digg

Join DiggAbout

Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular Elections 2008 content on Digg.

Bungie: Graphical Improvements Coming To Halo 3

irserious.com — A lot of people were unimpressed with Halo 3's graphics. Well, according to Bungie's Frank O'Connor, those graphics are not complete yet, and the final version of Halo 3 will feature graphical improvements beyond what was seen in the mulitplayer beta.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • vampireblood, on 10/11/2007, -38/+8now thats what I want to hear!
    • guitarh3ro, on 10/11/2007, -25/+133Well no *****! That's what Bungie's been telling you people for the past couple of weeks and yet you still kept bitching about it! I'll say it again, just in case some of you still don't understand: Halo 3 Beta is a DEMO. NOT THE FINAL VERSION. Thank you.
    • Wiinii, on 10/11/2007, -32/+4Next time how bouts link directly to the REAL story:
      http://digg.com/xbox_360/Bungie_Graphical_Improvements_Coming_to_Halo_3_2
    • Butmac, on 10/11/2007, -30/+17@quitarh3ro

      Really? It's a beta? God forbid anyone look at the graphics on the "BETA" and feel like that may be a pretty damn good indicator of what the final game would be.
    • chocobomog, on 10/11/2007, -2/+39FTA
      "Multiplayer is by necessity a more sterile iteration of our graphical style and will always be tuned for performance and elegance rather than jamming the screen full of pixels. We think that the final aesthetic look of our game will be judged at launch in September and in part based on the more intense single player spaces... Lighting and atmospherics are going to be big keystones in our look and feel, and those really haven’t been shown except in multiplayer to this point... [expect a] few nifty graphical improvements in multiplayer."

      I don't think expressed himself correctly here, because this doesn't sound like the graphics will improve much for multiplayer. He says the graphics for the single player will look great, but the multiplayer graphics will be "sterilized" to ensure faster gameplay and performance. So whatever "nifty" graphical improvements they add will be small enough so they don't affect the gameplay.
    • YouRookies, on 10/11/2007, -36/+24"Well no *****! That's what Bungie's been telling you people for the past couple of weeks and yet you still kept bitching about it! I'll say it again, just in case some of you still don't understand: Halo 3 Beta is a DEMO. NOT THE FINAL VERSION. Thank you."

      Man, you fanboys sound like you guys would sacrifice your life to defend Halo.
    • Azimuth1, on 10/11/2007, -41/+13Somebody give me one example of a 360 game where the graphics have been improved over its demo.

      I don't deny that the single player graphics may be better than the multiplayer graphics (that's how it is in Vegas, too), but the multiplayer graphics will not change.
    • truspector, on 10/11/2007, -14/+33@azimuth

      Can you name one 360 game where the demo came out 4 1/2 months before the final game?
    • Cougaboy, on 10/11/2007, -9/+26I think it's necessary to correct the language here. The Halo 3 multiplayer Beta is exactly that: a BETA. Not a demo, just a beta. Beta = unfinished.

      Azimuth1, you're right, there aren't many games where the graphics of the release were better than in the demo, but remember, this is not a demo.
    • AntBing, on 10/11/2007, -26/+13Microsoft called it a beta so people wouldn't talk crap about the quality. It truly is a demo unless they add significant gameplay and/or graphics, which I'm sorry to say isn't going to happen in 4 months. In this case I think beta=demo unfortunately.
    • eezzzz, on 10/11/2007, -4/+15@truspector

      Blacksite Area 51?
    • zzz@tkz, on 10/11/2007, -18/+13I know that what is released is a beta, and I'll probably get dugg down for this, but it is a demo as well. Have we forgotten the true meaning of demo? It stands for demonstration. It is a demonstration of what the game will be, is it not? Granted it isn't a typical, final game engine demo, but it sure is a demo.
    • dracflamloc, on 10/11/2007, -5/+22Beta typically refers to the code and stability of a game, not its graphical content. By the time a modern game reaches Beta those graphics are just about 100%
    • skEwb35, on 10/11/2007, -12/+3instead of just adding hdr to halo 2 and calling it halo 3, we will now also add anti aliasing!!!!!!!!!!!
    • SnuKs, on 10/11/2007, -2/+32There will be graphical changes from the beta, but I highly doubt they'll meet the expectations of most Halo fans.

      If you're thinking it'll be beyond Gear's graphics, then you're just a sucka. Be real people.
    • zzz@tkz, on 10/11/2007, -11/+3I honestly don't understand why I am getting dugg down. I'm not saying that I don't like it, in fact, I'm an avid Halo fan, and own every game, soundtrack and book (including the graphical novel). I'm simply saying that it is (italics would be nice here) a demo[nstration]. It is (once again, italics) demonstrating what the game will be like. Instead of clicking the thumbs down button just because you think I am dissing the game (and I'm not, I think it is quite wonderful as is), how about we get some responses? Man up, if you have your option on this matter, please, state it, I'd be glad to listen to it.
    • LogicBomB, on 10/11/2007, -8/+29I don't see what the bitching is about. I personally think H3 beta looks just fine...

