Support NeoGAF

[Rad Agast]

Sorry to sound crazy here, but from my understanding of kylej's post, it seems like he's actually blasting people for suggesting COD like gameplay in Halo.



Just sayin' :/
(I'm probably the one misreading it, but oh well)

Yes, he was. It was easier to use his post since it had a summary of the common complaints.

 

[NeXuSDK]

It was up to the publisher, not Bungie, to show the VGA stuff. At this point in the development cycle they had to make do to make a showing. I'm sure if they could had it entirely real time, live on the stage on a 360 they would have.

They had no choice, they were asked by those in charge to produce it. Marketing is the publisher's court, not Bungie's. Right now, they have to play ball by the rules of others. If you have problems about the timing of trailers, give Microsoft a call and complain that they have given Bungie more time.

That's very ignorant to say. Every developer-publisher relationship is unique and there's no way to know the details of the contract. Usually, in the beginning of a project, the developer and publisher together creates a marketing plan, setting dates for first reveal etc. and the content of the various releases. So I'm almost completely sure Bungie have had a saying in this.

While it can't surprise any that a stable framerate is still being worked on - the game is a year away from release and it's common practice to optimise everything from loading and framerate after alpha has been completed - I am surprised that they chose to give the trailer better AA. Especially since they know the final game won't have this level of AA. That's just dumb, giving people high expectations they know they can't accomplish.

 

[Unknown One]

I completely agree. I love the cinematic and think the new Spartans will add something pretty interesting, however, I'm still on edge about how it will ultimately look. I don't want to be spoiled again ala Halo 3. Amazing gfx from a reveal, and when the game releases, does not look as clean, polished, etc. I hope this isn't the case for Reach. But as many other things here, it's to be tuned.


If it's like Battlefield in terms of huge environment, big battles, Banshees, Hawks, Warthogs, Ghosts, etc. controlling areas, it would be pretty interesting. As for a COD feel, fuck that.

I'm with this guy.

 

[FunkyMunkey]

They need to make Reach as intense, brutal, and heart-pounding as it's depicted in the lore.

I really wish they would revamp the halo control and feel too. Halo 3 feels so stiff and awkward. I want character weight, gun and arm tilting from different running angles, etc.

They have so much money and power behind the series now I expect nothing but the best.

 

[Slightly Live]

That's very ignorant to say. Every developer-publisher relationship is unique and there's no way to know the details of the contract. Usually, in the beginning of a project, the developer and publisher together creates a marketing plan, setting dates for first reveal etc. and the content of the various releases. So I'm almost completely sure Bungie have had a saying in this.

While it can't surprise any that a stable framerate is still being worked on - the game is a year away from release and it's common practice to optimise everything from loading and framerate after alpha has been completed - I am surprised that they chose to give the trailer better AA. Especially since they know the final game won't have this level of AA. That's just dumb, giving people high expectations they know they can't accomplish.

How was my comment ignorant?

Obviously specific publisher-developer contracts are confidential for obvious commercial reasons, I am not claiming any insider knowledge about any company's relationship with the other.

However, I am merely going by what has been said and released to the public. If you listened to Bungie end of year podcast, it's clearly mentioned that the VGA folks approached Bungie about material for the event and they didn't respond and that it wasn't until the publisher asked them did they commit to doing it, all the time being reluctant about the idea but being rather pleased with the outcome as it has helped spur the people working on the project onwards as they can begin to see a tangible result and start the process of letting others see their game.

What was said may have been said in jest, but it was rather specific concerning the whole flow of events. I am simply taking what has been said at face value. Feel free to listen yourself and draw your own conclusions. I know nothing more than what is available equally to yourself. You are free to dismiss what they said or call them liars, whatever you want.

I would like to point out what you yourself have said.

I am surprised that they chose to give the trailer better AA. Especially since they know the final game won't have this level of AA. That's just dumb, giving people high expectations they know they can't accomplish.

This is ignorance.

Bungie have been rather transparent concerning this trailer, surprisingly so. Yesterday's Weekly Update contain a trailer FAQ, and amongst the questions answered and points raised was the clearly ambitious amount of AA present.

