Support NeoGAF

[Why For?]

I do not disagree that Halo is one of the more standard looking shooters going back to Halo 3. I don't think that their design resources are somehow being wasted though. Look at the tech and the greatness of the multiplayer maps and you'll see why most still consider it the benchmark. Uncharted 2 is the only game since Halo 3 to implement the game save tech, and even then it's not close to having the same implementation. Graphics aren't the reason I play Halo.

I doubt graphics were EVER the reason to play Halo.

Amazing gameplay, and multiplayer perfection are.

 

[Frenck]

Man I wish a was a multiplayer guy too :-(

It's 90% terror, lag and stupid name calling but also 10% genuine fun for me.

 

[squidhands]

Make a series of oonsk paintings. I'd love to look at the gallery.

Do it, and I'll start the petition to have them featured in the Denver International Airport.

 

[NullPointer]

Man I wish a was a multiplayer guy too :-(

It's 90% terror, lag and stupid name calling but also 10% genuine fun for me.

"Mute All" actually cancels out at least 50% of the un-fun. Serious.

 

[proposition]

To my eyes, it looks like a marginal upgrade over Halo 3 at best.

Honestly? The console's lead IP should look better than that.

 

[Oozer3993]

Just painted a giant oil pastel canvas of OONSK chasing Mister Chief. It's horrific. It's like your soul crawled out of your butt and punched you in the face.

Limited Collector's Edition Steelbook box art. I'd buy 2.

P.S. I'm gonna hop on Live, with my heart on my sleeve.

 

[Nutter]

To my eyes, it looks like a marginal upgrade over Halo 3 at best.

Honestly? The console's lead IP should look better than that.

Yes.

 

[Frenck]

To my eyes, it looks like a marginal upgrade over Halo 3 at best.

Honestly? The console's lead IP should look better than that.

Aside from Alan Wake and some multi platform games there aren't that many 360 games that look as good as those screens.

 

[bobs...onGaf]

To my eyes, it looks like a marginal upgrade over Halo 3 at best.

Honestly? The console's lead IP should look better than that.

I find it sad that games are judged so much on graphics rather than gameplay

 

[Why For?]

To my eyes, it looks like a marginal upgrade over Halo 3 at best.

Honestly? The console's lead IP should look better than that.

So as I mentioned earlier in the thread.

You just want a whole bunch of post processing filters and blur all over Halo so it can look more like Killzone or some other game that ISN'T Halo?

Cool.

 

[Not a Jellyfish]

To my eyes, it looks like a marginal upgrade over Halo 3 at best.

Honestly? The console's lead IP should look better than that.

When we get more expansive screens or hopefully video, it will all come full circle for you.

How big the environments will be and getting to see the new lighting and effects in motion are going to make a world of difference.

 

[Kibbles]

Just painted a giant oil pastel canvas of OONSK chasing Mister Chief. It's horrific. It's like your soul crawled out of your butt and punched you in the face.

This is the internets. No pics, no pruf.

 

[strikeselect]

From the info that's been released so far, I really feel like Bungie is going in the right direction with this title.

Graphics are an upgrade over Halo 3 which is exactly what I expected after seeing the first trailer. No surprise there. I think it's the ones who were hyping themselves up too much that are disappointed.

 

[AllIsOneIsNone]

I find it sad that games are judged so much on graphics rather than gameplay

Nobody is judging the entire game on graphics at this point, we are judging pictures of the game. Oh my god, look at that pic! The sound effects are really dumpy...doesn't work, does it?

Would it be nice if Halo's graphics matched its gameplay? Yes. Is it going to happen? Highly doubtful. Is it better than the other way around? Of course, cough cough killzone 2, cough...sneeze

 

[GhaleonEB]

It looks like a Halo game from Bungie. There's some stuff we can tell is improved from Halo 3 (models), some stuff we can tell is not (yet?) improved (ground textures), and lots of stuff we can't tell if there's been improvement but are expecting there to be (lighting, animation, scale, AA).

Not much else I can say at this point from the screens.

 

[proposition]

So as I mentioned earlier in the thread.

You just want a whole bunch of post processing filters and blur all over Halo so it can look more like Killzone or some other game that ISN'T Halo?

Cool.

Right, yes, this is a perfectly reasonable dichotomy. I either think Reach looks good or I want a lot of post-processing and blur on the screen.

Why doesn't this forum have a rolling eyes smiley? I don't think I've ever had more need for one in my time on the internet.