      It won't win any awards or anything but as far as looking good without being distracting goes, it's on par.
    • Fragarach87, on 10/11/2007, -5/+4@guitarh3ro
      hear hear guitarh3ro. Although I have one thing to add to this, The Halo 3 Multiplayer BETA is just that a Beta. Meaning what you see is NOT the final version. Bungie tried to make this very clear to the community when the BETA was announced, but it apparently still got presumed as a demo which it is not.

      Just so everyone out there is clear BETA means: preliminary or testing stage of a software or hardware product; "a beta version"; "beta software" - Dictionary.com
    • Jinno, on 10/11/2007, -2/+12Antibing, so they have to add entirely different features in order for you to think of this as a beta? Did I mention that Bungie's implementing 2nd Person? :O Oh wait, ***** the NDA is going to rape me for that.

      A Beta is a close to final version of a game. Graphics will certainly be tuned in any reasonable way they can. Considering I haven't had so much as a chug in framerate whilst playing the Beta Demonstration, I think they're justified in their designing the game for performance and not simply appeal. I play GoW and I get framerate chugs, glitches, lag(I have encountered this in the Beta), and various other things. Not to mention the feeling of being completely and utterly confined. Bungie has to account for players jumping and pushing and everything. They're also looking at much more rapidly deployed grenades, particle effects and the like.

      And the game still looks damn good. Halo has never been about being the pinnacle of graphics. (Halo 2 in comparison to HL2 for example.) It's been about fun, and they have yet to let me down in that respect.
    • SpectralSounds, on 10/11/2007, -5/+69 times out of 10, the graphics are about as good as they are going to get on a beta. Beta tests happen because they need to test gameplay. Sometimes the graphical issues in the games cause bugs and need to be fixed, such as incorrect axis issues, etc. But, usually.. the graphics are done by the time the game hits beta.

      So, they are upgrading the graphics to reflect complaints about how they should look better. Not because its a beta. The graphics should have already been DONE before beta tests.
    • LogicBomB, on 10/11/2007, -5/+4I think they are just asking for a verbal beating. They aren't trying to usher in a new age of graphics, they just want to make a new game in a great series. You'll get people bitching that it doesn't look as good as "x" but you get that on ANY game that isn't pushing the envelope. But instead of going for a universal look, MP will forever look like something is missing because you know what it's supposed to look like when it's fancied up.

      Halo looked great at the time, Halo2 looked better. Try playing Halo1 after Halo2. It's like night and day. Now imagine that feeling everytime you switch game modes. That'll be annoying as hell.
    • RonPaulPres2008, on 10/11/2007, -7/+6They said that this is basically how the game is going to look, the models and levels are final, so by graphical improvements they mean gloss and bloom.

      halo fails
    • CaseyUCF, on 10/11/2007, -3/+9guitarh3ro: actually, halo3 beta is NOT a demo.

      It's simply just a beta.
    • jacksons98, on 10/11/2007, -6/+2I think people have a right to be upset about the graphics. What happened to that supposed in-game footage Bill Gates showed off at the last E3?? This is nowhere close. I believe it's possible for a substantial improvement between beta and the real game. It reminds me of people who said Motorstorm sucked for PS3 when all they played was the crappy 4 month previous demo at Walmart. Demo or beta does not mean that is what the final game will be like. I believe Bungie will deliver.
    • Displace, on 10/11/2007, -5/+5Of course they say graphics are going to improve- they wouldn't sell as many copies if they didn't.
    • NickDaddyKing, on 10/11/2007, -3/+4they always say that
    • kethraal, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3"By the time a modern game reaches Beta those graphics are just about 100%"

      Spoken like someone who never followed Halo 2's dev cycle :-D

      When Halo 2 was in beta, the water (for example) was still just a texture. Yes, it looked nice, but the water algos weren't finished yet -- so there was just a (pretty) static picture of the water. Shadowing for most models was "faked" (semi-transparent texture, like Half-Life 2) up until some of the post-beta builds. Weapon models were more or less finished -- but the shaders for some of the plasma effects also didn't make it to beta.

      Betas are about testing the core code -- the graphics are usually tweaked up until the end.
    • kelbear, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4Beta is not a solid term in development. The word can mean anything from 40% done to 99.999% done.

      All you need to know is that there are 4 months left to change the game. 4 months.

      What you interpret that 4 months to result in is up to you. If you think nothing gets done in 4 months, consider that singleplayer campaigns have been created in just 16 months after the concept art and engine/tools are in place. If you think everything can change in 4 months, consider that they're so sure they're done they've already decided a specific release date with just 4 months to finish up.

      All you need to know is that there are 4 months left.
    • MechaZain, on 10/11/2007, -3/+2So we can't judge Halo four and half months before because they slap a Beta label on it yet, a Wii screenshot is shown five months prior to release and the flame squad comes out to prey.

      Internet FTW?...
    • wageslaven, on 10/11/2007, -5/+4"single player graphics may be better than the multiplayer graphics (that's how it is in Vegas, too), but the multiplayer graphics will not change."

