[insane_cobra]

Originally Posted by Litrick

I guess i am suprised that microsoft didnt go to huge efforts to try and showcase their console are a technial marvel, and have made such a lackluster effort with the graphics.

They don't need to do that, they have good games.

But seriously, read my last post. This time with understanding.

[Owskie]

Originally Posted by Litrick

there are some great looking next gen games:

Gears of War
Kameo
Viva Pinata
Motorstorm

to name a few.

At this stage Halo doesnt look on par with any of them visually.

All of those were extremely shiny, Gears of War the least, but still a culprit.
As for great looking games, nah, good games? nah... ive hated almost every single new gen game out there so far. With the market switching to games not have exclusivity the games have taken a dive, argue with it if you will, games lose qualities when that happens. With such the focus on graphics now days, even more of the game loses greatness. maybe this will mean halo 3 will be good? It still doesnt make Halo an inovative or original game by any means. Its what gamers have come to expect, the same thing... over, and over again. Its not that people have run out of ideas, the ideas are still out there. But being balsy doesnt sell, you need to stay where the market niche is , and thats with what they know works, same game (different name) Grand Theft Auto 3 and beyond, and Halo are huge culprits of this. People dont make as many adventure games anymore cause they dont sell well, they still sell.. just not as much as the average joe shoot and run game. Im not calling any of you average joe's (speaking over, what happened to that Joe something or another adventure game) but, people and im generalizing here, dont want story as much as they want to be mindlessly entertained now. I dont like to be mindlessly entertained, which is why.. halo, gow, etc all suck imo. The only mindlessly entertaining games i liked were on older consoles. We are a rare breed of gamers here at adventure gamers. I will give credit to Bioshock, because I loved system shock 2, Bioshock looks to have some innovation. Back to what I was saying earlier about games lacking quality... a side note.

Remember Deus Ex? ... ok awesome
Now Remember Deus Ex 2? yea...

while it was an exclusive, it was a signifcant day in pc gamers lives, and consoles taking over... the game lost alot of umph. and everything else, because console gamers for the most part are a different breed.

i think companies should focus on a paticular platform, and make the game for that otherwise there is no point in having more than one console. Word is FFXIII is going to lose exclusivity. That should never happen, not that FFXII was that good, but i still have hope (and i dont know why) for squeenix. Halo 3 while It may not be revolutionary or innovative as people claim. Is a system exlcusive and will ultimatley be a better game for that. Gears of War was a polished game because of this, but it was a polished peice of poo. I will be playing Halo 3 beta with a grain of salt.

You guys are alright, but im gonna go play my awesomeness Super Nintendo now... haha

[insane_cobra]

Originally Posted by Owskie

With such the focus on graphics now days, even more of the game loses greatness. maybe this will mean halo 3 will be good? It still doesnt make Halo an inovative or original game by any means.

I vehemently disagree with a lot of what you've said, but I'm not going to argue about it because I've done that many times in the past. I just want to stress that in many ways Halo was an innovative game in its genre. Recharging shield and reliance on grenades and melee combat gave its gameplay a very unique flair (which has been copied many times since then). And that's without even mentioning its console-specific innovations, such as nailing down the FPS control scheme and setting the bar for online multiplayer (Halo 2).

Nobody, and I mean nobody expects Halo 3 to be revolutionary or hugely innovative. All it needs to be is a spectacular and satisfying conclusion to the story arc and a somewhat refreshed and finely tuned successor to Halo 2 on the multiplayer front.

Remember Deus Ex? ... ok awesome
Now Remember Deus Ex 2? yea...

Actually, I recently finished both and I found Deus Ex: Invisible War a better game than what some people give it credit for. In some respects it's even better than Deus Ex, in some it's worse and in some it's just different.

[eXo]

Originally Posted by Owskie

All of those were extremely shiny, Gears of War the least, but still a culprit.

You apparantly didn't actually play the game. The "shiny" grapgics your reffering to are common in newer games because refelctive surfaces are common - it's just a physics based graphical option that has been ignored in the past due to processing power.

If you weren't so busy staring at their shiny armor, you might have noticed just how dirty the game is. There is muck on walls, lots of little touches that makes the game world look like a lived in place, and not a cookie cutter world of chambers with repetitive textures. of course, this is all subtlty, which is often lost on gamers.

Originally Posted by Owskie

As for great looking games, nah, good games? nah... ive hated almost every single new gen game out there so far. With the market switching to games not have exclusivity the games have taken a dive, argue with it if you will, games lose qualities when that happens. With such the focus on graphics now days, even more of the game loses greatness.