I find it sad that games are judged so much on graphics rather than gameplay

Perhaps when we know something about the gameplay I'll comment about that?

Until that, I'll keep talking about the graphics, thanks.

 

[NullPointer]

I find it sad that games are judged so much on graphics rather than gameplay

You know its actually possible to have both? I know it seems like an unattainable dream, but its true. It happens a lot actually.

We already know Halo gameplay pretty well by now - upgraded graphics at this point would be interesting and new.

 

[Major Williams]

I find it sad that games are judged so much on graphics rather than gameplay

There's the major 3 there Bob:
- Story
- Gameplay
- Graphics

It is a benchmark because that is what defines a portion of the experience. Screens are what we have now. Those help us judge: quality of the setting (story), how gameplay CAN look, and ultimately GRAPHICS. That's why we have them. It's a function of its form.

People have already criticized gameplay - look back and read back in the 80s/90s of this thread. Talk about armor, weapons, multiplayer, etc.

Now we're talking about graphics.

 

[Roche]

Honestly as long as the gameplay is solid I'm sold on the game, I mean the visuals are nice and all but I discovered graphics are not a make or break factor in a game for me at least.
Plus I doubt those pictures are anywhere near the finished version and for a game to look that nice in such an early iteration is pretty awesome.

 

[AwesomeSyrup]

I don't know a lot about the technical aspect of games, but is the 360 even capable of Uncharted 2 like graphics with everything else going on in the Halo games?

 

[ZZMitch]

Until that, I'll keep talking about the graphics, thanks.

 

[NullPointer]

I don't know a lot about the technical aspect of games, but is the 360 even capable of Uncharted 2 like graphics with everything else going on in the Halo games?

I don't know if the 360 is capable of those graphics even without all the Halo plumbing going on.

PS3 exclusive graphical showpieces leave everything on the 360 in the dust imo. I don't know exactly why that is though.

 

[EazyB]

Yeah but Halo always has really linear and short campaigns. Why should Assassin's Creed 2 have an enormous environment that looks substantially better than anything out of Halo 3 or Reach? Bungie has Microsoft paying the bills and a studio so large that they had to buy an abandoned movie theater complex to hold all their employees. Why are their games so behind the curve? Why do people not expect the latest and greatest from Reach? If Reach is yet another 5 hour long campaign that funnels you down hallways and tight outdoor environments from beginning to end then it should not have plastic tires on vehicles and static structures. Excusing ugliness by claiming it's a design philosophy makes no sense.

I never thought any of the environments in Halo 3 looked poor as a result of the engine. Most of the bad looking stuff was just shitty art direction (pretty sure the same guy who came up with rusty human environment designed the skirmishers). Now maybe I'm just looking at this the wrong way, as I was rarely ever impressed with Assassin's Creed 2's graphics (and almost everything else about the game), but Halo 3 pushed incredibly huge encounters that I have seen in any other console game. I'm thinking of levels like The Covenant where there are tons of AI, vehicles, and structures. The things that cheapened those moments where poor AA and the game's LOD system. But IQ and the new "imposter" LOD system are targeting exactly those issues. Not only will these things be cleaned up but there's doubling the amount of AI and vehicles on screen at once, battles which are bigger than any other game I've played will be made twice as large.

The GI article also mentioned that Bungie was focused on large natural environments so the amount of "narrow corridors" you mentioned could be much less of a focus. I personally love Halo's on-foot corridor shooting so either way it's cool with me. I'm sure the engine can still throw in extra light sources and such in the small corridors but it can't be optimized to render small enclosures with incredible detail when it has to scale up to bigger environments.

One thing I've always appreciated about Halo's art (or possibly gameplay design) direction is the "sterile" nature of it. Much like quality competitive shooters of the past, they've always had simple, very deliberate designs. The geometry was always smooth (lol flat) and clean, shit's not just thrown in to make the level look fuller. Maybe Bungie has just thought of it as a concession easily made to make the engine run better, and that given the processing power they'd fill up every inch of the environment with shit to make it look better. In Halo 3 there are obviously instances where they've thrown some shit around and pasted crap on the wall to make it look pretty (blackout and ghost town) but even then the geometry feels more deliberate than most modern shooters. When someone says sterile environments I think UT99, Halo CE/2, Quake 3, TF2, and many other awesome games.

