-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Halo |OT| HaloGAF Evolved
- Thread starter GhaleonEB
- Start date
- Status
Excuse me while I have a nightmare.
Shake Appeal
Member
I prefer wider FOV for a number of reasons, but whatever. Like so many other things, it's a design decision that has to be integrated with a host of other design decisions, and changing it in isolation would have unintended consequences.
Tha Robbertster
Member
Has this already been posted? http://halo.xbox.com/en-us/Universe...o-part-1/7c85a916-e1d0-4c8c-9cdd-7a3a8940baaf
(Video about the Halo structure and it's purposes by 343)
(Video about the Halo structure and it's purposes by 343)
The Henery
Member
Definitely don't want for donging. I've said it before: gut the standard Halo campaign and create something totally new and alien and weird but be careful with the multi. I think I'd find something like that visor outline distracting and constricting in multi.
No Gabo dongblain medal?
Also, that enemy at the end of the concept art trailer looks massive. Imagine something like a Resident Evil 3: Nemesis scenario where you're persued relentlessly and are startled each playthrough by being assailed at different moments in the game.
Edit: The new track is beautiful and enigmatic. Different from what we've come to expect from Halo soundtracks but no worse for it. Very excited to hear more.
Hypertrooper
Member
You need a FASA member to destroy Bloom. This is a neutral law of science.
The Librarian
Banned
It was three more sleeps. Now it's two. 
Zeouterlimits
Member
Someone was defending the lower FOV? Yeesh.
One of the biggest improvements in ODST was increasing the FOV.
Apart from the obvious benefits, it goes a long way to helping those who get motion sick in video games.
One of the biggest improvements in ODST was increasing the FOV.
Apart from the obvious benefits, it goes a long way to helping those who get motion sick in video games.
bobs...onGaf
Member
Holy damn I missed the fun on the gaming side thread, that looked hilarious. That post where he talks about pokemon needs to go down in history as the worst attempt to say Halo is being milked. I get the feeling that guy has never even played Halo lol. Hopefully a few more of those guys pop up to make the wait till Monday more entertaining. I hope they all get banned by Monday though because that kind of spam would suck when everyone just wants to talk about the new stuff.
As for the FOV stuff, I did skimread the last few pages of this thread, but I just couldn't find a post that justified a lower FOV. Just to step away from the balance arguments, on a technical level it seems like a narrower FOV is better for visual effects? I wish they would tone down the visual flair, personally I care more about the gameplay, I only really care about half decent graphics. Sadly I have noticed that (on Gaf especially) a large number of gamers seem to measure the quality of a game by its visual effects and graphics and seem to ignore gameplay. That said Reach had some damn good visual effects going on and managed to get a good FOV going so its certainly not impossible to have both.
A good framerate and decent FOV seem more important to me than graphics. Unfortunately the press, critics and randomers (like that dude on the gaming side thread) some of whom complain without probably even playing Halo will disagree, and I get the feeling those guys have to be pandered to just to shut them up.
Halo 3's framerate and POV probably put a lot of people off the game, it just felt weird, especially after playing something like CoD. As someone who loved Halo 3, I played it enough to adjust to it, but switching between CoD and Halo sure felt jarring. I dont see the average gamer going through the effort to adjust. That was more framerate than FOV though.
After that semi rant, im probably totally wrong to blame visual effects, it seems equally likely that the smaller FOV is there to account for more game objects having physics, I can live with that compromise! I think it leads to more interesting gameplay.
As for the FOV stuff, I did skimread the last few pages of this thread, but I just couldn't find a post that justified a lower FOV. Just to step away from the balance arguments, on a technical level it seems like a narrower FOV is better for visual effects? I wish they would tone down the visual flair, personally I care more about the gameplay, I only really care about half decent graphics. Sadly I have noticed that (on Gaf especially) a large number of gamers seem to measure the quality of a game by its visual effects and graphics and seem to ignore gameplay. That said Reach had some damn good visual effects going on and managed to get a good FOV going so its certainly not impossible to have both.
