Halo 3: Graphically Unimpressive

i really hope the graphics are polished up. i know gameplay makes a game fun but graphics mean alot to me.-zonkey-

Agreed, I mean its the most-hyped 360 game. 

[QUOTE="The_Duke_Lives"]

Allied Assault did come out in 2001. Before Halo.Robnyc22

Allied Assault came out late January 2002. After Halo:

http://www.gamespot.com/pc/action/medalofhonoralliedassault/index.html

You think Metroid Prime looked better than Halo?

The_Duke_Lives

Yes, especially in terms of the overall environmental design and effects of the environments in the game world.

Even the subtle effects like the rain on your visor and the water effects when you rolled through the pools of water as a morph ball on Tallon Overworld and how it caused ripples were more impressive then what Halo had.

Halo may have been on a much more powerful system.....but Metroid Prime had a lot more effects and things going on in its gameworld....from the Space Station at the beginning, to Tallon Overworld, to the Magmoor Caverns, to Phedrana Drifts....that were more impressive than that of Halo. 

Hmm that's strange, I could've sworn i played Allied Assault in 2001. Oh well, close enough I guess.

I didn't think Metroid Prime came even close to doing what Halo was doing, not in effects or otherwise. Halo was doing things like bump-mapping and certain lighting effects that Metroid Prime could never have done. All in much larger environments with sometimes up to 30 people on screen. To this day there is not a game on the other competing consoles that is as technically impressive as the Xbox launch games. To me, this showed a big jump in technology over the competing platforms with a year's difference, unlike what I am seeing in this generation with 360/PS3 comparisons.

not much changed between those screens, but look how terrible it looks now!!

and yes, i am aware that it is a "beta" which apparently, is now a perfect excuse for crap graphics

sidler88

The second is a gameplay shot from the alpha build of the game's multiplayer portion.

I didn't think Metroid Prime came even close to doing what Halo was doing, not in effects or otherwise. Halo was doing things like bump-mapping and certain lighting effects that Metroid Prime could never have done. All in much larger environments with sometimes up to 30 people on screen. To this day there is not a game on the other competing consoles that is as technically impressive as the Xbox launch games. To me, this showed a big jump in technology over the competing platforms with a year's difference, unlike what I am seeing in this generation with 360/PS3 comparisons.

The_Duke_Lives

I still believe Metroid Prime was a better looking game and visually more impressive overall and Metroid Prime's gameworld and environments was definitely more immersive.

Maybe cause I've come to judge a game on aesthetic qualities rather then just purely technical effects. To me the rain on the visor in Metroid Prime is a more immersive visual effect then the bumpmapping in Halo or other games, which I hardly even paid any mind to even though people acted like it was this huge deal, not just in 2001 but also for a couple of years after.

I also believe the 2001 PS2 game Ico was better looking games then Halo (or even Halo 2 for that matter) or a majority of Xbox's other games at the time....but like I said, that's mainly cause I judge games more on overall aesthetic presentation then technical features. To me good looking means visually pleasing....not how many technical features can you list on a peice paper for a game or how shiney can you make a surface.

Especially since if I want technical features, the PC is pretty much always top in that area anyway. Doom III was the most technically advanced game at its release, and I didn't find visually impressive, not nearly as much as games like HL2 or Far Cry or even games on lower end console hardware like RE4.

Bungie has stated that the graphics are still rough and they are going to be polished up significantly before the game releases.  In order to get the best possible gameplay experience, they are using placeholder graphics for a lot of things so that they can fine tune the gameplay while development on the graphics continues.  That's why a lot of stuff looks like Halo 2, but rest assured, things will start to look much better closer to release.ArchieGates

thats what i was going to say.

The leaked video on gamevideos looks way way better than that crappy YouTube video, it looks marginally better than Halo2 if you do the comparisons, but don't expect GeoW graphics when the final product is released.

What we've seen so far has been underwhelming yet I won't make any final comments until I get some hands on time on the beta or final product. What concerns me is that nothing has been shown regarding the Single player campaign, I think Bungie is focusing too much on the multiplayer, hopefully I'm wrong.

