[QUOTE="PhantomNemesis"][QUOTE="o_sausage"][QUOTE="PhantomNemesis"]Considering Halo's graphics are kinda going away from the whole hyper-realism thing, I think they're great. I mean, comparing Halo to a realistic game is like comparing a Cel-Shaded game to real life, it's meant to be different, that's where the unique-ness comes from. Most of the realistic games that Halo 3 is being compared to are often dark and gritty, with not a lot in the picture, but what's there is detailed. Halo 3 is shoving as much as it can in there, with the sacrifice of a bit of detail.
Besides, it's the gameplay we should judge Halo 3 on, because we don't want games that are 'all flash, no substance'.
o_sausage
I still don't see why everyone finds the mud look as realistic. It's not. Go outside Grass and leaves are green. Light reflects off water brightly and concrete is typically light grey :shock: also this may be a shocker but asphalt is pitch black and there are bright yellow and white lines on the streetWell, not everything is covered in lovely grass and water. What I was talking about was the whole warzone kind of look, better name for that anyway. Walking into an area muddy, ruined and riddled with bullet holes, it's a lot more realistic than a grassy field to fight on as bombs and gunfire are thrown around.
Invietnam they fought in forests. Look at this picture from the movie We Were Soldiers and look at the colorsNot every war has been as colourful and vibrant as that. Omaha beach, it was wet, horrific and a bloodbath, a gritty battle that had to take place to get a real beachead for the Allies in WW2.
The Trenches in WW1, it was muddy, sometimes soldiers were in up to several feet of water, and shelling from both sides had left No Man's Land a barren wasteland.
I'm not saying Halo doesn't have any realism in it, I'm just saying it doesn't throw itself on detail and realism like some other games.
Log in to comment