It' was explained that due to the composition method used to compile the video, the end result is a very high amount of AA, so much so that they point it out clearly.

Awesome, so this is what the final game will look like?
A: This trailer absolutely represents our visual bar for the final game and is near identical to what you’ll see next Fall. The single biggest difference between this trailer and the final game will be the extra generous amount of anti-aliasing (the smoothing of “jaggies” or edges of pixels) present in what you’re watching right now but rest assured that Reach will be significantly improved in this department compared to Halo 3. (The extreme “AA” in the trailer was due to the “frame dump” mentioned above.)

Suffice it to say we’re really excited about the technological and artistic advancements we’re making with Reach and you’ll see more from the campaign in just a few weeks.

They clearly explain why the trailer had copious amounts of anti-aliasing - due to the rendering procedure used (obviously they've had to make up an ad-hoc solution due to the game and cinematics engine still being under development and hence why the true engine and final rendering solution was not and could not be used).

The additional AA is simply a by-product of the temporary rendering process used to create the trailer, one that will not be present in the final game. They also reassure folks that anti-aliasing in some form will be present in the final game.

Bungie aren't lying or misleading their fans, the whole situation is actually contrary to what you have described. If being honest and transparent is stupid, then I wish every developer was dumb.

They need to make Reach as intense, brutal, and heart-pounding as it's depicted in the lore.

I really wish they would revamp the halo control and feel too. Halo 3 feels so stiff and awkward. I want character weight, gun and arm tilting from different running angles, etc.

They have so much money and power behind the series now I expect nothing but the best.

The problem is that books are just so much better at directly feeding you a story than games are now. It's almost impossible for a film to capture the same intensity of a book and as much success I am hoping for Bungie with Reach I doubt any portrayals will reach D ) the intensity of the expanded lore.

Bungie did great with ODST, a much tighter game with a great narrative and character interaction, I hope they can build on their narrative strength demonstrated by it.

Does Halo really feel stiff and awkward to you? Did you play recently? Or play any other shooters?

I honestly don't think that Halo gameplay could be described as stiff or clunky, really. To me, the average Halo session has so much jumping, spinning and strafing. I've played other games where I was playing and just wishing they emulated Halo's wild, free-flowing, geometry jumping, spinning dynamics.

The running and gunning animation is fine to me, but I suppose additional kick ass animations wouldn't really hurt. The Havoc physics used in Halo 3 are great so I'd love to see what they can do with the extra motion capturing facilities they now have.

I agree about the gun weight, but it works for Halo. A Spartan can flip a tank, a gun must feel like a paperweight to them, it just wouldn't make sense to be weighed down by a simple gun.

 

[EazyB]

Haven't read the update but it's good to hear they have a focus on cleaning up the IQ. I suspected they would but it's good to hear anyways.

Podcast was great. I loved it when they were talking to Dan and someone said he made Orbital. He denied the accusation and the person who asked admitted that he was just trolling him.

God that level is ass.

Speaking of ass:
Please tell me the laser in nerfed in Reach. That piece of shit breaks maps.

 

[Slightly Live]

Updated and cleaned up the OP again due to the information from the BWU Reach FAQ.

Hopefully that should be the last revision until after Xmas.

I agree about Orbital. The overall layout is just plain nasty. To it's credit though, it does have one of the best skyboxes of any Halo map.

 

[Trasher]

Haven't read the update but it's good to hear they have a focus on cleaning up the IQ. I suspected they would but it's good to hear anyways.

Podcast was great. I loved it when they were talking to Dan and someone said he made Orbital. He denied the accusation and the person who asked admitted that he was just trolling him.

God that level is ass.

Speaking of ass:
Please tell me the laser in nerfed in Reach. That piece of shit breaks maps.

How many times did you listen to this part of the podcast? I'm guessing a few hundred and you had the same smile on your face everytime.

 

[Arpharmd B]

After watching the Reach trailer a couple times, there are no excuses for the final product not looking that good.