Finally what does previous trailers on the previous game have to do with how the sequel will turn out :| So we're now making final judgement on alpha builds of a game? If anything take a look a how Forza 2 is coming along, any coincidence?

This thread has exploded overnight and I only managed to read half of the new posts here. But I have to agree with Robnyc22 developers have been using slight of hand when it comes to pre-release graphics for a long time and I'm sick of it. In-game, in-engine, cutscenes in-game. In-cutscene-engine. Screw that ****.

When a developers claims that those are in-game graphics I expect the game to look like that when I'm playing otherwise it's total BS. I remember feeling quite cheated by Halo 2 when Bungie released unrealistic screenshot after screenshot while hiding most of the game with the excuse that it would spoil this amazing story they had lined up. All we had were pictures of multiplayer maps with the promise that the campaign graphics would be much better. Then literally the first time we were able to actually see the campaign was when the reviews started flooding in and what we got were jaggies, murky textures, pop up and slowdown.

Sure by the time you got to the revised Library level the graphics went up a notch but for the most part all those fake screens they fed us weren't truthful at all. It was deception at best and now here we are in almost the same situation with the game out in the few months.

Like I said I'll be looking forward to this because of the Halo gameplay but I'm not expecting uber graphics this time. Fool me once shame on me, fool me twice...... and that's a lot of shaming going on lol. What was the Bush quote?

Hi guys, I thought I'd bring up a topic that seems to be avoided around these parts, which happens to be the appearance of Halo 3. First off, I'd like to say that I'm a fan of the series and while I'm greatly looking forward to the 3rd and evidently final chapter, I must say that I'm quite underwhelmed. Granted, these are beta screens, but as we all know, they're usually indicative of the final product. It saddens me to think that Bungie of all developers, hasn't delivered on something truly pleasing to the eye, especially since we've seen phenomenal examples from the likes of Rare, Epic, and many others on the platform thus far.

Also, watching the multiplayer videos both officially released and leaked, I have to admit that it seems as though we're going to be treated to a warmed over serving of Halo 2.5 (or something to that effect). I sincerely hope that we're going to see some significant changes in both visuals, gameplay, and hopefully even story elements. I was blown away by the first, dissapointed by the 2nd and to be frank, I'm concernedwith the progress shown with the 3rd (so far).

Maybe Halo 2 killed the anticipation and standards I once held this series to? I don't know, but I want the magic this series had right before the release of the 2nd... Bungie, please don't let us down, because this is the LAST game!

[EDIT: Screens have had to be removed, as they break a NDA]

Ernesto_basic

 Congratulations, genius. You bore witness to BETA's graphics.

[spoiler] Elites and humans joining forces to take on the covenant and flood, oh hell yeah! [/spoiler]

(dvader654

Who didn't see that one coming? I mean was the Arbitor just all the sudden going to start hating on the Humans after they teamed up? I think not.

Graphics are secondary to gameplay. I did not find Halo 1 or Halo 2 to be very impressive in graphics or gameplay. From what I'm hearing Halo 3 will not be anything spectacular, graphics wise. Let's hope they pull together some great gameplay.P-N-X

Like I've said before...we watch movies for graphics. We play games for game play. 

[QUOTE="Ernesto_basic"]

Hi guys, I thought I'd bring up a topic that seems to be avoided around these parts, which happens to be the appearance of Halo 3. First off, I'd like to say that I'm a fan of the series and while I'm greatly looking forward to the 3rd and evidently final chapter, I must say that I'm quite underwhelmed. Granted, these are beta screens, but as we all know, they're usually indicative of the final product. It saddens me to think that Bungie of all developers, hasn't delivered on something truly pleasing to the eye, especially since we've seen phenomenal examples from the likes of Rare, Epic, and many others on the platform thus far.

Also, watching the multiplayer videos both officially released and leaked, I have to admit that it seems as though we're going to be treated to a warmed over serving of Halo 2.5 (or something to that effect). I sincerely hope that we're going to see some significant changes in both visuals,gameplay, and hopefully even story elements. I was blown away by the first, dissapointed by the 2nd and to be frank, I'm concernedwith the progress shown with the 3rd (so far).