      Are you +*****+ serious? Tell me, how many 3D games ship with two rendering engines, one for single, the other for mutliplayer?
    • shogusumi, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4@wageslaven - it doesn't have to be two different engines, it can be the same engine with fewer features turned on, or maybe in multiplayer the maps are slightly different, less populated, fewer polys, etc. I'm sure there are plenty of ways of reducing or increasing the complexity of the pipeline depending on context. As far as examples, I think Gran Turismo and PGR 3 are well know for having better graphical quality during replays vs during in-game. I was thinking GoW did the same thing for cutscenes vs gameplay...
    • HBNDonut, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4I think the beta looks alright. The graphics can look a lot like Halo 2 at some times and then at other times they look absolutely great. We all know the graphics will never compare to GOW, but some people need to grow up and stop saying the graphics just plain suck. Sure the graphics are more simplistic than some games out there, but that was bungies intent for the game so as to keep to Halo's stylised feel. What is there looks great. All the surface textures are very high resolution and they look amazing. PLUS the game has a good steady framerate, it plays very smoothly and there is no screen tearing.

      The only graphical improvements I would like to see is the real time reflections on the Spartan visors that we were promised. And maybe tone down those dark shadows the player models have beneath them.
    • ericrous, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1Actually, it's not even four months-because they will have to "go gold" for at least a few weeks before that to get all the discs pressed, packaged, and shipped in time. I seriously doubt they'll be able to do much in the way of graphical enhancement this late in the game. It will be a long way from "Gears of War," my friends. Sad to see the once dominant Halo franchise bumped off the top of the hill, though.
    • HBNDonut, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1How has Halo been "bumped off the hill"? The game is set to outsell Halo 2! There has already been over 3 million pre-orders for the game.
    • lacronicus, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1"Antibing, so they have to add entirely different features in order for you to think of this as a beta? Did I mention that Bungie's implementing 2nd Person? :O Oh wait, ***** the NDA is going to rape me for that."

      you idiot, 2nd person dosent exist, at least not as a perspective in a video game. perhaps you meant 3rd person? perhaps, but seeing as how it was the main point of that statement, i doubt youd get it wrong. either way, you lost your credibility.

      in any case, i would not be surprised of bungie pulls off something spectacular. the idea of a beta is that it is feature complete, however, many games that use an MP beta only have multiplayer features complete. it is perfectly reasonable to think that the graphical features will be added. granted, it wont look anything like crysis, since crysis involves a lot more than can be simply added to an engine to make it look pretty (i.e. everything in crysis is integrated with the engine. if the original engine did not have it, it wont likely get added with a simply patch. things like trees breaking and buildings blowing up are not something that can be added with the engine not supporting it from the beginning.) bungie could never pull something like that off in 4 months, and if theyve been working on it the whole time, then the MP beta was a waste of time, since not only does everyone think its bad, but it would never end up getting tested by the general public. i have no doubt that it will look better than gears, but aside from some high poly models and high res textures, it had nothing truly remarkable to compete with.
  • TrainingName, on 10/11/2007, -38/+7The graphics update would probably just be something such as fixing a minor texture on his left finger or whatever the ***** else you could think of as such a minor thing.

    Something unnoticable.
    • logicalnoise, on 10/11/2007, -7/+25EGM already confirmed that the single player graphics are quite impressive and that the multiplayer is obviously using a stripped down version of the same engine. Meaning they haven't implented the final graphics in the BETA.
    • estvir, on 10/11/2007, -7/+10And they had AA and other things turned off in the beta because guess what, the beta wasn't there to test the graphics, it was there to test multiplayer and it could've looked like a 10 year old FPS but they still would've been achieving what they wanted, seeing how MP fairs with the common gamer.
    • Hoov, on 10/11/2007, -5/+6Not to mention this really isn't news.

      Play any single player FPS game and look at the graphics. Now play that game's multiplayer and notice how things have been toned down a bit.

      Wake up people - this is stuff you already know.
  • TrainingName, on 10/11/2007, -63/+4Digg me down, non-believers!
  • TheWalrus0, on 10/11/2007, -12/+5The point is, I think they based the beta with halo 2 graphics because the beta is not there to test how the game is looking but how well online gaming is doing and to calibrate weapons and new items depending on how people are using them.
  • logicalnoise, on 10/11/2007, -5/+21Frankie will likely have to say it 200 times more before people actually acknowledge it.
  • traphik, on 10/11/2007, -31/+2The textures in Halo 3 are only 512x512 same as Halo 2 =/
    • logicalnoise, on 10/11/2007, -5/+31BETA!
    • traphik, on 10/11/2007, -18/+2Maybe I should rephrase. The textures in Halo 3 Beta are only 512 x 512, same as in Halo 2. I'm simply trying to give people a scale to base to current graphics to. Just imagine 2048 x 2048 in the final release. If they choose to use that resolution.
  • mastagama91, on 10/11/2007, -14/+2I'm glad, the graphics on the beta didn't impress me that much
    • wageslaven, on 10/11/2007, -3/+2The graphics on the BETA were terrific! I was SUPER IMPRESSED! IF they get better -- as this article tells us -- then, really WOW(!) Im going to be super impressed.

