO DO THESE THINGS!"
-No one said Halo was the first, it was only the first to do vehicles, console FPS controls right. And dont bring up Goldeneye, it was good for its day, but honestly, you're going to praise THAT game's controls as the first to "enlighten" the industry and usher in a new order of consoel FPS control refinement? Please.

No, it's really not.

I'm not going to say it's "generic", but it's nowhere near one of the best looking games out there. It looks like it could have come out a year ago.

Wasn't Goldeneye the first one to use two sticks for aiming? I'd say that's pretty revolutionary.

I don't understand your purpose, but I'll throw you a bone.

/Wipes bone -JayWongs- upper thorax

It is nothing spectacular but it is okay. It is not "the terrible-looking garbage" that the haters are labeling it.

I don't know why some people are calling the graphics hideous. It looks good, not great but still beautiful-looking game.

No, it's really not.

I'm not going to say it's "generic", but it's nowhere near one of the best looking games out there. It looks like it could have come out a year ago.

Wasn't Goldeneye the first one to use two sticks for aiming? I'd say that's pretty revolutionary.

excelR83

-Almost all of these are in-game shots, taken in theater mode.-JayWong-

Contradictory. In-game it's a jag-fest. In "theater mode," it isn't.

Edit: It still looks good though, not saying it's a bad looking game.

I don't understand your purpose, but I'll throw you a bone.

/Wipes bone -JayWongs- upper thorax

Vectoin

[QUOTE="Vectoin"]

I don't understand your purpose, but I'll throw you a bone.

/Wipes bone -JayWongs- upper thorax

-JayWong-

What are you droning about? I didn't even mention anythign resembling your thread. Hell, I don't even know why i'm replying! Where am I? Who are you? Good-bye velvet drapes!

[QUOTE="-JayWong-"][QUOTE="Vectoin"]

I don't understand your purpose, but I'll throw you a bone.

/Wipes bone -JayWongs- upper thorax

Vectoin

What are you droning about? I didn't even mention anythign resembling your thread. Hell, I don't even know why i'm replying! Where am I? Who are you? Good-bye velvet drapes!

See that part where you said you dont understand my purpose? Ah nevermind.

Hahaha.

This is Halarious.

The pics are nice, but Halo 3 is FAR from graphically underrated, and compared to MANY games its visuals are VERY average.

And those images are bumped up with AA when uploaded thankyouverymuch.

[QUOTE="excelR83"]

No, it's really not.

I'm not going to say it's "generic", but it's nowhere near one of the best looking games out there. It looks like it could have come out a year ago.

Wasn't Goldeneye the first one to use two sticks for aiming? I'd say that's pretty revolutionary.

-JayWong-

That's why it was a question and not a statement. I haven't seen an N64 controller in probably 10 years.

Good looking? Yes

Best looking? No

Good looking? Yes

Best looking? No

Lonelynight

Agreed.

Got some nice lighting at points.

Plus, why are you using photomode images? ;/

Edit:

The first to do vehicles? Hmm. Hmmmm.

Anyway, the reason they're all from one level is probably because that's arguably the best looking level out of the bunch. Tsavo Highway looks like garbage for the most part, as does the Second level. Can't remember the name, Sierra 117 looks nice though.

The rest. Not so much.

Hahaha.

This is Halarious.

The pics are nice, but Halo 3 is FAR from graphically underrated, and compared to MANY games its visuals are VERY average.

And those images are bumped up with AA when uploaded thankyouverymuch.

skrat_01

Anyone noticed that "photo-mode" is the new word of the day?

Halo's bloomfest can't hide the fact that Bungie didn't take full advantage of the 360's capabilities.

it looks way better than that. theHeartyGUY

You're right, he picked awful screenshots for the most part.

[QUOTE="excelR83"]

No, it's really not.

I'm not going to say it's "generic", but it's nowhere near one of the best looking games out there. It looks like it could have come out a year ago.

Wasn't Goldeneye the first one to use two sticks for aiming? I'd say that's pretty revolutionary.

-JayWong-

Two if you count the N64 C buttons as the analog. The GCN actually converted it made them into one, I think its safe to say that Goldeneye was the first that used the dual analog then.

Hahaha.

This is Halarious.

The pics are nice, but Halo 3 is FAR from graphically underrated, and compared to MANY games its visuals are VERY average.