After all, this is 2010, and I'd say that cutscene is on a level with Resident Evil 5, maybe a few notches above.

Bungie can achieve this.

 

[Truant]

Didn't Bungie say they wanted a Battlefield style type of experience for the Halo 2 MP? I remember reading about dropships and huge scale battles.

 

[The Librarian]

Also, Avatar was gud. Like holyfuckingshit gud.

Cameron fanboy!

I'm excited for the upcoming campaign information in July. Campaign's always been more important for me, and hopefully Bungie can deliver a Halo 1 experience for their last Halo game*.

Spoiler

*For awhile, anyway.

 

[Slightly Live]

This may be a strange request and a bit of a stretch, but here goes.

Attention all UK HaloGAFer's.

Please ensure that you digitally purchase a copy of Rage Against the Machine - Killing in the Name before 12pm tonight.

The reason is simple, stopping yet another X-Factory forgettable popshit from stealing the UK Xmas Number 1 chart position.

What has Rage Against the Machine done for you? TOM MORELLO

Thank Tom's namesake, and err, thank Bungie (?) by doing this!

 

[Shake Appeal]

So Bungie are struggling to run that cutscene in-game, let alone approximate those graphics in real-time with AI routines and physics calculations and whatever else the fuck happening?

Cool, good to know. Hype status: diminished.

 

[Slightly Live]

So Bungie are struggling to run that cutscene in-game, let alone approximate those graphics in real-time with AI routines and physics calculations and whatever else the fuck happening?

Cool, good to know. Hype status: diminished.

:lol

Wait. Are you serious?

 

[The Crawf]

This may be a strange request and a bit of a stretch, but here goes.

Attention all UK HaloGAFer's.

Please ensure that you digitally purchase a copy of Rage Against the Machine - Killing in the Name before 12pm tonight.

The reason is simple, stopping yet another X-Factory forgettable popshit from stealing the UK Xmas Number 1 chart position.

What has Rage Against the Machine done for you? TOM MORELLO

Thank Tom's namesake, and err, thank Bungie (?) by doing this!

Done!

 

[fastford58]

So Bungie are struggling to run that cutscene in-game, let alone approximate those graphics in real-time with AI routines and physics calculations and whatever else the fuck happening?

Cool, good to know. Hype status: diminished.

At no point did they say they were struggling. Frame rate inconsistency =/= struggling.

The only thing in that video that I could see choking the hardware a bit is the wide shot of the Warthog and the osprey-type craft, and only then it would be because of the incredible draw distance.

 

[Shake Appeal]

:lol

Wait. Are you serious?

Absolutely. You can carry on drinking the Kool-Aid if you like.

 

[WrikaWrek]

Visual bar?

Geez. Can't believe target renders are still being thrown around.

 

[Slightly Live]

Absolutely. You can carry on drinking the Kool-Aid if you like.

We have proper drinks over here, dude. I'm Lucozading it up, big time.

Unless you have deeper insight into Reach's engine's development than the rest of us, it's hard to see what current stage it's in now could affect you in any way.

I'm pretty sure at this point in development, the engine for the previous Halo titles could have been around the same, maybe even worse, stability wise.

Heck, it could struggle to replicate a few Halo 3 models right now for all anyone outside of Bungie should care. Nearer to release, if framerate issues start popping up during hands on previews with closer to final builds, then you should be worried.

Visual bar?

Geez. Can't believe target renders are still being thrown around.

Welcome to the video games industry. Are you new or a returnee from a previous generation? =)

 

[Shake Appeal]

I am not concerned with framerate issues; I am sure the framerate will be fine. The game, however, will not look like that. I am annoyed with Bungie continuing to release "target renders" and "in-engine trailers" for their games when those renders and trailers have uniformly looked better than the games they were promoting. It's deceptive and disingenuous.

I mean, I appreciate you're restyling yourself as GhaleonEB Mk II, or whatever, but part of what made Ghaleon a good cheerleader for Halo and Bungie was his willingness to call them on their bullshit from time to time.