And since no one will have read this far, I'mma just keep going off about the Halo engine. Far Cry 2 looks incredible not because of the textures (they look pretty muddy and get even muddier at a distance) but because of the real-time lighting and the fact that the heavy vegetation that hides the AF and LOD. If there's anything I want done graphically in Reach beyond better IQ is a realtime lighting. I could care less how extravagant their HDR is, or how many light sources a plasma shot produces, I just want realtime. I want to build a wall in forge and have it cast a shadow on the crate I've set beside it. I want to light a darkened room by putting lights along its ceiling. I don't need a million people on screen at once, or games with 20 vehicles rolling around; just lights and shadows. I'm willing to give up 4-player splitscreen (2 player max) if it allows the engine to render it.

 

[RefigeKru]

Character models and new weapons look great.

Everything else doesn't really move me. I expected better, but at the same time - I can't even expect the game to look that good as it currently is.

Fuck it, I'll probably get a proper look in the beta. One thing I'm interested in is the water tech, Halo 3's is still among the best.

 

[Chrange]

So as I mentioned earlier in the thread.

You just want a whole bunch of post processing filters and blur all over Halo so it can look more like Killzone or some other game that ISN'T Halo?

Cool.

Halo needs more corridors and less open spaces. :lol

 

[Striker]

Plus I doubt those pictures are anywhere near the finished version and for a game to look that nice in such an early iteration is pretty awesome.

I don't think its the final product, either. But still.

What bugs me is the potential of disappointment, and I'm sure some will be. Bungie's initial reveals since Halo 2 have been bigger and more appealing in the visuals. Halo 2's city exploration with the Warthog run, Halo 3's Ark, and Halo: Reach's VGA trailer -- all were either changed, what they "hoping" it to look like, or not running with the same tech we'll be using all the time in SP/MP.

So that's nice, hopefully that means Shishka will go back to having more playlists require all maps.

There should be fewer playlsits with required maps, not more.

 

[Shake Appeal]

I'm red-crossing my shit right now on Halo 3. I should play this game more.

 

[dilatedmuscle]

Aside from Alan Wake and some multi platform games there aren't that many 360 games that look as good as those screens.

Not to beat a dead horse or anything...Alan Wake is looking phenominal.. The one that bugs me is Brink, The graphics are really good and its coming from a company whose last games were Fallout 3 and Oblivion, both of those games look worse then Halo 3.

I find it sad that games are judged so much on graphics rather than gameplay

game graphics are judged by the graphics of the game... Nobody here is judging the integrity of Halo Reach from a Gameplay point of view.

Like that dude said, we deserve the triple threat ; Story, Gameplay, Graphics (visuals).

If making the graphics look better then Alan Wake or Brink will hinder some of the epicness of the gameplay or extra features then i dont mind too much. Im still excited.. and im still going to buy the Super Extra Special Collectors Edition With a Life Size Oonsk SHoulder Pad on midnight madness when the game is released.

Wheres that GI update? maybe they gave up because of all the negative feedback and they know they have 8 or 9 more updates based on poor nutrition and bad work environments LOL

 

[AwesomeSyrup]

I don't know if the 360 is capable of those graphics even without all the Halo plumbing going on.

PS3 exclusive graphical showpieces leave everything on the 360 in the dust imo. I don't know exactly why that is though.

I'm not sure either, hopefully some developer at MS can give us something of that quality before the 360 is replaced.

 

[Why For?]

Right, yes, this is a perfectly reasonable dichotomy. I either think Reach looks good or I want a lot of post-processing and blur on the screen.

Why doesn't this forum have a rolling eyes smiley? I don't think I've ever had more need for one in my time on the internet.

How bout this smart ass?

Tell me your grand vision for what you think Halo SHOULD look like.

People like you keep moaning about the graphics in Halo, and yet I'm yet to see any of you recommend what Bungie should do to bring one of the best selling franchises of the decade up to YOUR standard.

 

[Thagomizer]

Am I the only one who thinks the skirmishers look fucking awesome?

 

[Frenck]

You know its actually possible to have both? I know it seems like an unattainable dream, but its true. It happens a lot actually.

We already know Halo gameplay pretty well by now - upgraded graphics at this point would be interesting and new.

To be fair the scale, the four (or more) player online co-op and the saved film feature are taking their toll on the graphics. Any of of those alone wouldn't be a problem but all of them plus four player split screen support make it impossible for Bungie to deliver a game with similar graphical fidelity like the best looking console FPS out there while I. keeping feature parity with Halo 3 and II. improving on Halo 3 in a number of key areas.

I know it sounds like a cheap excuse, but if it is a cheap excuse and these features don't take a significant chunk of system performance away that could otherwise be used for more specacular graphics, why isn't anyone else in the console space doing what Bungie does?