Maybe Halo 2 killed the anticipation and standards I once held this series to? I don't know, but I want the magic this series had right before the release of the 2nd... Bungie, please don't let us down, because this is the LAST game!

[EDIT: Screens have had to be removed, as they break a NDA]

Skullheart

Congratulations, genius. You bore witness to BETA's graphics.

Congratulations, you managed to miss the part where I openly acknowledge that they are early, but likely indicative of the final product.

Like I've said before...we watch movies for graphics. We play games for game play. Skullheart

[QUOTE="Skullheart"]Like I've said before...we watch movies for graphics. We play games for game play. P-N-X

Like what? I'd like you to list at least 10, since they're apparently so numerous. The fact of the matter is, the games with the best graphics typically also have some of the greatest gameplay mechanics to match, because it's usually a reflection of a developer taking ALL aspects very seriously. Sure, games with average/acceptable graphics can have great gameplay, but when we're talking maquee titles, why in the hell can't we DEMAND both? We're the consumers that pay our hard-earned money, so there isn't anything wrong for us to have high expectations (they'll sell us garbage if we don't!). 

Congratulations, you managed to miss the part where I openly acknowledge that they are early, but likely indicative of the final product.

Ernesto_basic

[QUOTE="Ernesto_basic"]

Congratulations, you managed to miss the part where I openly acknowledge that they are early, but likely indicative of the final product.

The_Duke_Lives

I'm sorry, but are you new to the game industry? Have you not been paying attention for the duration of time that we've had Internet forums? If so, it basically works this way:

Video Game Media(pics, vids)/Hype Life Cycle :)

1. Company XYZ posts mock-ups of "in-engine" shots that are an embelishment of the final game's appearance... many are wowed and many are skeptical (with experience).

2. Months (sometimes years) of development goes by and we get "downgrades"... many protest that they look the same, some make excuses (read: bad capture, grainy screens, beta development hardware... etc....). Again, many others are skeptical (with experience).

3. The SDLC (System Development Life Cycle) is close to the deployment phase and screenshots, video, and other media indicate what the graphics will VERY LIKELY be like in the final product. How do we know this???..... that's right, from past experience! Some excuses you see here are "oooohhh, they have X months to polish it up" or "those are just placeholder"... many individuals find it necessary to also lie about "insider" information too.

4. Game is released and the graphics don't match the initial target "mock-ups" and die-hard fans swear to God that it looks like them on an HDTV... which most of us have and know very well they're fibbing (with.... ::: gasp ::: EXPERIENCE!!!!!).

, but likely indicative of the final product. Ernesto_basic

Which is pure conjecture. What are you basing that claim off of? Do you have extensive experience in game development? No offense, but when you make a thread like this, you're just asking for a few well-deserved flames Ernesto.

[QUOTE="The_Duke_Lives"][QUOTE="Ernesto_basic"]

Congratulations, you managed to miss the part where I openly acknowledge that they are early, but likely indicative of the final product.

Ernesto_basic

I don't see why its "likely" indicative of the final product.

I'm sorry, but are you new to the game industry? Have you not been paying attention for the duration of time that we've had Internet forums? If so, it basically works this way:

Why do you feel the need to talk down to him? Unless you work in Bungie's development studio, you don't know what you're talking about.

[QUOTE="Ernesto_basic"], but likely indicative of the final product. MarcusAntonius

Which is pure conjecture. What are you basing that claim off of? Do you have extensive experience in game development? No offense, but when you make a thread like this, you're just asking for a few well-deserved flames Ernesto.

Well, I think we can point to the past (you know, the past experiences we've had with games and their evolution of pictures?). There is a considerable amount of past experience to support my claims.

As for game development, I can proudly say that I have some, but not much experience (I have a BS in Computer Science and an MS in Informations Systems Security... currently working on my PhD in Information Technology at UTSA... so yeah, I know a little bit about an SDLC). Does this mean I have "bungie" experience? No (no, just C# game programming classes... and a failed attempt to write a game programming book for beginners), but as we've all seen, these companies pull these moves all the time.

[QUOTE="Ernesto_basic"][QUOTE="The_Duke_Lives"][QUOTE="Ernesto_basic"]

Congratulations, you managed to miss the part where I openly acknowledge that they are early, but likely indicative of the final product.