 

[The Librarian]

I am not concerned with framerate issues; I am sure the framerate will be fine. The game, however, will not look like that. I am annoyed with Bungie continuing to release "target renders" and "in-engine trailers" for their games when those renders and trailers have uniformly looked better than the games they were promoting. It's deceptive and disingenuous.

I mean, I appreciate you're restyling yourself as GhaleonEB Mk II, or whatever, but part of what made Ghaleon a good cheerleader for Halo and Bungie was his willingness to call them on their bullshit from time to time.

I agree that Bungie should stop with the target renders and in-game trailers to hype up their games. Show off how it's going to be.

Though, if they can get the final game to look close to this, more power to 'em.

 

[kylej]

I love 90% of Halo 2's maps. Many of them unique and awesome in many ways.

I wish we could know if Halo: Reach's multiplayer will be based on traditional Halo style or something different, or simply something mixed in.

The Halo universe spans all these beautiful alien planets and earth environments.

The final map for Halo 3 was a recreation of a New Jersey port.

I do not have much hope for Reach maps.

 

[LCfiner]

cutscenes always look better than “in game” shots. for every game.

I don’t see why a cutscene like that can’t be rendered on a 360, with diminished AA. I’ve seen similar levels of detail in other game cutscenes. gameplay will probably have fewer special effects but keep the same look and feel.

 

[vhfive]

I agree that Bungie should stop with the target renders and in-game trailers to hype up their games. Show off how it's going to be.

Though, if they can get the final game to look close to this, more power to 'em.

with the game 10 months away how does bungie know exactly "how it's going to be?"
the best they can do is put out a target render. now if the final game doesn't look like that then it's killzone all over again but have some faith in bungie.

 

[Slightly Live]

I am not concerned with framerate issues; I am sure the framerate will be fine. The game, however, will not look like that. I am annoyed with Bungie continuing to release "target renders" and "in-engine trailers" for their games when those renders and trailers have uniformly looked better than the games they were promoting. It's deceptive and disingenuous.

I mean, I appreciate you're restyling yourself as GhaleonEB Mk II, or whatever, but part of what made Ghaleon a good cheerleader for Halo and Bungie was his willingness to call them on their bullshit from time to time.

:lol

Whatever. I can't be bothered to repeat myself fully, just see this post as a refute to your claims of Bungie being deceptive or disingenuous.

lacking in frankness, candour, or sincerity; falsely or hypocritically

apt or tending to deceive

Are you disappointed or unhappy that Bungie can't show the final engine build yet or something? Angry even?

How would you go about guiding Reach to the light or truthfulness and ending Bungie's deceptive ways? Would you demand they withhold showing off the game at all until the engine is fully optimised? Would you change the publisher's marketing schedule because you don't you want to see the game at all unless it's nearly done?

:lol

I cannot fathom why, as a supposed fan, you're unhappy with being given the trailer in it's current state. Stomping your feet until you get what you want usually doesn't work, good luck trying. =)

 

[pringles]

I agree that Bungie should stop with the target renders and in-game trailers to hype up their games. Show off how it's going to be.

Though, if they can get the final game to look close to this, more power to 'em.

How can you show off how it's going to be when the game is like a year (or several in the case of Halo 3) away from release?
All they can show is the bar they're going for, and doing it in-engine using in-game assets should be a pretty good representation of what the game will actually look like.
Like they said in the update, apart from the uber-AA what they showed is basically what they're aiming to release. That's what they said about Halo 3 as well, but since this game is a lot closer to release I think it's fair to say that there's a bigger chance they'll live up to that promise this time.

 

[WrikaWrek]

How can you show off how it's going to be when the game is like a year (or several in the case of Halo 3) away from release?

You do it the same way other developers do it.

 

[Shake Appeal]

Are you disappointed or unhappy that Bungie can't show the final engine build yet or something? Angry even?

No, I'm disappointed that without something real to show, they instead present something that is unrepresentative of how the game will look, all the while being less than transparent about the ways in which it is not only unrepresentative, but downright impossible on an Xbox 360 (or on a PS3, for that matter, or on anything but they highest end of PC gaming).