In this case it's simply not possible to have a game that rivals the best looking console games when it comes to graphics and provides feature parity with Halo 3 plus added features.

Assassin's Creed 2 proves that massive scale alone doesn't mean that a game can't compete with the best looking games on the platform.

 

[Stinkles]

This is the internets. No pics, no pruf.

It's for a good cause, which will be revealed next week, I believe.

 

[EazyB]

There should be fewer playlsits with required maps, not more.

Of the 4 playlists that require anything beyond the Halo 3 retail disc, which do you think should drop the requirement:
Team Throwback
Team Mythic
MLG
Action Sack

Honestly, the only somewhat questionable one is Action Sack and when you look at what maps and gametypes it has it becomes obvious why Sandbox is required. I'm sure the 4 million ODST owners would love to get some more time with the maps they paid for. As it stands, it's rare as hell to get Mythic maps outside of those 4 limited playlists. Once Mythic 2 is finally made available for everyone I think they should bump up the requirements on a few playlists. I mean the people that are still playing Halo 3 two years after its release are the people that have all the maps and want the most variety they can get.

Not to beat a dead horse or anything...Alan Wake is looking phenominal.. The one that bugs me is Brink, The graphics are really good and its coming from a company whose last games were Fallout 3 and Oblivion, both of those games look worse then Halo 3.

Publishing =/= Developing
Bethesda developed games will always, run, look, and animate like shit.

 

[Not a Jellyfish]

I'm not sure either, hopefully some developer at MS can give us something of that quality before the 360 is replaced.

Lets not turn this into a system discussion, please.

Again as far as these screens go they are looking good to me.

 

[feel]

It's for a good cause, which will be revealed next week, I believe.

http://i48.tinypic.com/34do75j.jpg[IMG][/QUOTE]
:O holy fuck!

 

[Major Williams]

And since no one will have read this far, I'mma just keep going off about the Halo engine. Far Cry 2 looks incredible not because of the textures (they look pretty muddy and get even muddier at a distance) but because of the real-time lighting and the fact that the heavy vegetation that hides the AF and LOD. If there's anything I want done graphically in Reach beyond better IQ is a realtime lighting. I could care less how extravagant their HDR is, or how many light sources a plasma shot produces, I just want realtime. I want to build a wall in forge and have it cast a shadow on the crate I've set beside it. I want to light a darkened room by putting lights along its ceiling. I don't need a million people on screen at once, or games with 20 vehicles rolling around; just lights and shadows. I'm willing to give up 4-player splitscreen (2 player max) if it allows the engine to render it.

Long posts are awesome. Shows thought went into it.

I agree with you here. I've "needed" the 4 player split screen maybe once or twice, but with the lack of it during firefight for ODST, I realized that it really isn't important to me. And a lot of my friends now own 360s. Sacrifice that for realtime lighting and it will be an improvement that people like you and Nokyard can full utilize.

 

[2San]

I don't know if the 360 is capable of those graphics even without all the Halo plumbing going on.

PS3 exclusive graphical showpieces leave everything on the 360 in the dust imo. I don't know exactly why that is though.

Meh who cares, about those exclusives anyhow, how many people are still playing those games now? Halo got balance, split screen online and one of the biggest communities. Not to mention people actually like the game and keep playing.

Honestly Halo 3 doesn't omg awesome, but they are good enough.

Long posts are awesome. Shows thought went into it.

I agree with you here. I've "needed" the 4 player split screen maybe once or twice, but with the lack of it during firefight for ODST, I realized that it really isn't important to me. And a lot of my friends now own 360s. Sacrifice that for realtime lighting and it will be an improvement that people like you and Nokyard can full utilize.

Yeah for you maybe, but the 4player split screen makes it one of the best multiplayer games. Not to mention it helped form Halo to what it is.

 

[Not a Jellyfish]

It's for a good cause, which will be revealed next week, I believe.

Love it.

 

[Domino Theory]

Not to beat a dead horse or anything...Alan Wake is looking phenominal.. The one that bugs me is Brink, The graphics are really good and its coming from a company whose last games were Fallout 3 and Oblivion, both of those games look worse then Halo 3.

Probably because Brink isn't being made by Bethesda. It's being made by Splash Damage; it's just being published by Bethesda.

Also, now that Bethesda has id, Rage is going to be their title and that game is looking fucking FANTASTIC.

