Re: COD4 is the most played game on XBL

The alMIGHTY N wrote:
On Jan 26, 10:51 pm, "Tom" <no...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"The alMIGHTY N" <natle...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in messagenews:e601e034-36d8-439d-80c0-fdf709a75232@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

On Jan 25, 10:32 pm, "Tom" <no...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"The alMIGHTY N" <natle...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in
messagenews:7ec9b29f-cace-4007-a7ef-3bc2040bf435@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Jan 25, 5:37 am, "Tom" <no...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"The alMIGHTY N" <natle...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in
messagenews:8cb8e1a1-6197-4642-a67c-b9fe1fa477c9@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Jan 23, 10:57 pm, Trevor Smithson <trevor_smith...@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 21:01:53 -0500, KS...@xxxxxxxxx (Private
Private)
wrote:
Halo3 should've looked like Gears.
Halo3 easily should've been released as an expansion to halo2 on
Xbox-1.
The original Xbox has perhaps 1/5th of the processing power
necessary
to run Halo 3.
I can't speak for the other guys but my point has always been that
it
*looks* like an Xbox game. The core aspects of graphics (level of
detail, models, textures, etc.) are no better than in Halo 2
although
Halo 3 did add some nice effects.
The main reasons Halo 3 needs more processing power is because the
campaign maps are quite large and there's no in-level loading. If
you
eliminate the recording ability, you can run Halo 3's multiplayer
component on the Xbox... the maps aren't signicantly bigger than
Halo
2's and the graphics, AI, physics, etc. are all the same.
The physics and graphics are the same?, I say you're way off on this
aspect.
I put in Halo2 just to try and see your point. The textures, detail,
draw
distance, and especially the physics are much better in Halo 3. The
fact
that H2 can only do 480p should say something also.
My statement was hyperbole simply to make a point. If Halo 3 truly did
look like Halo 2, it would be an absolute disaster for Bungie and
Microsoft.
All I'm saying is that the graphics are not as big a step up as they
should be. One of the guys behind the game stated in an interview (in
response to fans' loud disappointment at the multiplayer demo's
graphics) that they're not competing with games like Gears of War,
rather they're competing against the previous Halo games.
That's all fine and good except when a gamer makes the inevitable
comparison of Halo 3 to Gears of War, Uncharted, BioShock, Rainbow Six
Vegas, Mass Effect, Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter, Heavenly Sword,
etc., all of which look much more realistic than Halo 3.
You'll get no argument there from me, except for RSV, the graphics in
that
are good, but not as good. Only Mass Effect has more striking facial
deatils
(some are freaking ugly though and some are the best I've ever seen in
character faces) and Mass Effect is the only game in that list that comes
close to having the phyics effect that H3 has. Some effects in ME are off
the wall.
The faces in Halo 3 aren't very detailed at all. The only one with any
real detail is Sergeant Johnson because he has a few creases here and
there. Nobody else's face is anything special.
Yes, the character models have more details than they did in the
previous two games. Yes, Johnson's got some lines on his face now.
However, I just played the end of Half-Life Episode Two from The
Orange Box last night and Dr. Vance's face looks a lot more
realistic... and he's built using an equally old engine.
That doesn't matter to me, the chaarcters in H3 look like ***, and maybe
worse in some aspects than H2, maybe even like PD0 (the worst faces in
all
of 360 gaming IMHO)
The visual quality of the character models are extremely important in
a shooter because they are what you're concentrating on most of the
time. That's what most people are going to focus on when they play the
game, much moreso than how nice the leaves on a tree look.
I agree with character models looking great, especially in reaction to
fighting and getting shot, etc. Mass Effect may be the game that sets the
stanard for this aspect for now.
But naturals do look nice and I notice them move when moving from place to
place, it's hard not to betweeen battles, but continue to read below.

I, like most people, rushed through the stage after a fight to find
the next fight. That's all most gamers care about. You and one of my
friends are the only two people who have said they actually stopped to
admire this sort of stuff. I give him the same responses I give you...
it's online imitating real life LOL.

