Played Halo 3 odst never realised halo is a low budget game?????

Seriously why is halo 3/odst such a low budget game, im quessing it's for maximum profits but still? I mean the graphics are not good at all, it's quite a jaggy mess and looks like a last gen engine.... Also the Animationis such bad quality whats the deal with how everyone walks in halo osdt, it seriously Just looks like there puppets being controlled with strings.... I mean where the hell is Motion capture? the game certainly earns enough to have this so WTF it's just being lazy

Anyway to sum it up Halo = very average voice acting, bad last gen game engine and terrible terrible Animation, it feels like a low budget game And I cant believe they didnt go to a lot more effort, Really suprised Halo fans dont expect a lot more from there game.

Totalgym, why are you always bashing 360 titles and praising PS3 titles? Just wondering. Seems suspect, thus I can't take this too seriously, no offense. There's just a pattern.

Halo is praised and loved for its quality. Low budget? I think not, sir.

nothing lazy about halo 3if anything its the total package as far as FPS on consoles goes

odst yes that was just an expansion and was overpriced at 60$

I mean where the hell is Motion capture?

Totalgym9000

Totalgym, why are you always bashing 360 titles and praising PS3 titles? Just wondering. Seems suspect, thus I can't take this too seriously, no offense. There's just a pattern.

Halo is praised and loved for its quality. Low budget? I think not, sir.

BioShockOwnz

Seriously why is halo 3/odst such a low budget game, im quessing it's for maximum profits but still? I mean the graphics are not good at all, it's quite a jaggy mess and looks like a last gen engine.... Also the Animationis such bad quality whats the deal with how everyone walks in halo osdt, it seriously Just looks like there puppets being controlled with strings.... I mean where the hell is Motion capture? the game certainly earns enough to have this so WTF it's just being lazy

Anyway to sum it up Halo = very average voice acting, bad last gen game engine and terrible terrible Animation, it feels like a low budget game And I cant believe they didnt go to a lot more effort, Really suprised Halo fans dont expect a lot more from there game.

Totalgym9000

Seriously why is halo 3/odst such a low budget game, im quessing it's for maximum profits but still? I mean the graphics are not good at all, it's quite a jaggy mess and looks like a last gen engine.... Also the Animationis such bad quality whats the deal with how everyone walks in halo osdt, it seriously Just looks like there puppets being controlled with strings.... I mean where the hell is Motion capture? the game certainly earns enough to have this so WTF it's just being lazy

Anyway to sum it up Halo = very average voice acting, bad last gen game engine and terrible terrible Animation, it feels like a low budget game And I cant believe they didnt go to a lot more effort, Really suprised Halo fans dont expect a lot more from there game.

Totalgym9000

Orly?

To be honest I think Halo 2 and Halo ODST are games that got overrated based on hype here on GS. I would have given Halo 2 nothing higher than 9.0, and even that's generous. I understand the addictive multiplayer component, but the single player was just criminal. I'm not even talking about MW/MW2 "its too short!" criminal, I'm talking about "WTF is this trash!?" type of single player that actually ends up hurting the game.

ODST while functional, was quite a step back from the Halo 3. It was a solid shooter, definitely not deserving of 9.0. I would give it an 8.5. Halo 2 and Halo ODST are not in the same league as Halo CE and Halo 3, which are some of the best shooters out there.

To be honest I think Halo 2 and Halo ODST are games that got overrated based on hype here on GS. I would have given Halo 2 nothing higher than 9.0, and even that's generous. I understand the addictive multiplayer component, but the single player was just criminal. I'm not even talking about MW/MW2 "its too short!" criminal, I'm talking about "WTF is this trash!?" type of single player that actually ends up hurting the game.

ODST while functional, was quite a step back from the Halo 3. It was a solid shooter, definitely not deserving of 9.0. I would give it an 8.5. Halo 2 and Halo ODST are not in the same league as Halo CE and Halo 3, which are some of the best shooters out there.

II_Seraphim_II

What did you expect from a console game ?

I actually agree ODST was good but i think it only deserves a 8.5 tops, Halo 3 was ok i expected alot more from it and felt dissapointed after i finished the game. But i loved Halo CE and Halo 2 even thought alot of people here bash Halo 2 i thought it was a solid game just the ending sucked big time.

Man I just love it when someone who so obviously never played the game posts their complaints about a game...

What no mention of the only 6 hour SP campaign? That it is an expansion pack? Maybe you should look at the other 200 posts like this made by cows before you for pointers.

Some of the best movies were relatively low budget...the same for some of the best games...

I thought the graphics were good but I have to agree with you on the animations. Bungie didn't have a motion capture studio while developing this and Halo 3, but Halo Reach would change that.

Halo's always been a very generic game. The only good thing about this game is its marketing. That is the only reason this game has earned some 'respect' and because the first game was somewhat decent, the rest were just rehashes tbh. And YES, Halo has BAD GRAPHICS.