How would you go about guiding Reach to the light or truthfulness and ending Bungie's deceptive ways? Would you demand they withhold showing off the game at all until the engine is fully optimised? Would you change the publisher's marketing schedule because you don't you want to see the game at all unless it's nearly done?

This isn't a case of the engine not being fully "optimised". This is a case of Bungie using their (finished, quite finished, at this stage in development) engine and game assets, but rendering it very slowly at a quality that will never, ever be approached by actual gameplay, then presenting the rendered frames in "real time" to provoke wild and fanciful discussions among people who don't know what they're seeing, and are apparently unwilling to realize that it is, again, downright impossible on an Xbox 360.

I cannot fathom why, as a supposed fan, you're unhappy with being given the trailer in it's current state. Stomping your feet until you get what you want usually doesn't work, good luck trying. =)

If you don't have something to show, don't show it. If you must show something, show obvious CG. Don't do what you did for your previous games and mock-up "target renders" that are the "visual bar" you are setting for yourself, especially when you know perfectly well that rendering shit at impossible resolutions, then piecing it together and downscaling to 720p is setting a downright impossible bar. All it will result in is disappointment and disillusionment... again.

The Halo 3 announce trailer had the exact same caveats, the exact same talk. Don't. Drink. The. Kool-Aid.

 

[LCfiner]

what cracks me up about all this talk of resolution and AA is that most people saw this trailer on TV at 480p.

 

[Shake Appeal]

what cracks me up about all this talk of resolution and AA is that most people saw this trailer on TV at 480p.

The first time, sure, but since the HD version is plastered on bungie.net and the 360 dashboard, I'm pretty sure everyone has seen it at its "real" resolution now.

 

[The Librarian]

with the game 10 months away how does bungie know exactly "how it's going to be?"

If they can't, don't bother showing anything off.

the best they can do is put out a target render. now if the final game doesn't look like that then it's killzone all over again but have some faith in bungie.

You could always put out another trailer. As for having faith in Bungie, I'll believe it when I see it, not a minute before. I've been down this road before: "This is what Halo 3's going to look like."

 

[pringles]

You do it the same way other developers do it.

With ridiculous CG trailers or "way too fucking early to show" work-in-progress vids?
Not sure either of those are better options. And of course, Bungie is FAR from the only developer who shows footage from their games claiming it's in-game and that's how it will look when released, only to release a game that doesn't even look close to it.

Anyway, apart from the image quality I don't see why they shouldn't be able to reach this bar. Remember that both the Halo 2 and Halo 3 announcement trailers were shown way earlier in those games development than this was.

 

[Grimm Fandango]

Well I believed everything but the AA so this is no surprise. I am disappointed they said it will absolutely look like the final game when it will clearly not look like that on my TV next year.

 

[i hate bees]

No, I'm disappointed that without something real to show, they instead present something that is unrepresentative of how the game will look, all the while being less than transparent about the ways in which it is not only unrepresentative, but downright impossible on an Xbox 360 (or on a PS3, for that matter, or on anything but they highest end of PC gaming).

How's it unrepresentative? besides generous AA, better faces and more open environments it doesn't look considerably better than what they already achieved in Halo 3/ODST, cut scene wise.

Also I struggle to think of a game which was announced using pure, un-enhanced in game footage, usually due to the fact they're shown before they're even in alpha, welcome to the games industry, enjoy your stay.

Just chill out and lets wait and see, no point in getting so upset over a trailer which is far from being BLATANTLY impossible.

 

[feel]

Why are you guys on a crusade to convince everyone that it won't look anywhere near that??
Nobody is asking for a reality check. Let everyone be happy with their personal expectations and hopes, jeez.

 

[Slightly Live]

*Chugs on the Lucozade*

I've said all I wish to say on the whole issue of the trailer/Bungie being appropriate/truthful.

So, about those Spartan III's... ?

 

[Blueblur1]

Dear Eric,

Please let the multiplayer lead know that it would be just dandy if they could squeeze in a voting option in the start menu during multiplayer matches to boot suiciding players and to concede matches that are one-sided. Like, when MM messes up and a TS match starts with several players missing resulting in like 4v1. Thanks in advance.