MarcusAntonius

I don't see why its "likely" indicative of the final product.

I'm sorry, but are you new to the game industry? Have you not been paying attention for the duration of time that we've had Internet forums? If so, it basically works this way:

Why do you feel the need to talk down to him? Unless you work in Bungie's development studio, you don't know what you're talking about.

Yeah, sorry... I disagree with that. You see, you only need a pair of eyes and enough wit to see that this card has been pulled numerous times. If denial is their cup o' tea, then so be it. 

Yeah, sorry... I disagree with that. You see, you only need a pair of eyes and enough wit to see that this card has been pulled numerous times. If denial is their cup o' tea, then so be it. Ernesto_basic

Giving insight is one thing.  Doing so while talking down to someone else is a different matter. 

[QUOTE="Ernesto_basic"]Yeah, sorry... I disagree with that. You see, you only need a pair of eyes and enough wit to see that this card has been pulled numerous times. If denial is their cup o' tea, then so be it. Skylock00

Giving insight is one thing. Doing so while talking down to someone else is a different matter.

Ok, if that offended anyone, then I'm sorry. I think I have a logically sound argument here and I just think it's a little inane to completely write it off. 

With that said, I apologize if anyone is/was offended by my tone. 

Update: Apparently, there have been some new shots released by Bungie today! They look great, but I'll be honest and say that I'm still a bit on the skeptical side of things. I don't see a HUD and they're a little desolate... I've seen stuff like this before. However, if this is indeed how the multiplayer portion looks, then I look forward to the single player portion as well.

[QUOTE="MarcusAntonius"]

[QUOTE="Ernesto_basic"], but likely indicative of the final product. Ernesto_basic

Which is pure conjecture. What are you basing that claim off of? Do you have extensive experience in game development? No offense, but when you make a thread like this, you're just asking for a few well-deserved flames Ernesto.

Well, I think we can point to the past (you know, the past experiences we've had with games and their evolution of pictures?). There is a considerable amount of past experience to support my claims.

As for game development, I can proudly say that I have some, but not much experience (I have a BS in Computer Science and an MS in Informations Systems Security... currently working on my PhD in Information Technology at UTSA... so yeah, I know a little bit about an SDLC). Does this mean I have "bungie" experience? No (no, just C# game programming classes... and a failed attempt to write a game programming book for beginners), but as we've all seen, these companies pull these moves all the time.

So you're more of an academic at this point? Just because you've studied the how to doesn't mean you've picked up the practical experience of game development.

[QUOTE="Skylock00"]

[QUOTE="Ernesto_basic"]Yeah, sorry... I disagree with that. You see, you only need a pair of eyes and enough wit to see that this card has been pulled numerous times. If denial is their cup o' tea, then so be it. Ernesto_basic

Giving insight is one thing. Doing so while talking down to someone else is a different matter.

I think I have a logically sound argument here and I just think it's a little inane to completely write it off. 

We're not entirely writing it off. But your statements are conjecture as you don't know the internal workings of Bungie's development procedures or their company's approach. You come off as talking out of school, regardless of your course of study. Who's to say that they're not focusing on game mechanics first, and then going back and putting in the grphical updates?

[QUOTE="Ernesto_basic"][QUOTE="Skylock00"]

[QUOTE="Ernesto_basic"]Yeah, sorry... I disagree with that. You see, you only need a pair of eyes and enough wit to see that this card has been pulled numerous times. If denial is their cup o' tea, then so be it. MarcusAntonius

Giving insight is one thing. Doing so while talking down to someone else is a different matter.

I think I have a logically sound argument here and I just think it's a little inane to completely write it off.

We're not entirely writing it off. But your statements are conjecture as you don't know the internal workings of Bungie's development procedures or their company's approach. You come off as talking out of school, regardless of your course of study. Who's to say that they're not focusing on game mechanics first, and then going back and putting in the grphical updates?

Yeah, but this is just common sense time here.