You win the over generalization quote of the day award. You also apparantly were absent during every console switch since the dawn of video games.

The beginning of every cycle is filled with games that take advantage of the new hardware first, and then introduce gameplay in the second or third wave of games.

Originally Posted by Owskie

i think companies should focus on a paticular platform, and make the game for that otherwise there is no point in having more than one console. Word is FFXIII is going to lose exclusivity. That should never happen, not that FFXII was that good, but i still have hope (and i dont know why) for squeenix.

platform exclusivity does not do anything to benefit a game. The differences between the actual processing power of the current crop of consoles is negligible, just as it was in your precious 16bit era. Remember
Mortal kombat on the SNES and Genesis? other then the fatality differences, the only graphical differences were that the gensis could not handle a few of the paralax backgrounds, so levels like Shang tsung's Court only had one mountain range, rather then 2 with scrolling clouds.

Had they ported that game specifically to the genesis, they still would have ran into the same barrier.

You seem to be under the impression that when multiple consoles are supported, that the game defaults to the lowest common denominator in terms of the worst system.

I suppose you have already forgotten many of the games from the past few years which were released on the xbox, ps2, and gamecube simulatenously. Each port took advantage of the system, ie: xbox versions typically had some form of anti aliasing, etc...

How about instea dof making ridiculous over generalizations you actually support your claims with some type of evidence.

Originally Posted by Owskie

Gears of War was a polished game because of this, but it was a polished peice of poo. I will be playing Halo 3 beta with a grain of salt.

You guys are alright, but im gonna go play my awesomeness Super Nintendo now... haha

Gears of War was the best selling game of the holidays, and no, not just because all those "average joes" decided it was. It takes more than "shiny graphics" to sell as many copies of a game as it sold.

After playing around on a local lan and playing through the entire game on co-op with my brother, I can honestly say i had a blast with it.

I can not think of any other recent games that had such a strong co-op mode, and creates the same sense of urgency in lan play when you hear that chainsaw revving up.

As far as your statements that you have not been impressed with any next generation games at all - well, thats because you have already made up your mind that they are all graphics and no agmeplay. this is obvious due to your quick assumptions of GoW, and dismissive attitude towards your idea of 'shiny graphics'

There are always people who think the future can never be as good as the past. The rant and rave that whatever happened 10 years ago was the golden age of gaming/movies/cars/whatever, and that the stuff coming out now is all crap.

It is an elitist attitude that can neevr be truly backed up with any evidence, yet is most often perpatrated by those with the most closed minds.

So yes, go ahead and go back to your SNES. Or your atari, or your odyssey, or your bloody action max. Whatever makes you happy. But don't be a damned troll and run around telling everyone that the entire current generation of video games is all crap just because you think it's too shiny.

Go play Splinter Cell Double Agent, Gears of War 9all the way through, w/ a friend perferably), a few rounds of Motostorm, maybe some Obsidian if you like RPGs, and hell - even the 360 luanch title Condemned while your at it.

While everyone may have different tastes, it's only that retro-elitist attitude that leads people to stating every one of those games mentioned is crap.

[Fop]

I prefer a gamepad to a grain of salt. It's more ergonomic.

[SoccerDude28]

Shining Shmining... Gears of War was a VERY fine game though it had its single player flaws. So was Resistance: Fall of Man. I enjoyed Kameo on the 360 (which is a pretty innovative title I think), and Oblivion is breath taking. I am all for innovation, but sequels can be of high quality as well.

[Litrick]

Originally Posted by insane_cobra

They don't need to do that, they have good games.

But seriously, read my last post. This time with understanding.

i read and understood your original post, but i disagree. I dont think the graphics will vary dramatically between the beta and the final release. Betas are usually very close to final realeases. Some minmal changes may be made performance wise, and a few more details/effects added, but it is going to take a hell of lot more than that to stop this looking as unimpressive as it does currently.

If this were an Alpha it would be a different story... and i would agree judging the graphics would be completely pointless. A beta however gives a pretty damn good impression of the final release (traditionally at least).

However as you stated this is multiplayer, so the single player may be better looking.

Secondly, my point about thinking it bizzare microsoft would not want to use their premiere killer app to showcase the system graphically is an opinion i am entitled to

[Lucien21]

http://www.joystiq.com/2007/05/16/ha...eptember-25th/


September 25th is Halo Day.