A good framerate and decent FOV seem more important to me than graphics. Unfortunately the press, critics and randomers (like that dude on the gaming side thread) some of whom complain without probably even playing Halo will disagree, and I get the feeling those guys have to be pandered to just to shut them up.
Halo 3's framerate and POV probably put a lot of people off the game, it just felt weird, especially after playing something like CoD. As someone who loved Halo 3, I played it enough to adjust to it, but switching between CoD and Halo sure felt jarring. I dont see the average gamer going through the effort to adjust. That was more framerate than FOV though.
After that semi rant, im probably totally wrong to blame visual effects, it seems equally likely that the smaller FOV is there to account for more game objects having physics, I can live with that compromise! I think it leads to more interesting gameplay.
Some people will defend anything on GAF. Halo Reach framerate running in the teens when zoomed in on many maps? Some people have said they don't notice it and that complainers are being picky. Reach's framerate is smooth as butter according to them. The worst ones are the people that notice it and say that it doesn't matter. Oh, and don't get me started on the people that defend matchmaking because game browsers are too difficult to comprehend and/or use.
PewPewPewBow
Member
Back on the screens; All frames in a row:
Yeah... lets just wait till Monday.
I'm sticking with the monitor-like thing though.
Yeah... lets just wait till Monday.
I'm sticking with the monitor-like thing though.
Hypertrooper
Member
lol. I love that people try to see something on this small screen. Especially when the real reveal of Halo 4 will happen in two days. We survived months without information. Two days are nothing!Back on the screens; All frames in a row:
Yeah... lets just wait till Monday.
I'm sticking with the monitor-like thing though.
Having a larger FOV is great, but it also decreases performance. The more shit that's on screen at once the less likely you're going to get your holy grail of 60 fps.
I personally enjoy playing at around 85-90 (I even played Rage at 100 and that was a fun exception), but I don't think I've ever played a 360 game that has been able to pull that off.
I personally enjoy playing at around 85-90 (I even played Rage at 100 and that was a fun exception), but I don't think I've ever played a 360 game that has been able to pull that off.
Senior software developer.
Zeouterlimits
Member
I feel sure that whatever FOV we get, Halo 4 will be 30FPS.
Tha Robbertster
Member
You know what would be really hilarious> if the screen was actually just Halo Reach :lol
That would be a minuscule chance though
Gabotron ES
Member
Duncan, I'm dissapointed.
I should also create a smaller PNG file for when people post their matches stats.
ElzarTheBam
Member
Yeah, the chances of it being 60FPS is low. I wonder if they would ever consider going the bioshock route and allowing for both via unlock framerate option, of course this impacts visuals when you enable it.
You know what would be hilarious? You shutting your dirty whore mouth!
Indeed. While i see the benefits of 60FPS, i'd rather take overall better looking game at 30FPS. Assuming they can keep that stable... fucking Reach. Fucking Anniversary. (Fucking Halo 3 for that matter, though Halo 3 isn't as bad as the latter two.)
And... I wonder what public and critical reaction would be if Halo 4 would have downgraded graphical quality but 60FPS. 60FPS would require the game to be worse looking (not taking account smoothness) than Reach, no?
Hypertrooper
Member
First Spring Showcase leak and it isn't Halo 4. sigh.
Gabotron ES
Member
Tha Robbertster
Member
Hypertrooper
Member
No? Forza: Horizon.
ElzarTheBam
Member
Let them leak, let Monday be about Halo 4 and Halo 4 only I say. : )
ElRenoRaven
Member
Fixed that for you. And on the subject of FOV. 90 or bust.
There's really no chance at it being 60fps. It was just my point.
