i play the jericho demo today and the graphics are really really good and i mean why halo 3 got poor graphics they are good but the 360 can do much better you talking about the flag ship holder of the 360 man its just sad i mean the gameplay its amazing but im turn down by the graphics that just my opinion what you guys think?
I tihnk it has something to do with the features like Forge and SaveFilm Scarface_tm431
yeah i bet thats what it is. But to me, I would rather have bioshock/GOW type graphics over the SaveFilm feature. Dont get me wrong, the save film is pretty cool. But this being the last Halo, I kinda wished that every aspect of the ACTUAL game be really memorable....including the graphics. The sound is good though...not as good as Bioshocks, but pretty good nonetheless. Sound becomes even more important than graphics when you play on 5.1 lol. The save film is nice, but i can live without it really.
I love Jericho and I have it pre-ordered, but Jericho can look so great because the environments aren't as large, there isn't as much going on at one given time, and the physics aren't exactly as good. Halo does things better, but it's just not shiny textures.
After Jericho comes out Codemasters is going to be 3 for 3 on games I'm gonna buy this year. They are quickly turning into an A+ developer. Overlord rocked...Dirt was a departure, but a welcome one, and Jericho amazed me. I'm REALLY pumped for a new TOCA now
i think halo 3 looked better than i thought, but there is ALWAYS going to be a game that has better graphics. game developers are always going to be pushing the envelope graphic-wise. halo 3 has a great story, great sound, and a great multiplayer with pretty good graphics. thats enough for me to love it!
I don't get how Halo looks bad...There were some parts that were ugly, but for the most part it was fine. I think we are just spoiled now with graphics, but either way, it proves that a pretty face doesn't mean everything.
The only thing I found strange was how inconsistent the modeling was. There were times when things looked fabulous, and others were it was just gross. One thing that comes to mind is [spoiler] when Johnson is dying...he has no nostrils, it's a smooth map of his nose [/spoiler]
I don't get how Halo looks bad...There were some parts that were ugly, but for the most part it was fine. I think we are just spoiled now with graphics, but either way, it proves that a pretty face doesn't mean everything.
The only thing I found strange was how inconsistent the modeling was.
spazzx625
I think it was a trade off on pretty gfx vs the HDR lighting, scale of the levels, amount of stuff going on and making things pretty when they needed to be (ie: plasma weapons effects, bubble sheild etc.)
Th reason why Halo's visuals arent as tweaked as say Gears or Jerhico is due to the nature of the gameplay. All the previously mentioned games take place in enclosed spaces with only a few AI units onscreen at any time. Halo makes use of large outdoor environments with a great deal more units involved in combat. Alot of the 360's power in Halo is devoted to physics processing for all the onscreen objects and active audio mixing (the work that went into Halo 3's audio system is just crazy). So in order to maintain the 60 fps frame rate (something that gears did not manage) model polycounts had to be kept lower.
Dont get me wrong i think gears and bioshock are excelent games, however trying to compare either of those to Halo for me is an apples to oranges sort of deal. The only similarity between the games is you use a gun, the rest of the mechanics are quite different.
I think a games graphics should be designed according to the game itself. So for me, Halo graphics are enough. Why would I like the best graphics at the moment for a high paced game which doesn't give time to apretiate the environments for most of the time. GeoW, on the other hand, has better graphics but as you have noticed the campaign is wayyyy shorter and it plays slower due to the cover system. Anyway, thats just my opinion.
Log in to comment