Regarding draw distance... I don't consider that a core part of
graphic detail in the sense that most people aren't really paying
attention to stuff like that when a) the focus is on gunning down
enemies and b) the previous Halo games didn't have the same expansive
outdoor environments as Halo 3 meaning that a lot of gamers wouldn't
have realized there was an improvement in draw distance since there
weren't really cases in the previous games where it would factor in.
Agreed, except I disagree on draw distance. That aspect is a big factor
when
using a sniper rifle or long range kills or tactics, etc, and adds a neat
element to a game.. That's something that disappointed me in COD4 as well
as
previous iterations. In Halo3 you can kill enemies from big distance.
Most
games, they don't appear until you reach a certain spot in the game, then
they spawn. GRAW2 is the only other game I can think of that doesn't make
enemies spawn at a point where you are in the game.
Most games don't play in huge expansive environments so it's not
something that most gamers encounter very often. That's why I said
that most gamers aren't going to really think about it because if
you're almost always playing in enclosed environments, you're not
going to wonder what the draw distance of a game is.
When most people judge graphics, they're going to look at the models,
the textures, etc. Halo 3 as decent textures but not to the level of
Gears of War or Uncharted, two games that were nothing before 2006.
Halo 3, being what it was, should have outdone both of those games.
Now, I'm interested in how you determined that the physics in Halo 3
were much better than the physics in Halo 2. The game is using the
same Havok physics engine that Halo 2 used with only slight
modifications. It's been well documented that the physics are "off,"
too. Warthogs, which weigh twice what Master Chief weighs, fly
*higher* than Master Chief does when hit with the same explosive
weapons.
Yes, it used the same engine, maybe an earlier one though, but in H3 it
makes much more use of that engine. I'll give you an example of bad
effects,
though this game has better graphics (in detail, textures, lighting and
charcter models) COD4, you'll see dust and leaves blowing sideways, which
would indicate a fairly stong breeze/wind, yet the trees are static as
well
as everything else, but you can shoot a tire on the ground, and it moves
like in real life, isn't that a bit inconsistent???
Really, who cares whether trees sway in the wind? When you go to Best
Buy or GameStop and look at people playing demos, do you ever hear
them say, "Wow, look how the trees sway in the wind. I have to buy
this game now." People will, however, make note of smoke moving in a
believable fashion, realistic fog and even dust moving around because
that kind of thing is a bit more noticeable.
You just got done saying above that faces are more important to the game
when you are concerntrating on them.

?

I said that character models are important because that's what gamers
will be looking at most in a shooter. Faces are part of the character
model.

I am not trying to look at the enemy
faces when I am shooting at them, I am trying to kill them. But, if you feel
that is an important element, then what I stated should be even more so. A
facial feature is going to make you kill more or enjoy the game more if you
don't think what I listed would either. And yes, I have heard people say
while playing with them online how many environmental activities going on
blow them away.

I've never heard anyone say that in a game but I have heard people
admiring each other's faces, outfits, weapons, etc. LOL

I don't ever remember standing around long enough at a kiosk
to get an opinion form someone, But then again, most kiosks games are sports
games anyway.



However, this still doesn't explain how the physics in Halo 3 are so
great.
I wonder if you really pay attention enough and I'll explain below.



Anyway, if that's all you can point out in a weight inconsistency, then
you
hardly make a point, if one at all (you'll see the same inconsistency in
H2
and 1).
That's just one example. How come you can hit a Brute square in the
chest with a Brute Shot and the Brute doesn't budge an inch? Enemies
do fly around a bit when a grenade explodes under them (and it seems
the little grunts don't fly much further than the Brutes do) but you'd
think that someone would be knocked back quite a bit by a propelled
grenade to the chest.
I put in H3 this morning (first timethe beginning of Nov) just to see if you
were correct and you are so far off it makes me wonder if you played the
game and paid any attention to it other than to get through it. I hit a
Brute with a Plasma grenade and it flew up against a rock, bounced off,
landed in the water and floated away downstream (the mission was at the
beginning of "The Covenant"). The same effects happened with 3 grunts dying
from one grenade explosion. Hit any standalone object with a Gravity Hammer
and see the effects.

I may not have played Halo 3 more than you have but I certainly played
enough to know that everything I've stated is accurate. I've stuck
plasma grenades on Brutes who were knocked back *maybe* 10 feet.
Grunts, who are MUCH smaller and MUCH lighter, get knocked back the
same amount and you even stated above the Grunts experienced the same
effects as Brutes, which makes no sense from a physics standpoint (in
the same vein as the Warthog nonsense).

I didn't believe this stuff when slayer first told me, either, but I
paid attention when I was playing to see for myself.

In any case, you might have forgotten that one of my gripes
specifically was with the Brute shot. I can hit Brutes over and over
again square in the chest or face with the Brute Shot and they're
barely fazed.

Water effects, objects that float, move and bouy up and down within
the water,
Was there water in the game? I don't even remember seeing any. I do
remember some people here posting how nice water looks but I honestly
can't remember seeing any liquid anywhere.
This proves my point you really never tried looking at the game or maybe
even played it more than two hours, I can only guess by your comments.

The Almighty N - Take a look at my Halo 3 achievements before you
continue to claim that I played the game only for a couple of hours.

Actually, that brings me to another gripe about Halo 3... my
disappointment includes the rather low difficulty level of the game
(it's easier to notice how mundane it is when you're not really
challenged) but I was ready to forgive a little since I thought,
"Well, it's just the Normal difficulty."

I only realized this weekend when comparing my achievements to one of
my friends' that I beat the game on Heroic.

