AVS › AVS Forum › Gaming & Content Streaming › Home Theater Gaming › Xbox Area › Halo 3 visuals-will be much better than beta
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Halo 3 visuals-will be much better than beta

post #1 of 59
5/30/07 at 4:07pm
Thread Starter 
Developers are saying that the beta was just to show gameplay and wasn't to impress visually. Here's link http://www.gametrailers.com/viewnews.php?id=4687

Good news because I liked the beta, I really did, but visually I thought it was what halo 3 would be like on the original xbox.
Reply
Reply

AVS Top Picks

post #2 of 59
5/30/07 at 4:16pm
The way I read it is that multiplayer is pretty much going to stay as-is with a few tweaks here and there, but it was mainly built for gameplay and not eye-candy.

The single player mode seems to be where all the visual goodness will be.

I guess we'll find out in a few months.
Reply
Reply
post #3 of 59
5/30/07 at 5:36pm
I took it the same as you mastahkaz. Doesn't sound like they are saying they will be improved. Even if they are I doubt "much better" nut maybe slightly.
Reply
Reply
post #4 of 59
5/30/07 at 5:45pm
I expect single player to be well above multiplayer for obvious reasons. I'm sure they'll polish up multiplayer but if people expect it to look like Gears, they're dreaming.
Reply
Reply
post #5 of 59
5/30/07 at 6:59pm
It should look better the 360 is not "Last Gen" it is suposed to be "Next Gen" and that means both high end visuals and great gameplay. Unless everyone likes throwing thier money away.
Reply
Reply
post #6 of 59
5/30/07 at 7:26pm
Well, I think the multiplayer beta looks pretty good, but obviously it doesnt top the look of Gears. I do think the multi-player visuals will be improved before launch, but it still wont quite be up to Gears level, which isnt going to really take anything away from the game. The single player though, I think it really will look great. Halo 2 visuals were great in the single player, while the multiplayer was slightly less. I think Halo 3 will be the same way
Reply
Reply
post #7 of 59
5/30/07 at 7:34pm
I doubt the visuals will see a drastic improvement in just a few months. I hope to be proven wrong though because I am not sure why I bought a 360 when I could have played a game that looks like Halo 3 on my original xbox. I am playing the beta tomorrow night so maybe I will change my mind.

This kinda reminds me when Nintendo first announced the official specs of the Wii and showed some of the visuals that were very much last gen. Lots of people wanted to deny that it was true and thought that Nintendo would somehow change their plan at the 11th hour and come out with an uber killer virtual reality device or something. It didn't happen. This is pretty much the 11th hour for Bungie and I think that what you see on the beta is probably what you will get come September. (But, I still preordered anyway)
Reply
Reply
post #8 of 59
5/30/07 at 8:44pm
Thread Starter 
Why shouldn't multiplayer for halo 3 look just about as good as the single player for halo 3. GOW multiplayer looks very close graphically(you basically can't tell the difference) compared to the campaign in the game. Why would halo 3, which most likely, will be less impressive graphically to GOW, not have a multiplayer that is like the single play.

I took the interview as, this is just a sample of the game and we(bungie) were showing you the gameplay of halo 3(for multiplayer) not the graphics, and this will not be the final result for graphics. Meaning, this will not look like the final result for multiplayer since they were talking about the beta multiplayer graphics and not the campaign since that is not what the developer was asked.
Reply
Reply
post #9 of 59
5/30/07 at 8:57pm
The reason multiplayer will not look as good as single player is that in single player, the developer has absolute control over what is onscreen at any given time. You know you can maintain 30 for 60 fps given a certain situation because there can only be a certain amount of objects, particles, polygons, etc at any time since the developer carefully places them there. In multiplayer the developer loses this ability as the players are the ones who are going to determine what may be onscreen at any given time. So in order to make sure fps is solid the developers have to tone down the whizbang gfx features to ensure the fps doesn't go down the tube when too many players or things get onscreen at once. This is a problem that occurs all the time in MMORPGs. Developers tone down the graphics a great deal so that upwards of 50 , 60 players can join raids at the same time. Just look at the graphics in World of Warcraft. It was poor technically even when the game launced a few years back. Now look at something like Vanguard, which launched with an engine that has most of the newest graphical effects, but ran very poorly. For a multiplayer game like that to run as badly as it does, it simply cannot survive. Thus, smart developers take into account the fact that in multiplayer they do not necessarily control the environment in which players are playing so they must make allowances for all situations to insure a good gameplay experience that isn't too often marred by poor fps. Plus its just better to concentrate on gameplay (which includes insuring good fps, low lag, larger environments in which to play in, etc) rather than trying to place all the newest shader effects and extra polygons that you really don't need if you want a fast and intense game of CTF or Team DM.
Reply
Reply
post #10 of 59
5/30/07 at 8:59pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krone7 View Post