[insane_cobra]

Originally Posted by Litrick

I dont think the graphics will vary dramatically between the beta and the final release. Betas are usually very close to final realeases. Some minmal changes may be made performance wise, and a few more details/effects added, but it is going to take a hell of lot more than that to stop this looking as unimpressive as it does currently.

This is not the beta of the whole game, just the beta of the multiplayer component, and the game is still at least 4 months away from its release. That said, I don't think it will change dramatically, but I don't think it needs to either.

Secondly, my point about thinking it bizzare microsoft would not want to use their premiere killer app to showcase the system graphically is an opinion i am entitled to

Halo 3 is keeping with the style of previous Halo games and we don't know whether it will end up a graphical showcase. Microsoft representatives have been known to claim Halo 3 will be among the most impressive looking games on the market when it comes out. Also, the 1UP crew has been shown a tiny bit of single player footage months ago and in one of 1UP Yours podcasts they claimed it would make people say "Gears of what?"

Most of all, I think it's unfair to proclaim a game a disappointment before it's even finished, especially in the light of the recent Too Human controversy.

[Litrick]

Originally Posted by insane_cobra

This is not the beta of the whole game, just the beta of the multiplayer component, and the game is still at least 4 months away from its release. That said, I don't think it will change dramatically, but I don't think it needs to either.

Halo 3 is keeping with the style of previous Halo games and we don't know whether it will end up a graphical showcase. Microsoft representatives have been known to claim Halo 3 will be among the most impressive looking games on the market when it comes out. Also, the 1UP crew has been shown a tiny bit of single player footage months ago and in one of 1UP Yours podcasts they claimed it would make people say "Gears of what?"

Most of all, I think it's unfair to proclaim a game a disappointment before it's even finished, especially in the light of the recent Too Human controversy.

1UP news sounds promising. I wasnt aware of that.

I dont think it is unfair to judge a publically released and much hyped beta, i mean they used it as a selling point for crackdown... And remember, im just commenting on the graphics, nothing else.

IGN have a good article here which deals with the dissapointed reaction from many people:
http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/788/788319p1.html

[insane_cobra]

Originally Posted by Litrick

I dont think it is unfair to judge a publically released and much hyped beta, i mean they used it as a selling point for crackdown... And remember, im just commenting on the graphics, nothing else.

No, you're commenting on Halo 3, not its multiplayer beta version. The title of this thread is "Halo 3 - what a dissapointment", not "Halo 3 multiplayer beta - what a dissapointment". And that is unfair.

[Cloud88]

Originally Posted by Giligan

Not all games. Take a game like Brothers in Arms: Hell's Highway, or even slightly older titles like Call of Duty 3, or Resistance: Fall of Man. They're not shiny, but the textures are of a high enough resolution to show dirt, fabric knit, etc. etc. A lot of games are shiny, yes. The makers of BiA: HH were quoted as saying, "We hate shiny."

Halo is all about sci-fi and fictional technology, and has none of the grit and grime of more realistic and believable shooter games. Shiny is what the game is about.

yeah... thats what i thought...

resistance should never have been made...

---------------

The RvB Video of halo3 (its title is beta something), shows that it llooks very good, the beta testing videos r poo in comparison.
so wait tilll the game is out b4 judging

[SoccerDude28]

Originally Posted by Cloud88

yeah... thats what i thought...

resistance should never have been made...

---------------

The RvB Video of halo3 (its title is beta something), shows that it llooks very good, the beta testing videos r poo in comparison.
so wait tilll the game is out b4 judging

Sorry to sidetrack here but I'm just curious why do you say that? Did you try out resistance? What did you or didn't like about it? I thought it was a very fine game, that merges a lot of the features from the very best FPS'es into a very fun and entertaining package.

[Owskie]

Originally Posted by eXo

You apparantly didn't actually play the game. The "shiny" grapgics your reffering to are common in newer games because refelctive surfaces are common - it's just a physics based graphical option that has been ignored in the past due to processing power.

If you weren't so busy staring at their shiny armor, you might have noticed just how dirty the game is. There is muck on walls, lots of little touches that makes the game world look like a lived in place, and not a cookie cutter world of chambers with repetitive textures. of course, this is all subtlty, which is often lost on gamers.



You win the over generalization quote of the day award. You also apparantly were absent during every console switch since the dawn of video games.