[QUOTE="II_Seraphim_II"]

To be honest I think Halo 2 and Halo ODST are games that got overrated based on hype here on GS. I would have given Halo 2 nothing higher than 9.0, and even that's generous. I understand the addictive multiplayer component, but the single player was just criminal. I'm not even talking about MW/MW2 "its too short!" criminal, I'm talking about "WTF is this trash!?" type of single player that actually ends up hurting the game.

ODST while functional, was quite a step back from the Halo 3. It was a solid shooter, definitely not deserving of 9.0. I would give it an 8.5. Halo 2 and Halo ODST are not in the same league as Halo CE and Halo 3, which are some of the best shooters out there.

Totalgym9000

I stopped playing the game after 10 minutes. It was just too boring for me. I still have the game I just dont care to play it. I really wish Bungie would use a new engine for their games. Instead they use the same old engine they been using since what... Halo or Halo 2 ?

I thought the graphics were good but I have to agree with you on the animations. Bungie didn't have a motion capture studio while developing this and Halo 3, but Halo Reach would change that.

klusps

Halo is absolutely not low budget.

Totalgym, why are you always bashing 360 titles and praising PS3 titles? Just wondering. Seems suspect, thus I can't take this too seriously, no offense. There's just a pattern.

Halo is praised and loved for its quality. Low budget? I think not, sir.

BioShockOwnz

What did you expect from a console game ?

anshul89

[QUOTE="II_Seraphim_II"]

To be honest I think Halo 2 and Halo ODST are games that got overrated based on hype here on GS. I would have given Halo 2 nothing higher than 9.0, and even that's generous. I understand the addictive multiplayer component, but the single player was just criminal. I'm not even talking about MW/MW2 "its too short!" criminal, I'm talking about "WTF is this trash!?" type of single player that actually ends up hurting the game.

ODST while functional, was quite a step back from the Halo 3. It was a solid shooter, definitely not deserving of 9.0. I would give it an 8.5. Halo 2 and Halo ODST are not in the same league as Halo CE and Halo 3, which are some of the best shooters out there.

Totalgym9000

What do you expect from an expansion?

I like Halo 3's look. It's got color.

[QUOTE="BioShockOwnz"]

Totalgym, why are you always bashing 360 titles and praising PS3 titles? Just wondering. Seems suspect, thus I can't take this too seriously, no offense. There's just a pattern.

Halo is praised and loved for its quality. Low budget? I think not, sir.

RogueShodown

It may not be cutting edge, but it's above average in technical graphics. They spent their time and resources crafting new characters that are NOT the Master Chief in a narrative structure that's very different from all past Halo games.

If you don't play games for graphics anyway, then why is this even a question?

Posts like these get me hook, line & sinker. I just have to bite. You never know who might be interested in buying a game & comes across threads like these. Halo 3: ODST had a massive budget. It resulted in an amazing game. I'll consider TCs post as an opinion, an opinion that would be in the top 5 worst opinions on System Wars of the day, & that's saying something.

The game looks fine. Besides, the gameplay kicks ass.

I think you might be discussing about a very different game, like Haze or something.Stevo_the_gamer

Hey! Don't be dissing Haze!

[QUOTE="RogueShodown"][QUOTE="BioShockOwnz"]

Totalgym, why are you always bashing 360 titles and praising PS3 titles? Just wondering. Seems suspect, thus I can't take this too seriously, no offense. There's just a pattern.

Halo is praised and loved for its quality. Low budget? I think not, sir.

VoodooHak

It may not be cutting edge, but it's above average in technical graphics. They spent their time and resources crafting new characters that are NOT the Master Chief in a narrative structure that's very different from all past Halo games.

If you don't play games for graphics anyway, then why is this even a question?

halo could have ps1 graphic and they would still think it looks good lol gg

like I've been saying all along halo rehashes every where. no innovation. halo halo2 halo 3 halo odst halo wars halo reach halo i lost count. its sad really.pstripl3

[QUOTE="VoodooHak"]

[QUOTE="RogueShodown"] Why do you always bash PS3 games and praise 360 games? Anyways, I'm sure the Halo series is great, but I do wonder why the games don't have really good technical graphics, even though I like the style and they are more than good enough for me. I don't play games for the graphics.RogueShodown

It may not be cutting edge, but it's above average in technical graphics. They spent their time and resources crafting new characters that are NOT the Master Chief in a narrative structure that's very different from all past Halo games.

If you don't play games for graphics anyway, then why is this even a question?

Usually. But every once in awhile a game comes along with near perfect gameplay that even the casual market can appreciate. Games like Halo. I'm sick of people thinking Crysis like graphics are the only way to go. I wish there were more games with Warcraft III style graphics, perhaps a little updated. Diablo III looks perfect in that sense. WoW is so popular both because of its awesome, addictive gameplay but as well as having a graphical style that is both nice & not hard on the hardware. Age of Conan was awesome, but you can't have a massively successful MMO like WoW when there aren't half the amount of WoW's playerbase with a PC well enough to run it at a stable level. I'm hoping SW:TOR isn't very system demanding, not because I won't be able to play it (I'm sure I will) but because the community makes an MMO, & the more players the better.