Why shouldn't multiplayer for halo 3 look just about as good as the single player for halo 3. GOW multiplayer looks very close graphically(you basically can't tell the difference) compared to the campaign in the game. Why would halo 3, which most likely, will be less impressive graphically to GOW, not have a multiplayer that is like the single play.

I took the interview as, this is just a sample of the game and we(bungie) were showing you the gameplay of halo 3(for multiplayer) not the graphics, and this will not be what the final result for graphics. Meaning, this will not look like the final result for multiplayer since they were talking about the beta multiplayer graphics and not the campaign since that is not what the developer was asked.

I would guess that the reason is the problems of doing graphics for multiplayer are multiplied with a game that is more wideo open and has large draw distances with faster paced action versus doing a game like Gears that is about confined spaces, slow gameplay and only a few players at once.

If Bungie wants to get any realistic data from the beta then it would behoove them to make it as close to final as possible. I also doubt they went to the trouble of intentionally making the graphics in the beta different from what is intended for the final game. This would be a waste of resources and just doesn't make any sense.
Reply
Reply
post #11 of 59
5/30/07 at 9:09pm
I can see why people care about graphics. This game will be a step up but the comparisions to GOW need to stop. This is a completely different game. Its all about the gameplay. You soon forget this game looks cool when you are in team skimish or whatever your online prefence is. As an above poster said, this is not an eye candy game. Game play and teamwork make up this game. If you want eye candy, go join the army or something...
Reply
Reply
post #12 of 59
5/30/07 at 9:12pm
What you see in the demo is what you're likely to get in the game. If you think that the game will be a lot better than the demo you're only kidding yourselves. It reminds me of all the people who were saying that it was going to look like all the cgi screenshots released a year ago.

If anything, there should be minor graphical tweaks.
Reply
Reply
post #13 of 59
5/30/07 at 9:23pm
Thread Starter 
mcmush, you need to actually read my posts before you comment on them. I didn't compare halo 3 to gow at all. I used it as an example of campaign graphics to multiplayer graphics. You obviously didn't read my first post either because I said I liked the beta so if I was only looking for "Eye Candy" I wouldn't have liked it. Again read the posts before commenting on them.

And to the poster who gave me the details about fps thank you because you understood what I was trying to ask. I understand that halo 3 is more fast paced(more shooting) and more people(only 4 more for btb) but the levels are not any bigger than GOW. I just don't get why the graphics have to be that toned down in order to have acceptable lag. Look at COD3, there's how many players and the levels are how big but they still were able to make it look like campaign.

I'm not comparing game vs. game. I just don't understand why campaign is going to look "waaay better" for halo 3 than it's multiplayer when all these other games did not do that.
Reply
Reply
post #14 of 59
5/30/07 at 10:29pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hmerly View Post

The reason multiplayer will not look as good as single player is that in single player, the developer has absolute control over what is onscreen at any given time. You know you can maintain 30 for 60 fps given a certain situation because there can only be a certain amount of objects, particles, polygons, etc at any time since the developer carefully places them there. In multiplayer the developer loses this ability as the players are the ones who are going to determine what may be onscreen at any given time. So in order to make sure fps is solid the developers have to tone down the whizbang gfx features to ensure the fps doesn't go down the tube when too many players or things get onscreen at once. This is a problem that occurs all the time in MMORPGs. Developers tone down the graphics a great deal so that upwards of 50 , 60 players can join raids at the same time. Just look at the graphics in World of Warcraft. It was poor technically even when the game launced a few years back. Now look at something like Vanguard, which launched with an engine that has most of the newest graphical effects, but ran very poorly. For a multiplayer game like that to run as badly as it does, it simply cannot survive. Thus, smart developers take into account the fact that in multiplayer they do not necessarily control the environment in which players are playing so they must make allowances for all situations to insure a good gameplay experience that isn't too often marred by poor fps. Plus its just better to concentrate on gameplay (which includes insuring good fps, low lag, larger environments in which to play in, etc) rather than trying to place all the newest shader effects and extra polygons that you really don't need if you want a fast and intense game of CTF or Team DM.

