why are people complaining about halo's graphics?

when did graphics mattered so much? you see millions of people playing world of warcraft and dont complain about its s*** graphics. we all know gears does have better graphics but at the cost of a 5 hour campaign and only 4 different mp modes. its really dissapointing seeing people make other people think its not going to be as good just because of its graphics.

your logic is a bit flawed there.

graphics and game length have nothing to do with each other.

epic is a multiplayer company, and that showed with gears. gears had a decent single player but it was nothing compared to the online they offered.

people complain about halo3a graphics because of what a large budget halo3 had. people feel bungie could have made it more impressive. this is the 360s flag ship and they want it to look amazing. i have no issues with the graphics of the game personally.

your logic is a bit flawed there.

graphics and game length have nothing to do with each other.

epic is a multiplayer company, and that showed with gears. gears had a decent single player but it was nothing compared to the online they offered.

people complain about halo3a graphics because of what a large budget halo3 had. people feel bungie could have made it more impressive. this is the 360s flag ship and they want it to look amazing. i have no issues with the graphics of the game personally.

GlassDominion

how did they show they were a multiplayer company when there was only 3 games modes and terrible lag? Since then theve only added one gametypeand the lag hasnt ended at all. Also the only thing they really brought new to the 360 was that thier wasnt respawns...which made multiplayer frustrating if you werent good because you watached the game 95 percent of the time and then played the game only 5 %

[QUOTE="GlassDominion"]

your logic is a bit flawed there.

graphics and game length have nothing to do with each other.

epic is a multiplayer company, and that showed with gears. gears had a decent single player but it was nothing compared to the online they offered.

people complain about halo3a graphics because of what a large budget halo3 had. people feel bungie could have made it more impressive. this is the 360s flag ship and they want it to look amazing. i have no issues with the graphics of the game personally.

French023

how did they show they were a multiplayer company when there was only 3 games modes and terrible lag? Since then theve only added one gametypeand the lag hasnt ended at all. Also the only thing they really brought new to the 360 was that thier wasnt respawns...which made multiplayer frustrating if you werent good because you watached the game 95 percent of the time and then played the game only 5 %

if the multiplayer is as horrable as you claim it to be, why would countless numbers of people still be playing it?

[QUOTE="French023"][QUOTE="GlassDominion"]

your logic is a bit flawed there.

graphics and game length have nothing to do with each other.

epic is a multiplayer company, and that showed with gears. gears had a decent single player but it was nothing compared to the online they offered.

people complain about halo3a graphics because of what a large budget halo3 had. people feel bungie could have made it more impressive. this is the 360s flag ship and they want it to look amazing. i have no issues with the graphics of the game personally.

GlassDominion

how did they show they were a multiplayer company when there was only 3 games modes and terrible lag? Since then theve only added one gametypeand the lag hasnt ended at all. Also the only thing they really brought new to the 360 was that thier wasnt respawns...which made multiplayer frustrating if you werent good because you watached the game 95 percent of the time and then played the game only 5 %

if the multiplayer is as horrable as you claim it to be, why would countless numbers of people still be playing it?

yeah, we'll see how many people play it after this monday

yeah, we'll see how many people play it after this mondayaxes03

whats that got to do with anything?

so halo3 is goign to take over XBL like halo2 did befor it.

[QUOTE="GlassDominion"]

your logic is a bit flawed there.

graphics and game length have nothing to do with each other.

epic is a multiplayer company, and that showed with gears. gears had a decent single player but it was nothing compared to the online they offered.

people complain about halo3a graphics because of what a large budget halo3 had. people feel bungie could have made it more impressive. this is the 360s flag ship and they want it to look amazing. i have no issues with the graphics of the game personally.

French023

how did they show they were a multiplayer company when there was only 3 games modes and terrible lag? Since then theve only added one gametypeand the lag hasnt ended at all. Also the only thing they really brought new to the 360 was that thier wasnt respawns...which made multiplayer frustrating if you werent good because you watached the game 95 percent of the time and then played the game only 5 %

I agree. 4 match types, with a king if the hill soon to be added to the PC version which isn't much different from annex. The host advantage is unreal. I don't care how good you are, if your connection to the host sucks you will get slaughtered. Not to mention the glitches which EPIC never really seem to fix, only prolong until someone finds another way. I mean if you can Kung-fu flip (which is probably the most awesome glitch ever) you know you have a buggy game. Gears is decent online, not a patch on Halo.