I
actually stood in a stream and watched the water get diverted around my feet
as if in real life, and it happens also around vehicle wheels also, and it
is very relaistic, you won't see that in UDF. The water even moves up and
down in ripples when it edges up onto land. If you have the game, put it in,
and go the the said mission and look at it., blow up some enemies, there are
a lot at the beginning. Run over the small trees on your way up the hill.

I'll be sure to pop in Halo 3 just to look at some of the water
effects in the first level. I'll do the same for Uncharted. From what
I've read online, there are just about the same amount of supporters
for both games' water effects. What seems hands down is that the water
LOOKS much better in Uncharted than it does in Halo 3... I've only
heard people say how the water acts realistically in Halo 3.

People have also noted that if Drake falls into the water, his clothes
are appropriately wet when he comes out. I'm wondering if you just
step in the water... will just your pants and boots be wet and not
your shirt.

People have also noted how realistic the water acts as you're swimming
around in it. So people think that Drake's Fortune's water is not only
realistic in reaction to the player but also in how it looks and how
it affects the character model itself.

leaves and trees flutter when you shoot through them as well as
move through them.
You pay a lot more attention to this kind of detail than 99% of gamers
out there. More important physics effects are how more noticeable
objects like rocks, barrels, etc. react when you shoot them.
Well its kind of hard not to notice when I shoot an enemy as they run and
the leaves move in front of my eyes as I shoot through them trying to get
them.

Really? I never even noticed the leaves when I was maneuvering around
and trying to get a bead on some enemies. Leaves on a tree are the
last thing I'm worried about when I'm taking on a half-dozen enemies
and trying not to get killed.

I just didn't stand around trying to find these activities, I noticed
them during gameplay while shooting and running through the environments.
It's hard not to notice that small tree bends over when I run over it with
the warthog, so why I wouldn't I notice that.

Actually, it's quite easy to not to notice that. I don't and I'm not
one of the people who are just trying to blow *** up all the time.
I'll notice things like crappy textures and bad looking water (Perfect
Dark Zero, I'm looking at you). I'll notice little things like
individual shells popping out of my weapon. Leaves blowing around...
not so much.

What I find puzzling though,
is that you notice character faces when killing them when you really can't
see the faces when 99% of the time you are shooting them from a distance,
even if small distances.

One of my favorite weapons in Halo 3 is the rifle that only fires
short bursts and has a scope. Another one I like is the sniper laser
that the vulture-looking Covenant use. Of course, I'd use the sniper
rifle exclusively if I could... easily my favorite weapon.

Barrels (if any in the game) do blow up and move
when shot, crates disintegrate into pieces, etc. You can even melee objects
out of the way.

I can melee objects out of the way in plenty of games...

Object explode into pieces and bounce around in more
dimensions as well
What objects? You don't really get much debris from a destroyed
vehicle. You're left with basically the twisted hull and a couple of
components here and there.
I am generalizing all of the objects in the game, yet you keep picking lone
objects for examples.

Play the game and blow up crates as just one example, many objects are
destructible and again it seems you are willing to pay attention to faces,
but the effect I state are because of my actions in combat during the game.
H3 has more destructibles than any console game out there. I think the game
graphically is very good, the campaign is a little weak but the coop element
made it a treat. The MP totally stinks and is useless to me.

I found every aspect of the game underwhelming... just to different
degrees. Halo 3 is a joke when you put it next to some of the better
games in this generation so far when it should be absolutely
dominating. Halo 3 is a very important game and it's a shame that
Bungie and Microsoft dropped the ball.

and natural environments being very active (grass
movement, trees in the wind) I can go on listing these for H3, but I
think
you get my point.>> > Microsoft should really consider mandating that the
next team to take
on the core Halo franchise (since Bungie obviously doesn't want to
do
it) utilize a modern game engine, such as Unreal Engine 3 (or better
yet... 4).
The engine for Halo 3 is no more than an enhanced version of the
very
same engine from Halo: Combat Evolved. Bungie *never* rewrote the
engine... they just tacked on new functionality and features (and
switched out the first game's physics system for the Havok engine
before Halo 2).

You make some fair points/observations about Halo 3. The graphics don't smack you in the face like Gears of War, but they are much better than I think you are giving them credit for, and they're much better than Halo 2's graphics.

When was the last time you actually put Halo 2 in and looked at it? Because when the Halo 3 beta came out, I remember being disappointed that the graphics weren't much better than what I remember Halo 2's looking like. Then I put in Halo 2 after the beta was done. Man, I was surprised at the difference between the two. My memories were to kind to Halo 2. It was good for it's time but it is really showing it's age.

The level of detail in Halo 3 is amazing. It may or may not be worse than Gears Of War. Halo 3's biggest graphical problem is the art style. Bungie wanted to keep the art style in line with the previous two games. Gears didn't have to worry about that. Can you imagine if Master Chief looked like one of the balloon characters from Gears? People would have lost their minds.

Of course, it could have always been better.
.

Loading