The beginning of every cycle is filled with games that take advantage of the new hardware first, and then introduce gameplay in the second or third wave of games.




platform exclusivity does not do anything to benefit a game. The differences between the actual processing power of the current crop of consoles is negligible, just as it was in your precious 16bit era. Remember
Mortal kombat on the SNES and Genesis? other then the fatality differences, the only graphical differences were that the gensis could not handle a few of the paralax backgrounds, so levels like Shang tsung's Court only had one mountain range, rather then 2 with scrolling clouds.

Had they ported that game specifically to the genesis, they still would have ran into the same barrier.

You seem to be under the impression that when multiple consoles are supported, that the game defaults to the lowest common denominator in terms of the worst system.

I suppose you have already forgotten many of the games from the past few years which were released on the xbox, ps2, and gamecube simulatenously. Each port took advantage of the system, ie: xbox versions typically had some form of anti aliasing, etc...

How about instea dof making ridiculous over generalizations you actually support your claims with some type of evidence.



Gears of War was the best selling game of the holidays, and no, not just because all those "average joes" decided it was. It takes more than "shiny graphics" to sell as many copies of a game as it sold.

After playing around on a local lan and playing through the entire game on co-op with my brother, I can honestly say i had a blast with it.

I can not think of any other recent games that had such a strong co-op mode, and creates the same sense of urgency in lan play when you hear that chainsaw revving up.

As far as your statements that you have not been impressed with any next generation games at all - well, thats because you have already made up your mind that they are all graphics and no agmeplay. this is obvious due to your quick assumptions of GoW, and dismissive attitude towards your idea of 'shiny graphics'

There are always people who think the future can never be as good as the past. The rant and rave that whatever happened 10 years ago was the golden age of gaming/movies/cars/whatever, and that the stuff coming out now is all crap.

It is an elitist attitude that can neevr be truly backed up with any evidence, yet is most often perpatrated by those with the most closed minds.

So yes, go ahead and go back to your SNES. Or your atari, or your odyssey, or your bloody action max. Whatever makes you happy. But don't be a damned troll and run around telling everyone that the entire current generation of video games is all crap just because you think it's too shiny.

Go play Splinter Cell Double Agent, Gears of War 9all the way through, w/ a friend perferably), a few rounds of Motostorm, maybe some Obsidian if you like RPGs, and hell - even the 360 luanch title Condemned while your at it.

While everyone may have different tastes, it's only that retro-elitist attitude that leads people to stating every one of those games mentioned is crap.

Let me first start off by saying, sorry for the long quote trail.

I did infact play the game, and yes, things are overtly shiny, im all for reflectiveness but not sub par reflectiveness. I know im not the only one who notices this either, i see complaints about this all the time. Yea, so they added alot of detail, but they (and everyone else) needs to quit with the bump mapping they are using and use better shaders. I also could give a rats ass about detail if a game is rubish. Gears of War for example.

I never said that I liked any system upon launch or the launching games. Usually upon a new console release we are forced so suffer through games that feel like we are playing BETA versions. Unforutnatley I found this monotony so much more worse on these last bach of systems. As games become worse and worse we are rating worse games higher because every game would be like a 4 nowdays.

You can think what you want about console exclusivity, but I have yet to play a mutli platform game thats as good as a non. It also gave good reason to have more than one system. I wont play favorites with any of the systems, but if microsoft won a console war, i would slit my virtual wrists. Now keep in mind, this is just because I think Microsoft puts out shoddy consoles, and games. You dont have to think it. You dont have to agree.

Console exclusivitity is more important than it was back in those days of the SEGA and SNES. XBox360 is pretty much an Xbox 1.5, while the ps3 even with its flaws IS a next gen system. I'm not playing favorites, I don't even own a PS3. I have read about developers saying they would have had to dumb down a game, in order to make it multi-platform. This goes both ways. PS3 to XBOX360, and XBOX360 to PS3.

You know why the Wii is winning the console war? Its because they decided to give a rats ass about graphics and went with gameplay instead. Its obviously more important.

I havent forgotten the multi console released games, but I probably should have cause I didnt enjoy them most likely. There are exceptions.

Oh no, don't go tell me why I think something... I have a 360, I was excited for it. None of these things im spouting now were in my head until after I have seen enough and played enough to make my opinions. It's not a quick dismission of GoW. It wasnt quick at all. I've played it, its subpar, and its shiny. Get over it. I dont like the game.