And those images are bumped up with AA when uploaded thankyouverymuch.

skrat_01

Ok thanks for your opinion but once you mention *Visuals* is when your whole arguement became opinionated. For the most part "Graphics" are a technical term and some may be right to say that its not the best in that department but that doesn't say that Halo 3 has underrated visuals because 'visuals' includes its art-direction which I think is better any other FPS' this year, including Bioshock--I haven't played through the full version of Bioshock yet so I'm going to assume that it doesn't have large varied open enviorments like most FPS lack.

So what have I learned today in System Wars? Halo 3's visuals are more beautiful than your Crysis, Gears of War, COD4 or Killzone 2(Especially COD4 and KZ2)--"Photomode adds AA to Halo 3 screens" is the new posting trend when trying to bash Halo 3(At least provide a valid source saying so).

[QUOTE="skrat_01"]

Hahaha.

This is Halarious.

The pics are nice, but Halo 3 is FAR from graphically underrated, and compared to MANY games its visuals are VERY average.

And those images are bumped up with AA when uploaded thankyouverymuch.

Pro_wrestler

Ok thanks for your opinion but once you mention *Visuals* is when your whole arguement became opinionated. For the most part "Graphics" are a technical term and some may be right to say that its not the best in that department but that doesn't say that Halo 3 has underrated visuals because 'visuals' includes its art-direction which I think is better any other FPS' this year, including Bioshock--I haven't played through the full version of Bioshock yet so I'm going to assume that it doesn't have large varied open enviorments like most FPS lack.

So what have I learned today in System Wars? Halo 3's visuals are more beautiful than your Crysis, Gears of War, COD4 or Killzone 2(Especially COD4 and KZ2)--"Photomode adds AA to Halo 3 screens" is the new posting trend when trying to bash Halo 3(At least provide a valid source saying so).

Halos art direction is 'MEH' compared to many games (yes Bioshock included), and that doesn't stop the graphics AND visuals from being average.

And Halo 3 DOESN'T have 'large open environment's - It features long corridors, that grow progressively larger when you are outdoors. Just like Halo CE.

And no Halos visuals are not as good as many of those games (minus COD4), and its graphics are sure as hell not as good . And no Photo mode DOES add AA. It is blatantly obvious, and hell I know first hand - as I was playing the game on my Xbox 5 minutes ago.

This thread proves Halo fanboys are all the same.

The game looks average, compared to other FPSs out this year. Get over it.
Grasping for straws.

edit* The other posters are right about AF and Post Processing aswell.
I have my own Halo 3 shots and videos of gameplay when I took those shots - so I know first hand.

Photomode adds AF too. And foliage is better, stuff like that.

Overall the IQ is improved through it, this is common knowledge.

-*waits for hermits AND cows to say , "But..but..HALO 3 WASNT THE FIRST TO DO THESE THINGS!"
-No one said Halo was the first, it was only the first to do vehicles, console FPS controls right. And dont bring up Goldeneye, it was good for its day, but honestly, you're going to praise THAT game's controls as the first to "enlighten" the industry and usher in a new order of consoel FPS control refinement? Please.

-JayWong-

Tribes 1, Tribes 2 and Operation Flashpoint did Vehicles before Halo - with much more sucess.
And that isnt including mods

And Goldeneye had great controls, as did PDZ, and MoH on PS1 had great dual analogue controls.

All you fanboys are the same, you spout crap, without any knowledge.

is this a joke?bigrhyno

Halo 3 is a very beautiful game. It's not the best looking game but it is very beautiful. Anyone who disagrees is either a fanboy, blind, ignorant or all of those combined.

[QUOTE="Pro_wrestler"][QUOTE="skrat_01"]

Hahaha.

This is Halarious.

The pics are nice, but Halo 3 is FAR from graphically underrated, and compared to MANY games its visuals are VERY average.

And those images are bumped up with AA when uploaded thankyouverymuch.

skrat_01

Ok thanks for your opinion but once you mention *Visuals* is when your whole arguement became opinionated. For the most part "Graphics" are a technical term and some may be right to say that its not the best in that department but that doesn't say that Halo 3 has underrated visuals because 'visuals' includes its art-direction which I think is better any other FPS' this year, including Bioshock--I haven't played through the full version of Bioshock yet so I'm going to assume that it doesn't have large varied open enviorments like most FPS lack.