There is another significant reason for the lower spec graphics in multiplayer -the networking, both at the driver and application level sucks a lot of cpu resource, especially if you are hosting. This means the gpu stops being the bottleneck (for graphics) It's actually the cpu getting maxed out.
Reply
Reply
post #15 of 59
5/30/07 at 11:41pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by jedimastergrant View Post

I doubt the visuals will see a drastic improvement in just a few months. I hope to be proven wrong though because I am not sure why I bought a 360 when I could have played a game that looks like Halo 3 on my original xbox. I am playing the beta tomorrow night so maybe I will change my mind.

This kinda reminds me when Nintendo first announced the official specs of the Wii and showed some of the visuals that were very much last gen. Lots of people wanted to deny that it was true and thought that Nintendo would somehow change their plan at the 11th hour and come out with an uber killer virtual reality device or something. It didn't happen. This is pretty much the 11th hour for Bungie and I think that what you see on the beta is probably what you will get come September. (But, I still preordered anyway)


I have been testing stuff for them for a couple of years now and I am telling you betas are not final code. Graphically you will see big improvements, just wait and see. I thought Shadowrun was ugly and they just kept updating it, and updating it. You will see, you will see!
Reply
Reply
post #16 of 59
5/30/07 at 11:52pm
Thread Starter 
Did anyone play the halo 2 beta???? That game looked way worse than halo 1. I can't believe halo 3 will look just like the beta.
Reply
Reply
post #17 of 59
5/31/07 at 9:27am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krone7 View Post

Did anyone play the halo 2 beta???? That game looked way worse than halo 1. I can't believe halo 3 will look just like the beta.

A few friends of mine were party of the Halo 2 Beta testing. They stated that the Halo 2 Beta graphics were a downgraded version of the final release. And yes, they said Halo 2 Beta looked like Halo 1.

I played on the Halo 3 Alpha testing, and for sure, the graphics on Alpha were degraded compared to Beta.

I'm so discombobulated on why so many people are concerned with the graphics of the game? It's BETA people! The main purpose of Halo 3 beta was to test the network/ranking system and fish out multiplayer bugs, not advertise visual capabilities . Alpha testing had the same purpose, with a lesser scale of players.
Reply
Reply
post #18 of 59
5/31/07 at 9:42am
Quote:
Originally Posted by joe_six_pack View Post

What you see in the demo is what you're likely to get in the game.

No.

Quote:
Originally Posted by joe_six_pack View Post

It reminds me of all the people who were saying that it was going to look like all the cgi screenshots released a year ago.

In-engine renderings <> CGI.
Reply
Reply
post #19 of 59
5/31/07 at 10:22am
The developers also said that HALO 2 would be good.
Reply
Reply
post #20 of 59
5/31/07 at 10:31am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Megalith View Post

The developers also said that HALO 2 would be good.

Well, the single-player WAS good (VERY good) ... right up until the point that the Flood came roaring back into the story, at which point it lost some momentum, but not irretrievably. The real issue was the climax, which was not an ending but a 100 mph screeching, horrific crash into a brick wall.
Reply
Reply
post #21 of 59
5/31/07 at 11:45am
Look at Vegas. It's a great game and the graphics are tweaked a litte bit in each mode. I love both MP and SP.

I also think some people should go back and look at some of the original xbox games and see how much better the beta graphics are than they used to be(sans Ninja Gaiden). Look at the snow to the left of the pipeline in Snowbound. It looks amazing. Also for those comparing GoW, look at the scope of Halo and the amounts of colors used. They are completely different animals.
Reply
Reply
post #22 of 59
5/31/07 at 11:56am
Quote:
Originally Posted by assasyn View Post

Look at the snow to the left of the pipeline in Snowbound. It looks amazing. Also for those comparing GoW, look at the scope of Halo and the amounts of colors used. They are completely different animals.

Assasyn, everyone is definitely entitled to their opinion, but did you feel that Snowbound is the weakest of all 3 available levels in total? When I first started the beta, I tried Snowbound and I was extremely dissapointed. It felt very unfinished (makes sense it is a beta after all).

Luckily Valhalla and High Ground more than made up for it. Not leaps and bounds above, like everyone has repeatedly said, but it is very, very, VERY fun and Im happy they provided such a wonderful, fun beta to pass time with.
Reply
Reply
post #23 of 59
5/31/07 at 12:34pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by jedimastergrant View Post

I would guess that the reason is the problems of doing graphics for multiplayer are multiplied with a game that is more wideo open and has large draw distances with faster paced action versus doing a game like Gears that is about confined spaces, slow gameplay and only a few players at once.