[QUOTE="French023"][QUOTE="GlassDominion"]

your logic is a bit flawed there.

graphics and game length have nothing to do with each other.

epic is a multiplayer company, and that showed with gears. gears had a decent single player but it was nothing compared to the online they offered.

people complain about halo3a graphics because of what a large budget halo3 had. people feel bungie could have made it more impressive. this is the 360s flag ship and they want it to look amazing. i have no issues with the graphics of the game personally.

GlassDominion

how did they show they were a multiplayer company when there was only 3 games modes and terrible lag? Since then theve only added one gametypeand the lag hasnt ended at all. Also the only thing they really brought new to the 360 was that thier wasnt respawns...which made multiplayer frustrating if you werent good because you watached the game 95 percent of the time and then played the game only 5 %

if the multiplayer is as horrable as you claim it to be, why would countless numbers of people still be playing it?

im not claiming it to be horrible i play it all the time....i think its wrong that you think that they "focused" on multiplayer when it is as flawed as it is....think how great gears would be with the gametypes halo has and no lag....exacly

when did graphics mattered so much? you see millions of people playing world of warcraft and dont complain about its s*** graphics. we all know gears does have better graphics but at the cost of a 5 hour campaign and only 4 different mp modes. its really dissapointing seeing people make other people think its not going to be as good just because of its graphics.

j-killer-316

wth are you talking about? WoW has some of the best graphics MMORPGs have to offer! :?

It is because of high expectation with Halo series. GOW developers took the graphics to the next level....Now Halo should do the same by taking the graphics to the next level.... but after looking at the game i really thought they were not even able to compete with the current available games.....

I thought the graphics were great.laidback4evr

im not claiming it to be horrible i play it all the time....i think its wrong that you think that they "focused" on multiplayer when it is as flawed as it is....think how great gears would be with the gametypes halo has and no lag....exacly French023

funny thing is halo2 online is horrable. its worse than gears of war was when i quite GeoW. you dont think epic focused on the multiplayer aspect of the game? you think they honestly sat down and said "lets make this game about the single player". i highly doubt they did. i feel their main objective was the multiplayer.

personally GeoW sucked on all fronts. it was just likeepic threw something out to get the next gen hype before it was gone.

[QUOTE="GlassDominion"][QUOTE="French023"][QUOTE="GlassDominion"]

your logic is a bit flawed there.

graphics and game length have nothing to do with each other.

epic is a multiplayer company, and that showed with gears. gears had a decent single player but it was nothing compared to the online they offered.

people complain about halo3a graphics because of what a large budget halo3 had. people feel bungie could have made it more impressive. this is the 360s flag ship and they want it to look amazing. i have no issues with the graphics of the game personally.

French023

how did they show they were a multiplayer company when there was only 3 games modes and terrible lag? Since then theve only added one gametypeand the lag hasnt ended at all. Also the only thing they really brought new to the 360 was that thier wasnt respawns...which made multiplayer frustrating if you werent good because you watached the game 95 percent of the time and then played the game only 5 %

if the multiplayer is as horrable as you claim it to be, why would countless numbers of people still be playing it?

im not claiming it to be horrible i play it all the time....i think its wrong that you think that they "focused" on multiplayer when it is as flawed as it is....think how great gears would be with the gametypes halo has and no lag....exacly

i think the multiplayer is over rated. its good but not great, a lot of ppl r playing it because a lot of ppl got the game cuz of its hype of the graphics. theres still a lot of issues with the online player and i find it hard to go bak to playing it after i tried somethin like r6 vegas

[QUOTE="French023"]im not claiming it to be horrible i play it all the time....i think its wrong that you think that they "focused" on multiplayer when it is as flawed as it is....think how great gears would be with the gametypes halo has and no lag....exacly GlassDominion

funny thing is halo2 online is horrable. its worse than gears of war was when i quite GeoW. you dont think epic focused on the multiplayer aspect of the game? you think they honestly sat down and said "lets make this game about the single player". i highly doubt they did. i feel their main objective was the multiplayer.