So what have I learned today in System Wars? Halo 3's visuals are more beautiful than your Crysis, Gears of War, COD4 or Killzone 2(Especially COD4 and KZ2)--"Photomode adds AA to Halo 3 screens" is the new posting trend when trying to bash Halo 3(At least provide a valid source saying so).

Halos art direction is 'MEH' compared to many games (yes Bioshock included), and that doesn't stop the graphics AND visuals from being average.

And Halo 3 DOESN'T have 'large open environment's - It features long corridors, that grow progressively larger when you are outdoors. Just like Halo CE.

And no Halos visuals are not as good as many of those games (minus COD4), and its graphics are sure as hell not as good . And no Photo mode DOES add AA. It is blatantly obvious, and hell I know first hand - as I was playing the game on my Xbox 5 minutes ago.

This thread proves Halo fanboys are all the same.

The game looks average, compared to other FPSs out this year. Get over it.
Grasping for straws.

Point is..Games like Bioshock, Gears, Killzone 2 etc aren't like Halo 3. Sure its linear but it has more than one thing going on besides "Goon 1, Goon 2, Goon 3 attack in group A in a closed corridor" and Halo 3 still manages to look good or better in some ways. I wasn't aware that BioShock or Gears had a couple of 50 foot mechanical robot while simultaneously accounting for more than 20 or 30 other AI on screen be it in air or on ground. So given all that I just mentioned about Halo 3, what makes those above games more graphically impressive than Halo 3 since that seems to be the general thought on these boards.

"But but it doesn't have 1 million polysgons and 200xAA on that branch in the left corner" So what, doesn't take away from the fact that all you can argue againts is how it may not be technically impressive in comparison to other games(which you have no way of proving) and that once you mention visuals is when your talking opinion..and as far as how Halo 3 looks, its more beautiful..In my opinion(Something you don't get) than all those games I mentioned..accept it cause theres no way to change what someone thinks.
*Waits on you to start preaching some non-sense*

[QUOTE="-JayWong-"]

-*waits for hermits AND cows to say , "But..but..HALO 3 WASNT THE FIRST TO DO THESE THINGS!"
-No one said Halo was the first, it was only the first to do vehicles, console FPS controls right. And dont bring up Goldeneye, it was good for its day, but honestly, you're going to praise THAT game's controls as the first to "enlighten" the industry and usher in a new order of consoel FPS control refinement? Please.

skrat_01

Tribes 1, Tribes 2 and Operation Flashpoint did Vehicles before Halo - with much more sucess.
And that isnt including mods

And Goldeneye had great controls, as did PDZ, and MoH on PS1 had great dual analogue controls.

All you fanboys are the same, you spout crap, without any knowledge.

They all had great controls..Name one FPS that doesn't use Dual Analogs and the Right trigger: main weapon fire and Left trigger for 'nade or secondary weapon firing- Something Halo CE did first with The Duke and once it worked it became much like how PC FPS' default "WSAD" for forward, horizontal and backwards movements.

[QUOTE="skrat_01"][QUOTE="-JayWong-"]

-*waits for hermits AND cows to say , "But..but..HALO 3 WASNT THE FIRST TO DO THESE THINGS!"
-No one said Halo was the first, it was only the first to do vehicles, console FPS controls right. And dont bring up Goldeneye, it was good for its day, but honestly, you're going to praise THAT game's controls as the first to "enlighten" the industry and usher in a new order of consoel FPS control refinement? Please.

Pro_wrestler

Tribes 1, Tribes 2 and Operation Flashpoint did Vehicles before Halo - with much more sucess.
And that isnt including mods

And Goldeneye had great controls, as did PDZ, and MoH on PS1 had great dual analogue controls.

All you fanboys are the same, you spout crap, without any knowledge.

They all had great controls..Name one FPS that doesn't use Dual Analogs and the Right trigger: main weapon fire and Left trigger for 'nade or secondary weapon firing- Something Halo CE did first with The Duke and once it worked it became much like how PC FPS' default "WSAD" for forward, horizontal and backwards movements.

Though this guy says Halo was "console FPS controls right.", which isnt true - no matter how good its controls are.
Bogus just like his other comment.