      -digg me up as a counter-weight for the obvious toss away testimonial on the above post.
  • DTJunkie07, on 10/11/2007, -3/+13Even with some improvements these graphics still wont be anything to use as a bar to compare other games to. Just look at how Halo 2 compared to games like Riddick on the original Xbox and thats what I am expecting out of it. Anyways its the precise control, great story and the heart pounding death matches that I'm most looking forward to.
    • whickywhickyjim, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2Are you serious? Wrong. Riddick looked way better than halo2 on the original xbox. Riddick also had none of the glitchy bump mapping or late shading issues that halo2 had.
    • DTJunkie07, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4I agree, mate...I think you need to read my comment again
  • reddevil3, on 10/11/2007, -10/+4I still have a strong feeling that the graphics will be very similar.
  • echolalia, on 10/11/2007, -7/+36IT ISN'T EVEN A DEMO. Stop saying that. What kind of demo is released 4 months before the actual release? It's beta, which means it's not final. And besides, it's a network based multiplayer beta, which means performance > asthetics.
    • potterboy, on 10/11/2007, -8/+3Lost Planet
    • Jinno, on 10/11/2007, -7/+3Lost Planet has like 8 demos. o_o;; Sorry to say it's also not praised for it's great graphics either, nor the stability of its netcode.
  • Shatterpulse, on 10/11/2007, -29/+8SHUT THE HELL UP ABOUT THE GRAPHICS. THEY ARE VERY GOOD, AND WHAT MATTERS MUCH MORE IS THE GAMEPLAY
    • mesmeriffic, on 10/11/2007, -1/+20Stop yelling, you may accidentally persuade me with your capitalized text.
    • hockey, on 10/11/2007, -4/+6@mcatrage
      It is. Then everyone turns around and smirk's at the irony of the Wii fanboi's complaining about the graphics for Metroid Prime 3.
    • Blah_Blah_Blah, on 10/11/2007, -3/+2@hockey

      dugg down for spelling fanboy "fanboi"

      come on guys
    • piper999, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1dugg down for not even knowing what a 'fanbois' is

  • derekstech, on 10/11/2007, -20/+3455FE10422CA29C4933F95052B792AB2
  • sneamia, on 10/11/2007, -16/+14Gameplay > Eye-candy.

    We don't want another Halo 2.
    • obixx, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5The funny thing is that it seems to be the people who play Halo 2 the most that complain about it. I love Halo 2, and it is a very fun game. You can't talk about the gameplay like it was a colossal failure because it was not.
    • whickywhickyjim, on 10/11/2007, -4/+1No, not the gameplay. The lame plot, the cutscenes and glitchy bump-mapping were the colossal failures of halo2. After how fined tuned the graphics were when halo2 was released, I don't have much faith in Bungie.
    • wageslaven, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3"We dont want another Halo2"? Really? Well, I certainly do, because Halo 2 was great. The press loved it
      (http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/xbx/halo2?q=halo (95 out of 100 on Metacritic)). It sold over 7 million copies worldwide since release -- US$125 million on its premiere day, making it the fastest selling United States media product in history.

      *I*LOVED*IT* as did the rest of the gaming planet. One of the _best_games_ever_. Not subjective opinion, but the clear objective reality by any measure you choose.
  • jamima69z, on 10/11/2007, -15/+7i think all the halo fanboys are in for a rude awakening if they think the final graphics are going to be anything more than slightly improved. it's too damn late in the process to do much besides fine tune.

    might i recommend UT2007? ;)
    • radda, on 10/11/2007, -3/+13Not really. The E3 trailer last year was all real time. They've already said the engine they're currently using is stripped down to fine tune performance. They've probably set it up so that they can easily use the single player engine when they're ready to.

      The haters are almost as annoying as the ***** fanboys...
    • jamima69z, on 10/11/2007, -10/+4hating halo would be like hating sliced bread,both are average and plain,but still ok sometimes. just not something u should brag about having.
    • logicalnoise, on 10/11/2007, -6/+3"hating halo would be like hating sliced bread,both are average and plain,but still ok sometimes. just not something u should brag about having."

      Bread(halo) + Peanut Butter(XBL)= crazy delicious
    • ohnnyj, on 10/11/2007, -6/+2I think it goes Mr. Pibb and Red Vines = crazy delicious!
    • pixelmixer, on 10/11/2007, -2/+5You mean UT3? :), maybe us Halo fanboys are too quick for yah, but it was renamed from UT2007 to UT3 to match the engine name.

      UT3 will be awesome, true, BUT its not in the same league as Halo 3. The UT series is a much faster FPS being entirely a run-n-gun game. Whereas Halo is the median between strategy and run-n-gun. UT being at one end of that spectrum and Gears of War at the other end. Gears is slow paced with lots of strategy (which makes it kind of boring at times), and UT is very fast paced very little strategy. Halo has a good balance of speed to keep it fun and a decent amount of strategy to keep it interesting.

      my 2c
    • wageslaven, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2"the haters are almost as annoying as the fanboys"

      Your missing the point. The "haters" _ARE_ the fanboys. They are the fanboys of some mystical Xbox 360 slaying competitor. The enemy of my enemy is my friend is the process here.