I believe that Frankie said on here that they're really going to push the limits of textures and lighting with their new engine. Lighting is the thing that every game on the market (even crysis 2, TW2, etc) is pretty terrible at from a technical standpoint. As that improves the graphical quality of everything you see improves. And if they find some way to magically load up higher res textures with the 360's miniscule amount of RAM that would be great as well. They would both come at pretty large costs.
ElzarTheBam
Member
Halo 3 had/has spectacular lighting IMO.
Well, the track record being what it is, i doubt they'd manage to keep 60FPS stable, to keep it from dropping to teens...
I'm expecting the game to be a mess technically, with horrible sub-sub-HD graphics, Minecraft-level textures etc. This way at least something is going to leave a positive impression...
I'd rather drop from 60 FPS than 30.
You want 24 fps, SD resolution and 50 FOV?
Nobody is saying it's a possibility, but it's not bad to want things.
Hydranockz
Member
HigherLevel
Member
I forgot who it was here who made that Sanctuary remake Refuge, but after playing customs on it last night then hopping into MM and playing Asylum you realize how bad Asylum really is. Replace Asylum with Refuge in MM.
Sure, as long as it is under 10 frames. I can play Oblivion on this laptop with the frame rate fluctuating beetween 60 and 40 (usually) and it is horrible experience. Feels as bad as 30 to 20 drops. Of course the game is playable still, unlike a game that drops under 20 but it feels bad still.
Can't explain how it feels bad... it just does.
This is one reason i'd rather have Halo 4 for the next gen Xbox than 360, we could have that 60 frames per second and have at least as good looking game as Reach. Easily.
Funnily, The Reclaimer Trilogy will have two games on the next gen console and the OT had 2 games on the original Xbox, both trilogies having only one game on 360...
The Real Napsta
Member
Anyone want to play Halo 2 on XBC today?
I'm gonna host my LAN on XBC later.
Username: Falc0
password to the room will be: "halogaf"
We'll be playing BR starts.
I'll post here when the room is up.
I'm gonna host my LAN on XBC later.
Username: Falc0
password to the room will be: "halogaf"
We'll be playing BR starts.
I'll post here when the room is up.
Why did I have to move to being wireless..
This.
The Real Napsta
Member
Xbox can be wireless as long as the PC is wired.
Brolic Gaoler
formerly Alienshogun
TBH the only thing about that, that appeals to me would be the all DD games.
Gabotron ES
Member
Over made it and yes, it's much better than Asylum.
If popular enough (Its Valve, it will be) it also provides developers a base line for PC gaming which should help them optimize their games which has been a problem for PC gaming also we will probably see less yearly releases of hardware in favor of doing new hardware every 2 to 3 years with a new Steambox release.
I am fine with that but I wouldn't get it until v.2 because I just built my gaming PC.
bobs...onGaf
Member
It would be a difficult balancing act for Valve though, would they make games like Half Life/ Portal/ Left 4 Dead/ Team Fortress Steam-box exclusive? OR would they also be for sale on PC (where potentially they will be opened up to a wider audience). If they are also on sale for PC would the Steambox itself sell?
Does the Steam model really work for console? PC gamers on the whole are generally more mature, with consoles though it seems like the average age is a lot lower, would parents be happy to put credit card details into a console just for virtual products? The steam box could work but Valve would probably be a different company by the end of it, at the very least it would kill off some of the creative culture, they would probably be more under pressure to get first party exclusives out of the door.
Brolic Gaoler
formerly Alienshogun
Yeah that is what would worry me. And I would agree, I don't think most console gamers are ready for DD only service (even if I wholeheartedly am!)
On topic: Spring break just started for me, so I'll be off and on Halo/Gears this week, so if anyone wants to play, hit me up.
I've also got some research to get done too, bleh.
Easy - this is what I wrote in the Halo 4 thread:
The fact that there hasn't been any leaks... means the Halo 4 info isn't impressive enough for some minor game journalist to risk his reputation for short term popularity and website / twitter traffic.
Halo 4 disappointing confirmed.
- Status
Similar threads
- x2