Muramasa is one of the best looking games this gen. It's on the Wii. And what happened to sprite based games? I loved, & still do love them. Imagine how big an RPG could be if they had awesome looking sprites instead of so much memory being used to pull over the 'ohemgee teh graffix!!1' drones. But I'll admit not everyone likes sprites, but it saddens me to think how much is being sacrificed these days to make way for graphics.

[QUOTE="RogueShodown"]

[QUOTE="VoodooHak"]

It may not be cutting edge, but it's above average in technical graphics. They spent their time and resources crafting new characters that are NOT the Master Chief in a narrative structure that's very different from all past Halo games.

If you don't play games for graphics anyway, then why is this even a question?

Twin-Blade

Usually. But every once in awhile a game comes along with near perfect gameplay that even the casual market can appreciate. Games like Halo. I'm sick of people thinking Crysis like graphics are the only way to go. I wish there were more games with Warcraft III style graphics, perhaps a little updated. Diablo III looks perfect in that sense. WoW is so popular both because of its awesome, addictive gameplay but as well as having a graphical style that is both nice & not hard on the hardware. Age of Conan was awesome, but you can't have a massively successful MMO like WoW when there aren't half the amount of WoW's playerbase with a PC well enough to run it at a stable level. I'm hoping SW:TOR isn't very system demanding, not because I won't be able to play it (I'm sure I will) but because the community makes an MMO, & the more players the better.

Muramasa is one of the best looking games this gen. It's on the Wii. And what happened to sprite based games? I loved, & still do love them. Imagine how big an RPG could be if they had awesome looking sprites instead of so much memory being used to pull over the 'ohemgee teh graffix!!1' drones. But I'll admit not everyone likes sprites, but it saddens me to think how much is being sacrificed these days to make way for graphics.

I never said the Halo's graphics were a negative point. I just said that you'd typically expect them to be some of the best because the high sales and popularity.

I bought Sonic's Ultimate Genesis Collection because it had tons of oldschool games that I didn't have the chance to play before. Now I can play almost 50 games, some absolutely terrible for today's standards- maybe even terrible back then- but some, like the Sonic or Vectorman games, are still excellent and a lot of fun to play.

[QUOTE="pstripl3"]like I've been saying all along halo rehashes every where. no innovation. halo halo2 halo 3 halo odst halo wars halo reach halo i lost count. its sad really.tbone802

[QUOTE="Twin-Blade"]

[QUOTE="RogueShodown"]

Usually. But every once in awhile a game comes along with near perfect gameplay that even the casual market can appreciate. Games like Halo. I'm sick of people thinking Crysis like graphics are the only way to go. I wish there were more games with Warcraft III style graphics, perhaps a little updated. Diablo III looks perfect in that sense. WoW is so popular both because of its awesome, addictive gameplay but as well as having a graphical style that is both nice & not hard on the hardware. Age of Conan was awesome, but you can't have a massively successful MMO like WoW when there aren't half the amount of WoW's playerbase with a PC well enough to run it at a stable level. I'm hoping SW:TOR isn't very system demanding, not because I won't be able to play it (I'm sure I will) but because the community makes an MMO, & the more players the better.

Muramasa is one of the best looking games this gen. It's on the Wii. And what happened to sprite based games? I loved, & still do love them. Imagine how big an RPG could be if they had awesome looking sprites instead of so much memory being used to pull over the 'ohemgee teh graffix!!1' drones. But I'll admit not everyone likes sprites, but it saddens me to think how much is being sacrificed these days to make way for graphics.

RogueShodown

I never said the Halo's graphics were a negative point. I just said that you'd typically expect them to be some of the best because the high sales and popularity.

I bought Sonic's Ultimate Genesis Collection because it had tons of oldschool games that I didn't have the chance to play before. Now I can play almost 50 games, some absolutely terrible for today's standards- maybe even terrible back then- but some, like the Sonic or Vectorman games, are still excellent and a lot of fun to play.

Well before seeing some of the Reach screens, I honestly believed Halo 3s graphics where amazing for its artstyle, & with that said, some of the best looking. I don't usually give my 2 cents in topics when people speak poorly of them because their usually the type that see Crysis, MW2 etc as the peak in graphics for games, & don't appreciate artistic styles. Halo, while looking realistic in a sense, is obviously going for something else, and are a lot more colourful then CoD etc. The same can be said with Gears, but in the opposite sense, where they have an artistic theme which is much more dark & gritty. Perhaps it would look a lot better with CoD graphics, I couldn't say, but I've always thought each iteration of Halo has had impressive graphics.