  • khoa1708, on 10/11/2007, -16/+8of course it's going to be better cuz it's going to be on the 360...
    but halo is still overrated, no differences whatsoever from the typical generic FPS seen MANY times for the comp
    -50 diggs now...
    • whahaa, on 10/11/2007, -3/+2then how did halo1 become so popular if it was nothing different?

      it's not like they hyped halo1 to all hell or anything. it caught on in a slower way, rolling up new fans thru several years as more hands touched it and discovered how awesome it was. the hype around halo2 and even halo3 goes back to halo1 being a great, different kind of FPS. if it wasn't, it never would have become the phenomenon it is now.
    • Myonosken, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1Wait...Did you just say Halo 1 wasn't hyped?
    • DollaDollaBill, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3Your so right. So average. But for a console FPS its above average, therefore average FPS players bow to it.
  • SocketNine3Nine, on 10/11/2007, -7/+8Beta versions are not Demo copies. Props to all who realized that.
    • jamima69z, on 10/11/2007, -17/+2dug down for use of the word "props"
    • eezzzz, on 10/11/2007, -5/+3The difference being, you used to be paid / given incentive to play betas, now you pay to test them.... progress!
  • noseeme, on 10/11/2007, -3/+10UGH. Blogspam *****. This is just ***** reactionary writing to what was seen in this article:
    http://www.next-gen.biz/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=5789&Itemid=2
  • WickedDrag0oN, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Thats great, but will it look pretty and also let you blow away a wall. Or will it just be that... pretty...
    • psg188, on 10/11/2007, -3/+2Yeah, they also promised Halo 2 PC wouldn't suck... thanks bungie for not caring about the PC port.
  • daveflav, on 10/11/2007, -8/+2I've played the beta it was great and the graphics are a step up from halo 2 if you don't think so put halo 2 in and then play the beta. And with it being a beta it will only get better. Bungie is always updating and changing stuff to be better. But I'm not as concerned about the insane looking graphics as the kickass game play. I want a single player experience like halo 1 and multiplayer better then halo 2. The beta has already done the later. When you go back and play halo 2 it seems slow and not polished even when compared with the beta. Halo 3 will kick ass and be the best online experience as with being a pop culture and media powerhouse.
    • Scheissen, on 10/11/2007, -11/+5That's why Halo2 sucks; it isn't even a sequel to Halo in the game play mechanics. Even the shield system, which was innovated in Halo, was screwed up in Halo2. Sorry, but you should not be able to recharge your shields and come back fighting as if nothing happened.
    • watership, on 10/11/2007, -5/+6Scheissen. Your memory is steeped in nostalgia. Halo 1 had health packs, Halo 2 had regenerating health. Which one is used by most shooters now? Halo 1 and 2 had relatively the same sheild system. Play mechanics CAN change in a sequel. That still makes it a sequel. Your argument is more of a rant.
    • Scheissen, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1huh? If the play mechanics change as much as they did from Halo to Halo2 when they are basically both first person shooters then it doesn't deserve to be called a sequel. Halo2 had regenerating health that was put in to noobify the gameplay even further. Halo was innovative with regenerating shields. There is still a human under that suit so health under the suit should still be remembered even if Bungie didn't want to do health packs.
  • harrisbradley, on 10/11/2007, -0/+10This is like cortana saying, "This cave is not a natural formation." Article courtesy of Cpt. Obvious.
  • swavalier711, on 10/11/2007, -8/+1I'm glad they will take advantage of the 360's superior engine, as promised.
    • swavalier711, on 10/11/2007, -3/+1jesus christ, halo fanboys, remove your ***** fangs! I like the series just as much as you and am awaiting ze awesome graphics promised to us!

      it's like a digg-down reflex to anyone who mentions graphics now.
  • formulathree, on 10/11/2007, -12/+5
    Breaking News: Bungie responds to their pitiful Halo 3 graphics. Sadly, you'll just be disappointed when it ships. Get used to the beta graphics because for the most part they're final.
  • digitallysick, on 10/11/2007, -3/+5I played halo 3 beta not sure if i like it, the maps don't seem very large. The combat feels very fluid (it feels very smooth ) . I don't like the fact that i can shoot someone 10 times, but they can hit me with the end of the gun and i die. I mean wtf
  • OhFrak, on 10/11/2007, -15/+4Nothing is going to change in any meaningful way when the game ships.

    If Halo 3 had come out right at launch it would have been decent - basically a quick and easy 360 port. But to be coming out almost two years after launch and be such a poor effort is a disaster. You have to wonder what the hell Bungie has been doing the years since they wrapped up work on Halo 2. The networking is essentially the same old H2 system - 16 players and no dedicated servers. The graphics have had minor upgrades over the Xbox version. The gameplay changes are ok, but not what you would expect from a major first party studio spending years to work on.

    Too little, too late. I'm sure single player will have slightly shinier and bumpier effects but after the major disappointment H2's single player was I'm not looking forward to H3's at all.

    Bungie appears to be a shell of what they used to be. Time to move on for me, Warhawk is what I'm looking forward to now when I pick up a PS3 soon. 32 players, dedicated and player servers, air and ground combat. And not stupid charge to play. You blew it Microsoft with online gaming.

