Umm... I dont see how that can compare to Resistance graphically. I dont have a 360, or the beta... but I think resistance looks ALOT better... but hey, it's hard to compare a launch game, with a 3rd gen game. If the consoles have comparable power, the 3rd gen game should look at least 20-30% better. The models are all blocky, the maps are really low polygon, and the textures are not up to snuff.
Halo2 killed the halo gameplay for me... such a turnoff.
Halo3's only chance of me buying it was for the fun eye-candy of nearly photo-realistic cornilia, or however it is spelled. If it looks slightly better than Halo2, wich looked slighly better than Halo1... that means Halo3 looks marginaly better than Halo1. Considering the 6 year game release/age diffrence, and the fact the 360 has nearly 8x the power of the x-box... The x-box is basically a GeForce2, while the 360 is basically a 7800. Crysis will likely run on a 8800. (about 50-75% faster than a 360)
Crysis is in a leauge of it's own graphically. All modern games should attempt to look like crysis. In all honesty, if you do your research on a game, and learn how they are made. You can buy a engine like UE3 for around 1million, buy a 2 million HD texture set, and pay a good team of 50 for around 12 months. You just made a game on a 6-10million budget... That would easily rival resistance.
Graphically are not as expensive as companies make them out to be.
Seeing those graphics, if microsoft says Halo3 cost more than 5million... I will think they are telling fibs, because that looks like a pimped out Halo2 engine, running full quality Halo2 textures. And the mappers need fired.
I'm seriously stupidifyed at how bad that looks. I saw one of the early Halo3 beta videos... I thought it was a halo2 mod.
I cant think of a excuse for a modern game to look like that, unless they are on a pinch budget. (sub 10million)
I feel halo should be on a 20+ budget, well over 20 actually.
PSN ID: Kwaad
I fly this flag in victory!