[QUOTE="skrat_01"][QUOTE="Pro_wrestler"][QUOTE="skrat_01"]

Hahaha.

This is Halarious.

The pics are nice, but Halo 3 is FAR from graphically underrated, and compared to MANY games its visuals are VERY average.

And those images are bumped up with AA when uploaded thankyouverymuch.

Pro_wrestler

Ok thanks for your opinion but once you mention *Visuals* is when your whole arguement became opinionated. For the most part "Graphics" are a technical term and some may be right to say that its not the best in that department but that doesn't say that Halo 3 has underrated visuals because 'visuals' includes its art-direction which I think is better any other FPS' this year, including Bioshock--I haven't played through the full version of Bioshock yet so I'm going to assume that it doesn't have large varied open enviorments like most FPS lack.

So what have I learned today in System Wars? Halo 3's visuals are more beautiful than your Crysis, Gears of War, COD4 or Killzone 2(Especially COD4 and KZ2)--"Photomode adds AA to Halo 3 screens" is the new posting trend when trying to bash Halo 3(At least provide a valid source saying so).

Halos art direction is 'MEH' compared to many games (yes Bioshock included), and that doesn't stop the graphics AND visuals from being average.

And Halo 3 DOESN'T have 'large open environment's - It features long corridors, that grow progressively larger when you are outdoors. Just like Halo CE.

And no Halos visuals are not as good as many of those games (minus COD4), and its graphics are sure as hell not as good . And no Photo mode DOES add AA. It is blatantly obvious, and hell I know first hand - as I was playing the game on my Xbox 5 minutes ago.

This thread proves Halo fanboys are all the same.

The game looks average, compared to other FPSs out this year. Get over it.
Grasping for straws.

Point is..Games like Bioshock, Gears, Killzone 2 etc aren't like Halo 3. Sure its linear but it has more than one thing going on besides "Goon 1, Goon 2, Goon 3 attack in group A in a closed corridor" and Halo 3 still manages to look good or better in some ways. I wasn't aware that BioShock or Gears had a couple of 50 foot mechanical robot while simultaneously accounting for more than 20 or 30 other AI on screen be it in air or on ground. So given all that I just mentioned about Halo 3, what makes those above games more graphically impressive than Halo 3 since that seems to be the general thought on these boards.

"But but it doesn't have 1 million polysgons and 200xAA on that branch in the left corner" So what, doesn't take away from the fact that all you can argue againts is how it may not be technically impressive in comparison to other games(which you have no way of proving) and that once you mention visuals is when your talking opinion..and as far as how Halo 3 looks, its more beautiful..In my opinion(Something you don't get) than all those games I mentioned..accept it cause theres no way to change what someone thinks.
*Waits on you to start preaching some non-sense*

Halo DOESN'T look as good technically, compared to many games this year - let alone shooters. That is obvious.

If you love it visually, fair enough, that is your opinion - I never disputed that - so I don't know why you are trying to invent my opinion - "(Something you don't get)". :roll:

After looking at all these new games i still dont understand. HOW THE HELL OBLIVION DID THAT? It was one of the lunch titles, and yet it is one of the most graphicaly impressive games out there. In oblivion the lighting is just as good as in halo, the models have much more poligons, there is much more stuff to fit in the same amount of ram(dialogs, more different objects with different textues, more animations, more statistical data of what level r u what level is the opponent and his weapon and so on), then there are more effects, and they are just as good as in halo. Yeah the framerate is not too stable as it is in halo but comon, there is much more stuf goin on there.

Dont get me wrong, halo looks good, but damn, oblivion did such a better job in the gfx department, and it is an rpg...

Well as for about thouse shots, all from photomode and they hide the jaggles from the game. Other then that, yeah thats how the game looks like

After looking at all these new games i still dont understand. HOW THE HELL OBLIVION DID THAT? It was one of the lunch titles, and yet it is one of the most graphicaly impressive games out there. In oblivion the lighting is just as good as in halo, the models have much more poligons, there is much more stuff to fit in the same amount of ram(dialogs, more different objects with different textues, more animations, more statistical data of what level r u what level is the opponent and his weapon and so on), then there are more effects, and they are just as good as in halo. Yeah the framerate is not too stable as it is in halo but comon, there is much more stuf goin on there.

Dont get me wrong, halo looks good, but damn, oblivion did such a better job in the gfx department, and it is an rpg...