Love, Jose

 

[Shake Appeal]

The following post is dedicated to Dani, who thinks Bungie are being the most honest injuns of all of the injuns there are:

The Halo: Reach trailer was produced directly in our new game engine using real game assets.

Okay, but on what hardware? Can the trick be repeated on a 360, guys? I've read this sentence a few times now and I can't find the words "actual 360 hardware" anywhere.

Because the game is still in the midst of development, which means things like framerate are still in flux, we do something called a “frame dump” that lets us spit out the content, frame by frame, and then compile it back as the video you all saw on Saturday.

Translation: we render the thing at a resolution far higher than the 360 will ever output, and far, far, far slower than would be acceptable for gameplay, then piece together those perfect, flawless frames and play them at a "real time" speed. It's like giving Leonardo Da Vinci a chance to painstakingly craft each page of a kid's flipbook, then passing off the final product as the kid's work. Or, you know, what the kid might achieve, somewhere down the line... we hope.

We can actually run this same cinematic right now, within the latest game build, but it’s not always at the consistent smooth framerate of the final game (yet).

So it dips below, oh, 30 frames per second? Or wait, does it even reach 30 frames per second? This is a cinematic, after all, not live, on-the-fly gameplay, which asks a lot more of the hardware than simply churning out graphics. But congratulations on being able to actually run your cinematic (at some unspecified framerate, on some unspecified hardware). That's very promising for the game's development more generally.

This trailer absolutely represents our visual bar for the final game and is near identical to what you’ll see next Fall.

Near identical to the in-engine cinematics we'll see, or near identical to the game we'll play? And how near, exactly? I'm glad you can categorically (and absolutely!) say that it represents a visual bar, however; that's very categorical and absolute of you. One more question: would you say it is nearer or further from being identical than the Halo 3 announce trailer was to actual gameplay?

The single biggest difference between this trailer and the final game will be the extra generous amount of anti-aliasing (the smoothing of “jaggies” or edges of pixels) present in what you’re watching right now but rest assured that Reach will be significantly improved in this department compared to Halo 3. (The extreme “AA” in the trailer was due to the “frame dump” mentioned above.)

The "single" biggest difference? What are the other differences? And how big will they be? Also, how significant an improvement can we expect in the "department" of anti-aliasing, perhaps on a scale from "not very" significant to "quite" significant? I note also that the AA in your trailer is "extreme"; would you characterize the AA present in the actual game as perhaps being "mild" or even "moderate"? Boy, I am resting and assured like you would not believe right now.

 

[LCfiner]

Shake Appeal, you must be a hit at parties.

 

[pringles]

Shake Appeal, you must be a hit at parties.

My thoughts exactly :lol

 

[godhandiscen]

It will be Halo 3 "HD", and I am happy with that.

 

[Slightly Live]

It will be Halo 3 "HD", and I am happy with that.

B-b-but you don't know, Bungie are misleading us all! We don't have any in-engine, on my console, on my tv, played by my dog proof. Don't be fooled by the lies! :lol

Yeah it'll be nice having at least 720p this time around, looks like they're gonna try to one-up the Halo 3 engine in good ways.

 

[godhandiscen]

B-b-but you don't know, Bungie are misleading us all! We don't have any in-engine, on my console, on my tv, played by my dog proof. Don't be fooled by the lies! :lol

Yeah it'll be nice having at least 720p this time around, looks like they're gonna try to one-up the Halo 3 engine in good ways.

I am honestly happier with Bungie this time. What they did during E3 2006 was dirty, they still won't deny there wasn't a chance in hell of matching those graphics, and that annoyed me. However, this time they told it like it is. The real graphics reveal will be the beta. Whoever was hoping to get a taste of the graphics during the VGA's was fooling himself.

 

[kylej]

Shake Appeal, you must be a hit at parties.

yeah man how dare people have opinions and discuss them with well-reasoned points. I way prefer seeing Dax post endless amounts of white noise and other retards emptyquote shit with Reach trailer gifs or people militantly defend Bungie because they're praying to god that they get hired like urk one day.