    • afruff23, on 10/11/2007, -5/+8You're an idiot.
    • logicalnoise, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2You obviously haven't played the beta and really we haven't seen much of anything from the main game. Where as Warhawk is a multiplayer only game....way to go.
    • mlw4428, on 10/11/2007, -1/+64 Reasons you're wrong:

      1) You don't know for sure what the code running the networking behind Halo 2 OR 3 is like.
      2) They have added new features, maps, there's the continuation of the story line (seems like to me they've been very busy), weapons, and vehicles. Try designing one of them and see how long it takes you to do it.
      3) You don't know what the single player is going to be like. Quit bitching.
      4) Bungie is still an amazing company. I'd personally love to work for them.
    • OhFrak, on 10/11/2007, -8/+1"1) You don't know for sure what the code running the networking behind Halo 2 OR 3 is like. "

      Halo 2 - 16 players p2p networking

      Halo 3 - 16 players p2p networking

      I guess it is possible they completely rewrote the networking code to support the EXACT same setup.

      "4) Bungie is still an amazing company. I'd personally love to work for them."

      Companies are amazing when they do amazing things. Halo 3 is far from amazing.

    • Jinno, on 10/11/2007, -2/+6"Companies are amazing when they do amazing things. Halo 3 is far from amazing."

      Eh, I beg to differ. And it all depends on your view of amazing. Halo 3 compounds on the sense of amazement I got when I first landed on Halo after being in the confines of the Pillar of Autumn. The serene setting amazed me, and the tension that I got from being in that world amazed me. Halo instilled the greater love for video games I have today, as opposed to the lacking one I had beforehand.

      I'm also amazed by bands like Rage Against the Machine, or Three Days Grace, or Chevelle. They have a talent for music that I could never hope to have. They write amazing songs. They certainly have done many amazing women. But to other musicians would they be seen as amazing? Probably not, and that's okay.

      Halo 3 will be amazing, just as Halo CE was amazing, and Halo 2's story was amazing. The things that matter will keep me interested, probably for the 3 years that Halo 2 has kept me interested, now.
  • mywhitenoise, on 10/11/2007, -10/+3I doubt it, how much more can you improve by the time it's released? It's still going to look like a cartoon.
    • Jinno, on 10/11/2007, -3/+1Oi... how is it that Tecmo can get praised for a style that is a merger of realism and cartoon, whilst Halo is punished for it? Look at DOA4. ***** gorgeous. What's this? Anime-esque character design. *gasp* Am I the only one who read Cliffy B's blog right after Gears got announced? He talked about the clarity of experience. How you had to make certain things obvious about who was your enemy. Bungie does that, and they do it superbly, by having distinct characters, and in multiplayer, a distinct default coloring.

      Halo wouldn't be nearly as fun to play if such things weren't so obvious.
  • Lokomis, on 10/11/2007, -9/+1Commence to Digg'n down.
  • samdotorg, on 10/11/2007, -2/+14"We're just tightening up the graphics on level 2"
  • MikeGrenade, on 10/11/2007, -3/+11I don't see what the heck is wrong with Halo 3's graphics. Maybe people were expecting bloom effects of blinding proportions? That always looks great.
    • logicalnoise, on 10/11/2007, -5/+1Remebers Fable....damn that world I created was BRIGHT!
  • InfinitySnatch, on 10/11/2007, -9/+2Didn't they say that the first trailer we got over a year ago was running on the in-game engine? Lies.
    • logicalnoise, on 10/11/2007, -2/+7it was running on the engine game mags and insiders were even able to use the camera in realtime during the entire trailer.
    • Jinno, on 10/11/2007, -3/+4Yeah, it really was running in engine, bud. Glad to see you bringin' things down even more. Things have improved since then, too. Look at the beta and then watch that trailer. Things are different, and things look better.
    • InfinitySnatch, on 10/11/2007, -4/+2No. What are you talking about? I"M talking about the first trailer of Halo 3 that we ever saw. Don't tell me that the Beta looks better than that because it doesn't.
    • Jinno, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3Did you even watch the trailer again, and then play the game? If you're just looking at what you see online (IE, not high quality, or in fluid motion) then you're not going to see it, ever. We've gotten to the point where HD makes or breaks a game, and it certainly doesn't break Halo 3.
    • lacronicus, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1hd does not make or break a game. in fact, weve gotten past that. case in point, the crysis videos on youtube easily look better then half life 2 running at 720p (well... 1280*1024 still > than 1280*720) why? because there is so much more than just resolution that plays a role in how a game looks. a football game on SD tv still looks more real than madden at 1080p. why? because resolution isnt everything. the lighting, the shadows, the character movement, the environment, the draw distance, physics, a whole number of things. sure, with gears thats all that matters, but on games like crysis, where every aspect of the game is as good as the character models, its what truly makes the game.
  • Psywar, on 10/11/2007, -7/+2They cant just upgrade the graphics from one day to the other, its something that takes a long time to do. They probably are going to change little things. Halo will never have graphics like in GoW, if it had, we would have seen it already, or at least something close, and IMO its not even close to GoW.
  • Snarfy, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1"4 months isn’t a long time to be adding new graphical effects to a game - especially when they are entering the home stretch and trying to squash all the bugs and get it ready to ship. I guess we’ll find out in September if the graphics live up to expectations."