People keep saying you can't hold Halo 3 to the standards of Gears because of the wide open environments and more players.

How do those people respond now that Epic has said Unreal on 360 looks BETTER than Gears (and the editors of OXM agree), has HUGE environments that require vehicles to get across ("UT is about big, huge distances. The speed of UT is so quick; it's not a walking environment, it's a running or flying environment"), and has as many players as Halo 3?

Anyway...back in the fall one of the EGM editors saw some single player footage from Halo 3 and said "It will make you say Gears of What?" .... so there is some hope.
Reply
Reply
post #24 of 59
5/31/07 at 1:07pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by dub273 View Post

No.

It would be nice if I'm proved wrong, but it's not often you'll see spectacular graphics going from beta or demo to launch, especially so close to the game's release.

You will see graphical tweaks, bugs worked out, weapons balanced, and framerate improvements though.
Reply
Reply
post #25 of 59
5/31/07 at 1:08pm
GoW is a great game, but don't forget they have been working on it even before xbox360 came out. Halo 2 was release 4 months after Epic announced the Unreal 3 engine.

I mean look at these screens from The unreal site from 2004 (Thank you waybackmachine). Images of the General, Bezerker and a locust.

http://web.archive.org/web/200408110...ogy/ue30.shtml
Reply
Reply
post #26 of 59
5/31/07 at 1:10pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Replicant Nexus6 View Post

Assasyn, everyone is definitely entitled to their opinion, but did you feel that Snowbound is the weakest of all 3 available levels in total? When I first started the beta, I tried Snowbound and I was extremely dissapointed. It felt very unfinished (makes sense it is a beta after all).

Luckily Valhalla and High Ground more than made up for it. Not leaps and bounds above, like everyone has repeatedly said, but it is very, very, VERY fun and Im happy they provided such a wonderful, fun beta to pass time with.

Yes, definitely the weakest map. If it wasn't for the textures of snow and the shiny copper look on top of each base, it would be very bland. They gameplay to me, makes up for that.
Reply
Reply
post #27 of 59
5/31/07 at 1:38pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by curttard View Post

How do those people respond now that Epic has said Unreal on 360 looks BETTER than Gears (and the editors of OXM agree)

I don't feel anything OXM says, holds much water. I would hope it should look better, they know that engine inside and out.


Quote:
Originally Posted by curttard View Post

Anyway...back in the fall one of the EGM editors saw some single player footage from Halo 3 and said "It will make you say Gears of What?" .... so there is some hope.

That would be a nice suprise.
Reply
Reply
post #28 of 59
5/31/07 at 1:46pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by joe_six_pack View Post

It would be nice if I'm proved wrong, but it's not often you'll see spectacular graphics going from beta or demo to launch, especially so close to the game's release.

To be fair, we don't have any information about when the beta code was finalized.
Reply
Reply
post #29 of 59
5/31/07 at 2:01pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by curttard View Post

People keep saying you can't hold Halo 3 to the standards of Gears because of the wide open environments and more players.

How do those people respond now that Epic has said Unreal on 360 looks BETTER than Gears (and the editors of OXM agree), has HUGE environments that require vehicles to get across ("UT is about big, huge distances. The speed of UT is so quick; it's not a walking environment, it's a running or flying environment"), and has as many players as Halo 3?

Anyway...back in the fall one of the EGM editors saw some single player footage from Halo 3 and said "It will make you say Gears of What?" .... so there is some hope.

Actually, I completely agree with that. I just think that Bungie's engine is probably crap compared to the Unreal engine 3. So they are really limited as to what they can do with multiplayer.
Reply
Reply
post #30 of 59
5/31/07 at 2:01pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by joe_six_pack View Post

What you see in the demo is what you're likely to get in the game. If you think that the game will be a lot better than the demo you're only kidding yourselves. It reminds me of all the people who were saying that it was going to look like all the cgi screenshots released a year ago.

If anything, there should be minor graphical tweaks.

the beta was not a demo. we should be seeing a demo in august sometime.
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Xbox Area

AVS Top Picks

AVS › AVS Forum › Gaming & Content Streaming › Home Theater Gaming › Xbox Area › Halo 3 visuals-will be much better than beta