Wheres that GI update? maybe they gave up because of all the negative feedback and they know they have 8 or 9 more updates based on poor nutrition and bad work environments LOL

Haha, yeah, GameInformer.com's HR coverage has been a joke. The only pieces of material I enjoyed were the "Meet the Team Behind HR" and interviewing 343i dudes/dudettes even though that one had absolutely nothing to do with HR.

Conducting an interview about ODST and passing it off as Reach coverage = :lol 2the :lol

I just want some HD, direct-feed, first-person gameplay of a regular multiplayer match for Reach. That's it.

 

[rezuth]

To be fair the scale, the four (or more) player online co-op and the saved film feature are taking their toll on the graphics. Any of of those alone wouldn't be a problem but all of them plus four player split screen support make it impossible for Bungie to deliver a game with similar graphical fidelity like the best looking console FPS out there while I. keeping feature parity with Halo 3 and II..

Modern Warfare 2 has 4 player splitscreen, right?

 

[AwesomeSyrup]

Of the 4 playlists that require anything beyond the Halo 3 retail disc, which do you think should drop the requirement:
Team Throwback
Team Mythic
MLG
Action Sack

Honestly, the only somewhat questionable one is Action Sack and when you look at what maps and gametypes it has it becomes obvious why Sandbox is required. I'm sure the 4 million ODST owners would love to get some more time with the maps they paid for. As it stands, it's rare as hell to get Mythic maps outside of those 4 limited playlists. Once Mythic 2 is finally made available for everyone I think they should bump up the requirements on a few playlists. I mean the people that are still playing Halo 3 two years after its release are the people that have all the maps and want the most variety they can get.

I agree, I'm tired of playing the same 5 or 6 maps constantly when there are 24 maps in the game.

 

[Princess Carl]

Am I the only one who thinks the skirmishers look fucking awesome?

nope.

I thought they looked pretty bad-ass as well. And they role they are supposed to play should be very awesome if it works correctly.

 

[GhaleonEB]

Am I the only one who thinks the skirmishers look fucking awesome?

Nope. Bungie said in the GI article they want the Covenant to be scary again, and those guys look just plain nasty.

It's for a good cause, which will be revealed next week, I believe.

Ah, I remember you doing a similar painting for Child's Play. I'm guessing the Haiti relief effort this time around. Regardless - that is so freakin' awesome. :lol

 

[NullPointer]

People like you keep moaning about the graphics in Halo, and yet I'm yet to see any of you recommend what Bungie should do to bring one of the best selling franchises of the decade up to YOUR standard.

I can answer for myself. I see two great options:

1. Keep things cool, clean, crisp and simple, with lower overall detail, but achieve a locked 60fps.
2. Gears of War 2 (only with color and Bungie art direction), or something that looks more like the Halo Wars cinematic and/or CGI Halo 3 commercials.

What I think we'll end up with is Halo 3 with some more detail and better AA, but true believers will be able to overlook it because the gameplay is so solid. To me that'd be a shame, because the gameplay deserves a better presentation. Better graphics (and/or framerate) can actually make a game feel better, and that's what I've always thought was missing from Halo 2 on.

 

[Major Williams]

It's for a good cause, which will be revealed next week, I believe.

Agenda for Wednesday, January 20, 2010.
By: Frank O'Connor

1. Post on GAF
2. Yell at Bungle on conference call about crappy grass to qualm GAF.
3. Drink coffee provided by voc and cocop.
4. Finger paint oonsk.
5. Post on GAF

 

[EazyB]

Mister Chief!

Nope. Bungie said in the GI article they want the Covenant to be scary again, and those guys look just plain nasty.

The only way those things would scare me is if my character could contract salmonella.

 

[NullPointer]

Meh who cares

Obviously people that aren't you.

To be fair the scale, the four (or more) player online co-op and the saved film feature are taking their toll on the graphics. Any of of those alone wouldn't be a problem but all of them plus four player split screen support make it impossible for Bungie to deliver a game with similar graphical fidelity like the best looking console FPS out there while I. keeping feature parity with Halo 3 and II. improving on Halo 3 in a number of key areas.

Completely understandable, and Bungie had to make a tradeoff to include those things. I guess I don't have so much love for Forge and saved films that I think it warrants things like a serious lack of AA. But you can't please everyone. I can only speak for my preferences and hope Bungie strikes a nice middle ground.

 

[AltogetherAndrews]

Am I the only one who thinks the skirmishers look fucking awesome?

I hope so

The new grunt design is pretty neat though, very sleek.

 

[Confidence Man]

A brand new engine that looks pretty much exactly like the last one? What the hell?