    Game studios typically have two weeks to polish up a finished game. Two weeks. Four months is an eternity. It's not like they are inventing the polish (hdr, bloom, depth of field, etc) as they go. They should have already had the polish written or at least purchased. It's gonna look sweet.
  • HypocriteDigg, on 10/11/2007, -3/+1A lot of people are idiots too, which I guess would explain why they were unimpressed with the graphics. Have you played Halo3 on Live lately? Way too many immature, team-killing kiddies on there, (ie. AtB Turtle)
  • CCB0x45, on 10/11/2007, -2/+6After playing the beta a lot, I could really care less how much it improves... if it improves, then great, it will look better, if not, then I am happy with the game because the gameplay on Halo 3 multiplayer is way above Halo 2 Multiplayer, and I loved Halo 2 multiplayer. What people dont understand when they bash Halo by calling it a generic FPS and not having this feature or that feature compared to other FPS games is that what makes Halo so fun is the randomness that happens due to the great balance of weapons and the physics. It makes every other first person shooter feel stale(although I am really looking forward to TF2). The new stuff has made it so much better, like the other day I was fighting someone with the laser cannon and I had a battle rifle... he had distance and should have beat me since I was in a corner, but I threw out a bubble shield, lured him into shooting me and backed into the shield while I watched the laser explode a couple inches from my face into the shield... then I popped out and head shotted a few times for the win, there is no other FPS out there with that kind of fast paced but random battles, they all get so boring. Another video I watched the other day where someone threw a sticky grenade at a car, but missed the car, and the car looped around, but the grenade went into the man cannon shooting it way off and actually sticking to the car completely away from where it had been originally thrown... that kind of stuff happend multiple times every single game, and that is why Halo is fun. Nobody can say the game is boring after playing it a lot, and I love other FPS's as well, but untill one has that level of randomness, then I'll keep playing Halo. Team Fortress 2 does look really sweet though(I loved the first one).
    • DiggDagger, on 10/11/2007, -2/+4How about using paragraphs?
    • dolemite5005, on 10/11/2007, -4/+3So how much less could you care exactly?
  • Jagdwulfe, on 10/11/2007, -7/+2Someone please explain to me the appeal of Halo. There are far better FSP games out there that do not get a fraction of the praise Halo gets. It is an okay game but not sure what all the hype is over.
  • Zephir62, on 10/11/2007, -3/+3It takes a single 3D Artist a day to create 1 to 5 objects depending on size and complexity... Giving a buffer of 1 month when the final product is shipped in and they start to make copies for distribution, and that most games have upwards of 10,000 3D objects it would take around 60 Environmental Artists to work their asses off to redo all the assets. Not happening. Most of the games objects might have a new shader map applied to it but they're not going to do much with what you've already seen. It might look "better", but not by a long shot.
  • CrimsonBlur, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4Those that are saying that nothing meaningful is going to change as far as graphical polish before release are completely ignoring the Halo 3 announcement trailer that came out long before even this multiplayer beta launched. The graphics in that trailer were all real-time using what was finished of their engine, and they were already superior to anything we've seen in the multiplayer beta, and they've had a ton of time to improve the engine since then.

    Bungie has said many times that the multiplayer beta was released specifically to test gameplay, and they have said over and over again that the graphics for the beta are not final. Furthermore, you can't compare the multiplayer graphics of a game like Gears of War with a FPS like Halo. The maximum is 8 players in Gears multiplayer for all modes of play, which means at most 8 characters are on the screen at one time, and it's usually more like 3-4. In contrast, Halo 3 will at least double that number, the levels are orders of magnitude larger along with the draw distance, and there are far more things going on at once in FPS multiplayer than a game like Gears.

    We have not seen anything at all from the single-player campaign except a small teaser of early development in the announcement trailer. Just like the other Halo games, the single-player graphics will be a couple notches above what is seen in multiplayer. Considering that, I highly doubt we will be disappointed in the graphical prowess of Halo 3, especially considering how much Bungie has been touting the massive size and level of detail in the environments. They're fully aware of the expectations from a first-party FPS on 360 at this point. I'm willing to give Bungie the benefit of the doubt on this one until we start seeing video and screenshots from the finalized single-player campaign.
    • Psywar, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2GoW is based on the unreal engine, wich is suposed to be essencialy used for FPS.Probably GoW doesn't use more than 8 players because of the peculiar gamestyle.
    • CrimsonBlur, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Yeah, you're right, it was a decision based on the game style. My point is that you can't directly compare the two directly. Until Unreal Tournament 3 comes out, we don't actually know what level of graphical level of detail that engine is capable of in a multilayer FPS (on the 360) with the amount of action on the screen, vehicles, draw distance, etc. that is associated with Halo multiplayer. In addition, the Unreal 3 engine is complete, the Halo 3 engine is not complete until the game goes gold, which is a few months away, so making any comparison at this point is disingenuous and misleading. With that in mind, it's also impossible to compare the graphics of the single-player campaign of Halo 3 to any other FPS currently released or upcoming, since we have seen absolutely nothing from the single-player campaign in Halo 3 so far.
  • johnstez, on 10/11/2007, -5/+3lets face it. I was really looking forward to playing the beta. then my xbox died. £80 and 3 weeks later I finally got it back 3 days after the beta launched full of excitement at getting a sneak play. The only word to describe how I felt after playing. Disappointed.