 

[WrikaWrek]

With ridiculous CG trailers or "way too fucking early to show" work-in-progress vids?
Not sure either of those are better options. And of course, Bungie is FAR from the only developer who shows footage from their games claiming it's in-game and that's how it will look when released, only to release a game that doesn't even look close to it.

Anyway, apart from the image quality I don't see why they shouldn't be able to reach this bar. Remember that both the Halo 2 and Halo 3 announcement trailers were shown way earlier in those games development than this was.

Sorry? But i've seen footage of games a year before they shipped that looked good, and looked like what the end product end up looking.

Also i prefer to see a CG trailer that looks fucking amazing, than a "Look what our engine can do, when you pre render it!" trailer.

Just because some shitty devs do it, doesn't mean that Bungie has to be a shitty dev about it too.

 

[Slightly Live]

The real graphics reveal will be the beta. Whoever was hoping to get a taste of the graphics during the VGA's was fooling himself.

Yep, I agree with you, we'll all get a slice of the Reach pie come the beta. I'm pretty sure we'll see a million and one technical dissections of the graphics come that time, so I honestly don't see the reason to argue over an unfinished engine.

The VGA trailer gave us a glimpse. The art direction, the narrative and the music, all present and accounted for. The actual game is far off at this point.

I just hope late January we get some lively art assets to dribble over. Looking over the early Halo 3 material was brilliant, it was interesting to see the subtle and not so subtle changes made through-out the development process for some of the multiplayer maps. High Ground in particular had a very interesting evolution. I hope we get to see that sort of design evolution showcase for some of the maps with Reach.

 

[LCfiner]

yeah man how dare people have opinions and discuss them with well-reasoned points. I way prefer seeing Dax post endless amounts of white noise and other retards emptyquote shit with Reach trailer gifs or people militantly defend Bungie because they're praying to god that they get hired like urk one day.

eh, that last post of his kinda crossed the line from healthy skepticism to sputtering diatribe. too many questions about defining the meanings of words. too much conspiracy theorist wankery for me to take seriously anymore.

all I gotta say now is that I think cutscenes won’t have much problem looking like a jaggier version of what we saw (seriously, have we not seen graphics like that in the cutscenes of a dozen other games already??) and gameplay will likely have some reduced visual effects. I still expect 720p and some AA since Bungie has already said they’re improving on this with Reach compared to H3.

 

[feel]

and other retards emptyquote shit with Reach trailer gifs

thanks


ps: more shishka hate please

 

[pringles]

I am honestly happier with Bungie this time. What they did during E3 2006 was dirty, they still won't deny there wasn't a chance in hell of matching those graphics, and that annoyed me. However, this time they told it like it is. The real graphics reveal will be the beta. Whoever was hoping to get a taste of the graphics during the VGA's was fooling himself.

I don't know about that. The difference between the Halo 3 beta and the finished game was huge. It's called a "beta" for a reason.

Sorry? But i've seen footage of games a year before they shipped that looked good, and looked like what the end product end up looking.

Also i prefer to see a CG trailer that looks fucking amazing, than a "Look what our engine can do, when you pre render it!" trailer.

Just because some shitty devs do it, doesn't mean that Bungie has to be a shitty dev about it too.

And how do you know that this isn't that kind of footage, that ends up looking like the end product? Except for the perfect AA (god what is with everyone and AA).
Remember that this was a cutscene, and in 99 out of 100 games, cutscenes look significantly better than the gameplay. This cutscene is not as out-of-this-world as the Halo 3 announcement trailer was.

 

[Kibbles]

Haven't read the update but it's good to hear they have a focus on cleaning up the IQ. I suspected they would but it's good to hear anyways.

Podcast was great. I loved it when they were talking to Dan and someone said he made Orbital. He denied the accusation and the person who asked admitted that he was just trolling him.

God that level is ass.

Speaking of ass:
Please tell me the laser in nerfed in Reach. That piece of shit breaks maps.

The laser in the Halo 3 beta was godly.