Well as for about thouse shots, all from photomode and they hide the jaggles from the game. Other then that, yeah thats how the game looks like

Fruity_mixer

Oblivion looks nice - but its LOD detail (on 360) was average - so it could render such detail up close - and it didn't have anywhere near as much action on screen.

Good game though, even if it despised by purists. I'm more of a Stalker guy though.

yeah its a great game!!!but not the best in graphics!!!!

its overall best now!!!

[QUOTE="Fruity_mixer"]

After looking at all these new games i still dont understand. HOW THE HELL OBLIVION DID THAT? It was one of the lunch titles, and yet it is one of the most graphicaly impressive games out there. In oblivion the lighting is just as good as in halo, the models have much more poligons, there is much more stuff to fit in the same amount of ram(dialogs, more different objects with different textues, more animations, more statistical data of what level r u what level is the opponent and his weapon and so on), then there are more effects, and they are just as good as in halo. Yeah the framerate is not too stable as it is in halo but comon, there is much more stuf goin on there.

Dont get me wrong, halo looks good, but damn, oblivion did such a better job in the gfx department, and it is an rpg...

Well as for about thouse shots, all from photomode and they hide the jaggles from the game. Other then that, yeah thats how the game looks like

skrat_01

Oblivion looks nice - but its LOD detail (on 360) was average - so it could render such detail up close - and it didn't have anywhere near as much action on screen.

Good game though, even if it despised by purists. I'm more of a Stalker guy though.

I do not agree. I think that it takes much more to proccess all the statistical data in oblivion than it takes to control 30 npcs at the same time. U see in oblivion there could be 5 different units involved in a fight, each one will have an insane amount of parramiters vareing from its speed mana and health to how long the shock dammage from a weapon will last on this charracter. And ull also get more objects attached to the physics of the game, from books on the shielfs to the spoons on the table.

Halo has replay recoding and compex AI, thats true, but i still think that the technology employed in oblivion is far more efficient than the halo engine with 360 hardware.

[QUOTE="excelR83"]

No, it's really not.

I'm not going to say it's "generic", but it's nowhere near one of the best looking games out there. It looks like it could have come out a year ago.

Wasn't Goldeneye the first one to use two sticks for aiming? I'd say that's pretty revolutionary.

-JayWong-

Wasnt turok the first using sticks?

[QUOTE="skrat_01"][QUOTE="Fruity_mixer"]

After looking at all these new games i still dont understand. HOW THE HELL OBLIVION DID THAT? It was one of the lunch titles, and yet it is one of the most graphicaly impressive games out there. In oblivion the lighting is just as good as in halo, the models have much more poligons, there is much more stuff to fit in the same amount of ram(dialogs, more different objects with different textues, more animations, more statistical data of what level r u what level is the opponent and his weapon and so on), then there are more effects, and they are just as good as in halo. Yeah the framerate is not too stable as it is in halo but comon, there is much more stuf goin on there.

Dont get me wrong, halo looks good, but damn, oblivion did such a better job in the gfx department, and it is an rpg...

Well as for about thouse shots, all from photomode and they hide the jaggles from the game. Other then that, yeah thats how the game looks like

Fruity_mixer

Oblivion looks nice - but its LOD detail (on 360) was average - so it could render such detail up close - and it didn't have anywhere near as much action on screen.

Good game though, even if it despised by purists. I'm more of a Stalker guy though.

I do not agree. I think that it takes much more to proccess all the statistical data in oblivion than it takes to control 30 npcs at the same time. U see in oblivion there could be 5 different units involved in a fight, each one will have an insane amount of parramiters vareing from its speed mana and health to how long the shock dammage from a weapon will last on this charracter. And ull also get more objects attached to the physics of the game, from books on the shielfs to the spoons on the table.

Halo has replay recoding and compex AI, thats true, but i still think that the technology employed in oblivion is far more efficient than the halo engine with 360 hardware.

As with the objects you stated - You notice rooms with these objects need to be loaded before entering them. They are serate enviroments, compared to each level in Halo, which has no load screens.

The replay recording isnt that complex either. It only uses a few mbs of data - as it is in engine - though in efficency with the 360s hardware - honestly either could be argued. Personally I think neither is as efficent as other games out there - like Crackdown, and so on.