As I've said in my previous posts, we all know from past experience how these things play out. Let's assume that this game is near completion (since the beta is coming soon) and they have maybe 6 months left to focus on graphics.... well, because a system's development life cycle has phases (one of them being the testing, certification, and accredidation phase), it would be pretty hard to make radical changes and meet a deadline. If you want real-world examples, then look at progression of Gears of War, which by the way, looked just about the same at it's early development phases as it does now, in retail... Also, look at Halo 2's development over the years, where you had what started out as something that was truly too ambitous and dwindled into what many of us refer to as a "letdown". 

So, while it isn't fact, it is HIGHLY likely (from past experience) that we can predict the outcome here. 

Yeah, I'm not really impressed with how they've handled Halo 3:

The CGI commercial was at best a lame move, and a deceptive one at worst.

The early sneak peeks of the game right when Gears came out was baffling, as all it did was make Halo 3 look awful by comparison.

They got people to buy Crackdown by allowing them into the Halo Beta, but conveniently left out that it was only for a couple weeks.

EDIT: And let's not forget the $129 "Special Ed"ition.

And now the game looks like a gussied-up Halo 2.

Yeah, not off to a very smooth start with me. At all. I'm sure it'll play awesome and sell twice as nice, but I'm not impressed by how it's been handled or what I've seen.

Shame-usBlackley

That's the best summary of this botch-job I've seen so far.  That would make for a great thread, nothing but irrefutable   of video gaming botched launches.  Granted, it cannot be easy for any company to do anything relating to publicizing a game in this industry, where everything is dissected frame-by-frame, but there have been some pretty egregious errors relating to H3 so far. 

Yeah, but this is just common sense time here.

Ernesto_basic

There's no room for your "common sense" in these here internets. 

[QUOTE=";capthavic";]What part of the game is not done yet do you not understand? Is it so much to ask that you wait for the final product come out before you bash a game? It still has months to go and Bungie has said that not everything is in place yet so just wait.

So it's not done, who cares? BioShock is not done, Crysis is not done, Alan Wake is not done, Mass Effect is not done - yet they all looked fantastic since they were first revealed.

Look I'm just saying that games are subject to change so you shouldn't judge a game before its done. There are plenty of games that look different than they did while in production. And when they show PC games like Crysis they are using top of the line PC's with all the settings cranked way up. Bungie has said that not everything is in place while they tune the gameplay and the game will look like the trailer they showed at E3. If you really are a fan then just give them the benefit of the doubt and let Bungie do their jobs.

Look I'm just saying that games are subject to change so you shouldn't judge a game before its done. There are plenty of games that look different than they did while in production. And when they show PC games like Crysis they are using top of the line PC's with all the settings cranked way up. Bungie has said that not everything is in place while they tune the gameplay and the game will look like the trailer they showed at E3. If you really are a fan then just give them the benefit of the doubt and let Bungie do their jobs.capthavic

If Crysis ends up looking as good (or better) as it looked when they first showed it, then the kind of hardware it was shown on is irrelevant. I just don't understand why should Bungie be excused. I rarely hear people say "it's not done yet", "those are alpha/beta screens", but somehow Bungie deserves the benefit of doubt. The bottom line is this - your game should look amazing the day you put it out there, otherwise don't even bother.

Of course, we have to factor in Microsoft's tendency to get games out there regardless of how they look/play in order to get feedback, but it doesn't mean we have to do the damage control for them.

If Crysis ends up looking as good (or better) as it looked when they first showed it, then the kind of hardware it was shown on is irrelevant. I just don't understand why should Bungie be excused. I rarely hear people say "it's not done yet", "those are alpha/beta screens", but somehow Bungie deserves the benefit of doubt. The bottom line is this - your game should look amazing the day you put it out there, otherwise don't even bother.

Of course, we have to factor in Microsoft's tendency to get games out there regardless of how they look/play in order to get feedback, but it doesn't mean we have to do the damage control for them.

UpInFlames

Well, said, and I fully agree.

You're right....I don't understand why Bungie should be excused when many people certainly don't give the same benefit to other developers, even those developers who managed to get their final games to look as good or better then the original target they presented.

I also agree.....don't present your game unless you're at the point that the final product during play can look as good or better then what is being presented.

