By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming - Halo 2 vs. Halo 3 comparison

Blue3 on 19 May 2007

even for a beta the graphics are kinda weak. It wont be a Gears, thats for sure.



Around the Network
sieanr on 19 May 2007
Kwaad said:

The models are all blocky, the maps are really low polygon, and the textures are not up to snuff. 

You're saying the textures in halo 3 aren't up to snuff, yet praise the blur fest that is RFOM. The sad part is, RFOM does have high rez, nice looking textures - but if you step away 5 feet then all this detail is lost as things turn into a muddy mess.

Kwaad said: The x-box is basically a GeForce2, while the 360 is basically a 7800.

Quote of the year. You really have no clue what you're talking about, do you?

 

And I could swear that you threw a fit when people critized Resistence and Motorstorm for looking just like lest gen titles. If I remember correctly, you said both had to be seen in HD, and in motion for us to fully absorb the graphical wealth that only the PS3 can deliver. But by your own account you haven't played Halo 3, or apparently seen an HD gameplay video. Double standard much?

Halo 3 has one of, if not the most, advanced lighting engines ever put on a console or PC game. Ask anyone who has played the beta and they'll tell you that the HDR is very natural, the lighting on the characters is subtle but gorgeous and the overall effect is impressive. I thought that you, of all people, would be impressed with a technical accomplishment that results in better graphics.



Leo-j said: If a dvd for a pc game holds what? Crysis at 3000p or something, why in the world cant a blu-ray disc do the same?

ssj12 said: Player specific decoders are nothing more than specialized GPUs. Gran Turismo is the trust driving simulator of them all. 

"Why do they call it the xbox 360? Because when you see it, you'll turn 360 degrees and walk away" 

weezy on 19 May 2007
ssj12 said:
weezy said:
"That is a great point. Wii fanboys have no room to insult graphics. It will still look better than any Wii game" sound the retard alarm

 so your going to sound it on yourself? do you believe the Wii can have better graphics then the 360 or PS3?


sound it off again!!!

 

DONT YOU ALREADY KNOW!?!? the wii has the most powerful chip set out of all 3 of the consoles! it also has an advantage cause the chip acually upgrades as time goes by! so in like 2-4 years its gonna be the most powerful system in the world! and will be able so set off nukes where ever you want with the wii-mote,all you have to do is point and click and BOOOM!@!@@@

 

my god! sometimes i feel like a genius on these boards...



I am WEEzY. You can suck my Nintendo loving BALLS!

 

MynameisGARY

diamuerto on 19 May 2007

I hate to be one to bring this metroid v. halo argument up again, but retro studios stated, "The graphics have had a huge overhaul since E3 -- vastly better than games like Halo 2".  IF that is true then corruption MIGHT look better than Halo 3 since Halo3 has only slightly improved over Halo2.



diamuerto on 19 May 2007

For the original topic, I've never played any Halo games, but I don't have any gripes with the way Halo 3 looks even if it's not a huge improvement over Halo2.  From what I understand Halo2 had normal mapping, great lighting effect, good particle effects and so on.  Graphics like that sound pretty good to me so I don't understand all this Halo3 graphics suck negativity if they improved on something that was already good.



Around the Network
Cobretti on 19 May 2007

i dont know it it will look better then any wii game. apprently metroid prime 3 looks better then halo 2 graphically. When people from the media got to try it out about 3months ago behind closed doors.



Legend11 on 19 May 2007


Rath on 19 May 2007
Legend11 said:
Rath said:

To put some perspective on it from my viewpoint, the 360 has 44 games on Gamerankings that received an average score of 80% or above while the Wii has 5 games to do that. Since those games that received 80% or above have great gameplay why wouldn't it seem logical for someone to pick the 360 over the Wii if their prime motivation is gameplay?

Thats an awful point and you know it. The fact is the Xbox has been out for a year longer than the Wii and so has a huge number more games. At least use percentages.


Why use percentages? How is that logical? If a system only had one game released for it and it scored above 80% would you consider it better than a system with 44 games that scored above 80% because 100% of the first system's releases scored well? I call it like it is. And right now the Wii and PS3 are sorely lacking compared to the Xbox 360 and percentages aren't going to change the reality of that. Anyways we should get back to the Halo2 vs. Halo3 comparison.


Only because the Xbox has had a lot longer to develop games. Its like saying because the PS1 has more games above 80% than the xbox 360 that its logical to buy the PS1 over the Xbox 360, when quite plainly its not true.

Take how many games the X360 had by this time if you align the launches of it and the Wii/PS3 and then you might have a valid point.