[QUOTE="Sekeru"]

Hm....how about i post the other guys impression.

"You've probably read a lot about how Halo 3 looks in motion. It's hard to really compare Halo 3 to Halo 2 without actually comparing them side-by-side (which we may do for y'all next week). The human mind is tricky. It can easily fool you into thinking that something is similar in appearance solely because the elements are similar. This is what we expect is happening to players in Halo 3, as this is a slick, highly-polished visual treat that is sure to please.



So no, Halo 3 is not "Halo 2 in HD", unless HD automatically means explosions are made realistic, airborne corpses believably rag-doll and character models and background objects burst off of the screen. This is, in fact, about the hard work put into creating Halo 3 and has little to do with the high resolution at all (we should all understand how HD changes a game with Halo 2's move to 720). It's about solid normal mapping and lighting techniques and a physics engine that simply makes character movement in all situations more believable; even when said character is being seen as a third-person casualty hurtling through the air."

Hm....sounds good to me. 

neversummer75

He uses words such as solide. That doesnt sound amazing and next-gen to me.

When hes talking about a game for the 360 that means it looks next-gen.And why does it have to looks ultra amazing crysis level?Explain to me what looks bad about the game. 

Hm....how about i post the other guys impression.

"You've probably read a lot about how Halo 3 looks in motion. It's hard to really compare Halo 3 to Halo 2 without actually comparing them side-by-side (which we may do for y'all next week). The human mind is tricky. It can easily fool you into thinking that something is similar in appearance solely because the elements are similar. This is what we expect is happening to players in Halo 3, as this is a slick, highly-polished visual treat that is sure to please.



So no, Halo 3 is not "Halo 2 in HD", unless HD automatically means explosions are made realistic, airborne corpses believably rag-doll and character models and background objects burst off of the screen. This is, in fact, about the hard work put into creating Halo 3 and has little to do with the high resolution at all (we should all understand how HD changes a game with Halo 2's move to 720). It's about solid normal mapping and lighting techniques and a physics engine that simply makes character movement in all situations more believable; even when said character is being seen as a third-person casualty hurtling through the air."

Hm....sounds good to me. 

My specs are

Video card:Nvidia Geforce 7300 LE

Ram: 2046 MB

Proccesor: Intel Premium D CPU 2.80ghz

And I also like FPS 

XxjackassxX

Hm...well how much do you have to spend?Because you could get a Core 2 DuoE6600 CPU and a radeon  X1900XT for about $500

from Newegg.com.You could even go cheaper than that for a CPU and GPU combo.Just let me know and i could tell you a nice set

up that could run most games at high or med-high for brand new games. 

if you think that super mario galaxy looks better than Riddick you need glasses

 

Gears360

Stop looking so much at the shiny normal mapped riddick and look at the awesome all around looking game Super Mario Galaxy.

Heck even look at Dewy's adventure.That uses your beloved effect normal mapping along with tons of awesome looking texture

maps. 

[QUOTE="inerte"][QUOTE="Brown52"]...wow. Really though, you are completely missing the point.

And I can't believe you researched it.

Brown52

What point? You said, "You're delusional if you think 90% of those games aren't going to be trash". On the PS2, 90% of the games were trash (if you're confortable with sub-AA being "trash"), and it's still regarded as the most succesful console and the one where the best games were last generation.

Really, I just debunked what you said. No more, no less. If you want to offer other arguments, feel free. But on every system, 90% is trash. It's the way the industry works. Saying the Wii will have a lot of trash doesn't prove anything, because it will, every system always does. Unless you meant something else, then I am not missing any point, because if you didn't say, how can I reply?

And yeah, I research, because I like being right.

OMG READ ANY OTHER POST IN THE THREAD.  You can start with the two above yours.

Excuse me for just popping in but he easily disproved your argument with simple facts.

And i love your whole "no good games in the future" argument even though there is no way you could know.

But anyway i agree with the TC.

The Wii is a beast and it will continue to sell well.Just get used to it sony/MS fanboys. 

[QUOTE="finalfantasy94"][QUOTE="slickvic1990"][QUOTE="finalfantasy94"][QUOTE="lightning150"][QUOTE="finalfantasy94"]

[QUOTE="lightning150"]are you serious? "does this game atleast use the light gun?" is one of the most ignorant things i have ever heard! have you ever seen the wii controller? ohh and by the way, this game looks lame as hell. why don't they just call it resident evil dead aim 2? it is going to suck!! lightning150

WOW its going to suck now that you said that Im defently not buying it:roll:. Listen here if you dont like this type of game fine,but dont bash it cause its not your type. Whose to say if its going to suck or not. I enjoy on rail shooter hell I beat House Of the dead 2 like 50 times. THe only thing that worries me is the replay vaule.

yeah rail shooters are fun games... for about 1 hour! come on, RE4 was one of the best games of last gen. why make a crappy rail shooter RE game like dead aim again? people are not going to buy that. RE series was going into the dump before 4 came out and now it looks like they are going right back in the wrong direction.

LOL dude by the look on the wii forums ALOT of people are going to buy this game. Also when was the RE series going to the dump me and most likely alot fo people were still having fun playing the RE games. Also dude have you been doing your reasearch the Dev for this game said it will at least last 20 hours or more so that 1 hour crock you came up with went right out the window. I hate how everyone jumps on RE4 like its the GOD of RE games. Yea it was a great game,but I still enjoy part 3 more.

RE4 was the GOD of RE games

Thats your opinion. To be honest I liked the orginal idea they had for RE4.

dude, i didn't say that the game was going to be 1 hour of gameplay, i said it would only be fun for that amount of time.  and the RE series was going in the dump before RE4 came out.  Maybe you are the one who needs to do some research.  Ever heard of a few RE games titled dead aim, outbreak, outbreak file #2? They all sucked.  RE4 reinvented the series and brought people back to loving the RE games again, so yes it is the GOD of RE games. 

But RE4 sold about the same amount as RE3.Do YOU know what you are talking about?The RE series was not dead, it was far from it.

Just because you like the action style more doesnt mean the other games sucked.Infact alot of the RE fans didnt buy it because it was to action oriented. So maybe you should just stop hating on RE:UC just because the other FPS RE games were bad.This is a different development team,its a different director.So there should be no reason it would be exactly the same as the survivor games.