Now you are making assumptions that because I havent liked any Next Gen game that I wont, or that I hate everything (implying that I am probably close minded) I will like some next gen games, I guarantee it. Just not the cannon fodder thats been released latley. If you think some of these games rated 10 now, are equivalent to games rated 10 in the past... you are dreaming. This does not mean im the type of person you are trying to pinpoint me out to be. Hey I love my Wii, and im sure in time I will like some games on the devil machine that microsoft put out that I have. I will also love my PS3 when I get it. This also does not mean I'm saying this because I'm anti microsoft. I'm not, I use windows, all day.. everyday.

Some of these games you mentioned ARE NOT bad, but they arent worthy of the hype and attention they have gotten. The reason I think they have rated so high... well, i think its because its the best the system has right now. Shiny doesnt = crap, Crap = crap.

Just because I voice my opinions and dont like certain things, certainly does not make me a troll. In fact, i've handled the situation very well, even with your attempts to insult me.

As for Splinter Cell Double Agent, I found the opening level of SC: DA to be quite awesome. As a whole game, no. Motorstorm is a fun game, not great not bad. I have not played Obsidian, but I have played Condemned. Aside from some graphical horrors, it was a decent romp. Unfortunatley when I play these games, like I mentioned before... they feel like I'm playing a BETA version of the game. They feel subpar, and its not because im in love with the past. Its because I have yet to play a Great Next Gen Game that is better than a Previous Next Gen Game. Do you understand, I believe our standards are lower.

I have stated that I would like more games under different circumstances, and these games that I would have like more under different circumstances? They would be next gen games, so drop the elitism bit that you have pinned on me. Its unnappreciated, it's unneccesary, it could be perceived as rude by some (not by me of course) but you could end up looking like an ass. The only thing i have done is stated what I think about some video games and a console system. You on the other hand have stated what you think about me, on an internet forum.

Hooray.

Anyways guys, to the rest of you, I mean no disrespect by my opinions on Halo, GoW, Microsoft and next gen games.

I will be playing Halo 3 beta however, and if anyone can get past my raging elitism. My gamertage is (its tasty bacon)

lets hit it up guys.

[Cloud88]

Originally Posted by SoccerDude28

Sorry to sidetrack here but I'm just curious why do you say that? Did you try out resistance? What did you or didn't like about it? I thought it was a very fine game, that merges a lot of the features from the very best FPS'es into a very fun and entertaining package.

My jobs:
1) game rental shop, where i play 360 & PS3 all time cos we have like no customers. On some days, I can get a good three hour session before a customer comes in)
2) Electrical retailer, where when its empty i play on the ps3 or 360.

at both jobs ive played on resistance, and i think that the graphics on the aliens, humans looks 2d and flat. Very poor.
and the walls and other textures like the floor, look like they are from some Deltaforce warrior game.
completely the opposite of impressed!!
Also, the actual gameplay is shocking, it felt like a very limited Prey, and prey was pretty damn rubbish aswell.

None of these new FPS have got me excited, the only FPS thats anygood now is CSS, and thats becoming quite aged.

-- Didn't mean to sound like a pri**, just wanted my views out there

[Litrick]

Originally Posted by insane_cobra

No, you're commenting on Halo 3, not its multiplayer beta version. The title of this thread is "Halo 3 - what a dissapointment", not "Halo 3 multiplayer beta - what a dissapointment". And that is unfair.

my my you are pedantic arent you

to clarify, i didnt mean to comment on the final halo 3 package. Just wanted to express my dissapointment in the graphics of the publically released multiplayer beta, and see others opinion. Having said that, i do beleive the multiplayer beta gives a good indication of what the final graphics will be like (to a lesser extent the single player).

[Owskie]

I think the package is more important than the actual game development. >_<

[insane_cobra]

Well, while the game probably could've looked even better, it seems Bungie more or less already achieved what they set out to do visually. Compare: target - actual game.

[Fop]

Actually looks like the texture on the marine or whatever is exactly the same, maybe a tad lower resolution.

[Litrick]

Originally Posted by insane_cobra

Well, while the game probably could've looked even better, it seems Bungie more or less already achieved what they set out to do visually. Compare: target - actual game.

The target is not very impressive, and the shot doesnt have a lot of detail, just one character, who was designed a generation ago with square armour to get away with a low polygon count.

The problem with the graphics is the huge flat surfaces they are using. the cliffsides just look like a few polygons with shaded textures, same goes with the buildings. it doesnt look bad... but it certainly isnt impressive. And defineatly not in the same league as some other games out there at the moment and in production.