Also, as you pointed out with Crysis.....the kind of hardware it was originally shown on is irrelevant. Especially since by the time its released late this year, mid-range PC hardware will be more powerful and more capable then the hardware they were originally showing it on two years or even a year ago.

But that doesn't matter....since the point is as long as Crysis looks as good or even better then what was originally shown, Crytek would have actually delivered on their promise.

Which is more then I can say for a lot of other developers who make grand promises on what their game will deliver, show off the grand videos and fancy screenshots, and go on about how awesome their game will be.....only to disappoint down the line when the game is finally released.....Halo 2 and Fable (aka "the greatest RPG of all time") being two big examples from last gen.....and with this new generation companies have become more sneaky in their attemp to get attention and hype with developers using faux videos claiming to be "in-game" when it certainly isnt the case, first the E3 2005 Killzone PS3 video then the April 2005 "next-gen" Madden commercial (aka Madden NFL 06 for Xbox 360) claiming to be something it certainly didn't live up to.....and quite possibly Halo 3 unless the final product looks as good and detailed as this during actual play and has environments as big as this during actual gameplay.

Developers shouldn't bother showing a target video off and claim its "in-game" unless they can actually meet that original target, or actually surpass it, when the game is released.

You guys do understand that the final game is going to look a lot better right....?GodModeEnabled

So heres a question:

If the game doesn't look as good as the first original presentation now, or at least didn't look like that in Beta not too long ago....then what was Bungie showing us way back when almost two years ago in May 2005 that was claimed to be "in-game"?

Like I said...show a game off as how it actually looks at the moment.....otherwise don't bother showing it off until it reaches a point that the game actually looks like the way you intend to present it.

I don't want to see what you hope your game will eventually look like someday when you first present it as something that is "in-game"......I want to see what your game does look like at the moment and see that improve over time.

[QUOTE="GodModeEnabled"]You guys do understand that the final game is going to look a lot better right....?Robnyc22

So heres a question:

If the game doesn't look as good as the first original presentation now, or at least didn't look like that in Beta not too long ago....then what was Bungie showing us way back when almost two years ago in May 2005 that was claimed to be "in-game"?

Like I said...show a game off as how it actually looks at the moment.....otherwise don't bother showing it off until it reaches a point that the game actually looks like the way you intend to present it.

I don't want to see what you hope your game will look like......I want to see what your game does look like and have that improve over time. 

[QUOTE="Robnyc22"]

[QUOTE="GodModeEnabled"]You guys do understand that the final game is going to look a lot better right....?GodModeEnabled

So heres a question:

If the game doesn't look as good as the first original presentation now, or at least didn't look like that in Beta not too long ago....then what was Bungie showing us way back when almost two years ago in May 2005 that was claimed to be "in-game"?

Like I said...show a game off as how it actually looks at the moment.....otherwise don't bother showing it off until it reaches a point that the game actually looks like the way you intend to present it.

I don't want to see what you hope your game will look like......I want to see what your game does look like and have that improve over time. 

Finally! Someone understands!

Yeah,I think it looks not really impressive,but each Video I see it looks a bit better.Forza 2 looked pretty cheap a while ago,but it improved pretty much from what I´ve seen,so I hope Bungie does the same...

...but after all they could improve the gameplay and (almost most important) the replay value!That the game plays good and runs smooth is more important for me.Let´s hope the best...

Has everyone seen the new screenshots?gaminggeek

Oh, come on, does anyonw really believe that this is not going to look good enough? If it ends up looking worse than Halo 2 PC, I don't think MS will let it out the door. I'm speaking generally, I know there's some tricks in Direct X 10 that the 360 can't do.nopalversion

360 can't hold candle to a good PC in graphics. Halo 2 doesn't look that good on PC either, they didn't take advantage of the extra power of the PC, just ported it over with a few graphical touches.  

Has everyone seen the new screenshots?gaminggeek

Those already look much better than the first ones we saw.  You can easily tell that they are improving the quality of the textures.

[QUOTE="gaminggeek"]Has everyone seen the new screenshots?ArchieGates

Those already look much better than the first ones we saw. You can easily tell that they are improving the quality of the textures.

Much better? That is crap for a next gen game, textures are bland and lack detail. Then again, I am used to PC graphics which are better anyway.