    For me the FPS genre has moved on, this felt like several steps backwards in both graphics AND gameplay, then lo and behold 2 days later and my xbox dies again. What a ***** joke. Funny, ha, *****, ha.
  • Splitt3rxx, on 10/11/2007, -4/+1I think halo 3s should be pushed back till November to make sure it is AMAZING when it's released.
  • FallenOmen, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3Man , why is everyone whining and crying about this ? it's not a fully tested product set for release..there is trial and error that takes place hence the reason half of you retards get to and TEST HALO 3 A.K.A BETA
  • FallenOmen, on 10/11/2007, -7/+2FYI Halo 3 won’t be squeezing any DX10 cards PERIOD it won’t be built from the ground up for DX10, so I doubt this will be the game to be truly NEXT GEN

    Neither PS3 or 360 is true NEXT gen as NEXT GEN starts when DIRECT 10 is fully released PERIOD
    • citrusfizz, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2UT3 will use DX10 and i really think that it will be the new game to judge other games with
    • eezzzz, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2Oddly, by that logic, Halo 2 is next-gen...!

      Also, I am a long time player of UT2k4, and have long awaited 2k7, now UT3, but I think Crysis has definately surpassed UT3 as a bar to measure.. and thankfully, it's not in a hardware limited multi-platform optimization state of bondage.
  • tucsonwc, on 10/11/2007, -3/+1The Spartan characters look very unimpressive compared to the demo footage they released with Master Chief walking through the dust and going into battle. The current spartans look like "cell shaded" characters rather than photorealistic. Very Cartoony, which I do NOT like. I certainly expect that these characters will get high resolution makeover in the final release.
    • watership, on 10/11/2007, -1/+0Funny you say that. It's the same engine.
  • EnderMB, on 10/11/2007, -4/+5Wow. Seems to be a lot of arguing over semantics.

    Demo or Beta. Who gives a *****, and why is everyone bitching about it? It's a BETA version, but it is also a DEMOnstration of the final game. Either way, the facts remain that it's not final, graphics will be changed, the underlying engine will differ, and game play will be limited.

    Besides, Halo 3 doesn't even need to be good. We'll all still be drowning in fanboy jizz when it hits the shelves.
  • DaviDaviDaviD, on 10/11/2007, -1/+7I have just played halo 3 beta and to be honest...I really thought the graphics were great. The gameplay is brilliant, the graphics shouldn't worry people as much as a new BXR or RRX coming out. Bungie should focus on that,
    • arenas46, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Don't forget BXB and the Quad-shot: RRXYYRRX (depending on how fast you are, you can use the entire clip with this trick)

      That's besides the point anyways.. I doubt Bungie could "fix" button-combos.
  • postal21, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2What is with the comments on that site about DirectX10?

    Does the 360 even have the capability to do directx10? I mean overall the 360 is a powerful system especially since it is built just for games... but its not that high tech is it?

    Either way. im sure Halo3 will look great with today's level of games, PCs have the power, but 95% of gamers dont have a sytem with quad-core CPUs, 8800 video cards, 4gigs of ram and whatever else to run these new crysis-level games.
    • haolekook, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0It wasn't the site, but some visitor who brought up DX10.
    • lacronicus, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1"but 95% of gamers dont have a sytem with quad-core CPUs, 8800 video cards, 4gigs of ram and whatever else to run these new crysis-level games."

      +1 captain obvious points

      the crysis dx9 testbeds, which still look vastly superior to most games currently announced, are < 800 with a dual core (which most new computers have), 1-2 gigs of ram (also standard), and a 1950xt at 240 for the 512mb version.

      and considering that the only difference between the dx9 and dx10 is 100 bucks in graphics card improvements, theres not much youll be missing for a 900 dollar rig. considering most people already have a decent computer, the price would come down.

      your right, 99% of gamers dont have those specs, but none of them actually need them. unless you want to get a 30" screen, which pushes twice as many pixels as a 1080p monitor, and since you mention card*s*, it would likely be running at least 8x AA.

      now will you please stop with the "crysis is gonna be so expensive, im gonna go make excuses for halo3 now" bit. it gets bothersome when there are so many good ways to push the halo series. it may not have great gfx, but it has a very promising story, solid MP, and its overall fun to play. even if its not great looking, its certainly not bad enough to take away from the experience, and if thats all bungie can manage, id be happy with it. id rather have a fun game that didnt slide on graphics, than one which has great graphics, but nothing else.

      EDIT: just checked, the gfx card, the 1950, is only 189 now
  • fallenone05, on 10/11/2007, -4/+3I prefer that they leave the graphics as they are so that hopefully it'll be ported to the Wii!!
  • projjalc, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1Does this even matter? It's not like there's anyone complaining here who wasn't going to buy it anyway (regardless of this announcement, I mean).
  • Kmack928, on 10/11/2007, -4/+2gameplay > graphics
  • tomskag, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4http://digg.com/xbox_360/High_Resolution_Scans_of_Gamepro_s_Halo_3_Article#c6944780
  • jamima69z, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1whole lotta wishing and hoping going on around here......
  • TannerPwnz, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1Bungie wouldn't skip out in the graphical department of any game. They've always delivered in every game they've ever made.
    • whickywhickyjim, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Uh, you are forgetting how horrible halo2 looked. The cut scenes and glitchy bump-mapping/lighting in that game looked as though they were put together at the last minute even though they spent almost 2 years on it. You fail.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 61 of 61 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.