personally GeoW sucked on all fronts. it was just likeepic threw something out to get the next gen hype before it was gone.

the only time when halo 2 online was worse then gears is when there were a lot of modders but after bungie cut down on them, u only faced like one modder every 1 or 2 weeks, halo 2 still had a great online multiplayer even until gears came out, gears aint gonna last that long

when did graphics mattered so much? you see millions of people playing world of warcraft and dont complain about its s*** graphics. we all know gears does have better graphics but at the cost of a 5 hour campaign and only 4 different mp modes. its really dissapointing seeing people make other people think its not going to be as good just because of its graphics.

j-killer-316

where did you come from? i havent seen a topic about Halo 3's graphics in atleast 2 months. why you ask? cause they are good! better than the beta's and thats what people wanted so thats what they got.

[QUOTE="GlassDominion"]

[QUOTE="French023"]im not claiming it to be horrible i play it all the time....i think its wrong that you think that they "focused" on multiplayer when it is as flawed as it is....think how great gears would be with the gametypes halo has and no lag....exacly halokillerz

funny thing is halo2 online is horrable. its worse than gears of war was when i quite GeoW. you dont think epic focused on the multiplayer aspect of the game? you think they honestly sat down and said "lets make this game about the single player". i highly doubt they did. i feel their main objective was the multiplayer.

personally GeoW sucked on all fronts. it was just likeepic threw something out to get the next gen hype before it was gone.

the only time when halo 2 online was worse then gears is when there were a lot of modders but after bungie cut down on them, u only faced like one modder every 1 or 2 weeks, halo 2 still had a great online multiplayer even until gears came out, gears aint gonna last that long

yesterday alone i ran into 3 modders. the halo2 comunity has gone to hell.

can i barrow your time machince? i would like to know next weeks lotto numbers.

[QUOTE="halokillerz"][QUOTE="GlassDominion"]

[QUOTE="French023"]im not claiming it to be horrible i play it all the time....i think its wrong that you think that they "focused" on multiplayer when it is as flawed as it is....think how great gears would be with the gametypes halo has and no lag....exacly GlassDominion

funny thing is halo2 online is horrable. its worse than gears of war was when i quite GeoW. you dont think epic focused on the multiplayer aspect of the game? you think they honestly sat down and said "lets make this game about the single player". i highly doubt they did. i feel their main objective was the multiplayer.

personally GeoW sucked on all fronts. it was just likeepic threw something out to get the next gen hype before it was gone.

the only time when halo 2 online was worse then gears is when there were a lot of modders but after bungie cut down on them, u only faced like one modder every 1 or 2 weeks, halo 2 still had a great online multiplayer even until gears came out, gears aint gonna last that long

yesterday alone i ran into 3 modders. the halo2 comunity has gone to hell.

can i barrow your time machince? i would like to know next weeks lotto numbers.

You just said halo2 online is HORRIBLE. If you really thought that why in the hell would you be playing it??? I've never ran into any modders on live, so your claim is bs to me. GEOW online is absolutely terrible. I played for like a week and thought it was aweful. So go play your geow by yourself b/c the rest of the world will be playing halo3.

You just said halo2 online is HORRIBLE. If you really thought that why in the hell would you be playing it??? I've never ran into any modders on live, so your claim is bs to me. GEOW online is absolutely terrible. I played for like a week and thought it was aweful. So go play your geow by yourself b/c the rest of the world will be playing halo3.superstud101

i got online with my friend, we played it for old times sake. considering halo3 is out on tuesday.

and just because you never ran into a modder they never happened? i got news for you kid, thats not the way the world works.

i wasnt arround for the holocaust, so i dont think it actually happened.

[QUOTE="superstud101"] You just said halo2 online is HORRIBLE. If you really thought that why in the hell would you be playing it??? I've never ran into any modders on live, so your claim is bs to me. GEOW online is absolutely terrible. I played for like a week and thought it was aweful. So go play your geow by yourself b/c the rest of the world will be playing halo3.GlassDominion

i got online with my friend, we played it for old times sake. considering halo3 is out on tuesday.

and just because you never ran into a modder they never happened? i got news for you kid, thats not the way the world works.

i wasnt arround for the holocaust, so i dont think it actually happened.

u just had bad luck then, theres 2 of us here who barely run into modders