Halo 3

I'm making it about me? I thought you were having an aneurysm over some HALO 3 related news that I posted. I'm not in Halo am I?

I'm doing nothing different from what (almost) every other person in this thread has done: wondering why you have something to say to anyone who comes in here saying something good about HALO 3.

You made HUGE assumptions based on my post and blew it out of proportion.

I posted Halo 3 news. You got offended and didn't like it. Had the audacity to say HALO 3 news was irrelevant in a HALO 3 thread, which boggles the mind.

You want to make this about me, how you'd be able to is beyond me, then go ahead.

I posted HALO 3 news..........FACTS........and will continue to when and if I see fit.

The Pointlessness is over. Argue and Rant Alone.

Anata wa wakarimasu ka.....

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
That was never in doubt, thanks for joining us here.

It not being innovative or dynamic (At least AS dynamic as games like Gears) is not my opinion, however.

Yes, but the gameplay was factually more dynamic and innovative, combat-wise and gameplay-wise, than Halo. That isn't my opinion. It has nothing to do with me prefering the game.

Well done, you catch on so fast.

Do I? Where? I swear I said this:

"Who said I would make changes or had changes in mind? I know that games companies are capable of more, much more, because games like Gears of War and Bioshock prove it. There's nothing wrong with not necessarily being innovative, but when you are as hyped as Halo, as expensive as Halo and as rabidly defended and overrated as Halo, I expect more, in any possible area, because Halo is...at the heart of it all, a generic game.".

Not "I would, but don't know what.". Please don't make things up.

Admittedly it's more fitting comparing Bioshock and Halo as they are both FPS, and if you do I think it's obvious that Bioshock is vastly superior, but that's my opinion. Graphically and dynamically? It's not, Bioshock is superior, as is Gears. There are simply more things to the way you play those games.

Where are you getting this bs? READ my quote that I have told you TWICE, about changes.

Second, who said make it like Gears are Bioshock? I said considering you can make games of THAT QUALITY, I find it rather dumb that they threw away an overall $50 million only to come out with a game not only graphically and dynamically inferior objectively, but overall less fulfilling in my PERSONAL opinion.

If you keep asking the questions I've already answered, don't bother. If you don't get my points, just say so.

Why are you assuming I automatically want Halo to be Bioshock? I'm just saying it's generic at the heart of it, because it is. Never did I say I had a wealth of ideas in mind, I don't care enough about the game itself to think of those, but we are having an overall game discussion regarding that and other games.

My point it's overrated, massively.

Change the title to "Halo Fans and Positive Talk Only!" and I'll leave.

-AC

And actually your idea that Bioshock and GOW are Graphically and Innovatively superior mean what exactly to the quality of the game. And by the way I don't think everyone would agree that GW graphics are better than Halo 3 look another opinion.

Besides you do realize that very few elements that either game had are hardly new components to game.

Also innovative has nothing to do with whether a game is great or not.

Seriously stop trying to play intellectual with us. Everything you have said is opinion based everything is. Halo 3 will probably be more successful than either Bioshock or GOW. So your trying to make it seem like mindless drones are the cause that the game itself really isn't that good.

Opinion is not fact you have yet to state a fact. So stop trying to convince us Halo 3 is bad and that you are some actual authority on the matter. Your opinion is that Halo 3 is bad and these other games are superior you have no real reason to think so other than based on your own likes and dislikes.

Originally posted by InnerRise
I'm making it about me? I thought you were having an aneurysm over some HALO 3 related news that I posted. I'm not in Halo am I?

You thought wrong.

Originally posted by InnerRise
I'm doing nothing different from what (almost) every other person in this thread has done: wondering why you have something to say to anyone who comes in here saying something good about HALO 3.

You made HUGE assumptions based on my post and blew it out of proportion.

I posted Halo 3 news. You got offended and didn't like it. Had the audacity to say HALO 3 news was irrelevant in a HALO 3 thread, which boggles the mind.

You can keep insisting I got offended if it makes you feel you're racking up points, I'll keep telling you I found it odd that you said Halo 3 owns us all and then posted the news. The news itself was not what confused me.

Originally posted by InnerRise
You want to make this about me, how you'd be able to is beyond me, then go ahead.

I posted HALO 3 news..........FACTS........and will continue to when and if I see fit.

The Pointlessness is over. Argue and Rant Alone.

Anata wa wakarimasu ka.....

Lovely.

Originally posted by Newjak
So now you actually understand it is your opinion.

As I said, I always have understood that my opinion of the overall game is my opinion. You joined the debate late.

Originally posted by Newjak
And actually your idea that Bioshock and GOW are Graphically and Innovatively superior mean what exactly to the quality of the game. And by the way I don't think everyone would agree that GW graphics are better than Halo 3 look another opinion.

A) Graphics and innovation do not equal quality and I've never suggested such, in fact I defend the opposite, but that's besides the point. My point is JUST that they are superior in those areas.

B) Precisely. So? People have a hard time accepting facts when it comes to Halo, doesn't make them any less factual. Prefer Halo's graphics all you want. I prefer Bentleys to F1 cars, it doesn't make them faster.

Originally posted by Newjak
Besides you do realize that very few elements that either game had are hardly new components to game.

That's not the issue.

Originally posted by Newjak
Also innovative has nothing to do with whether a game is great or not.

I've said this a million times. The point I'm making isn't a connection between innovation, graphics and quality. It's just me making the point that those games are more innovative and graphically superior to Halo. Quality is entirely subjective.

Originally posted by Newjak
Seriously stop trying to play intellectual with us. Everything you have said is opinion based everything is. Halo 3 will probably be more successful than either Bioshock or GOW. So your trying to make it seem like mindless drones are the cause that the game itself really isn't that good.

I'm not trying to play anything. Bioshock and Gears of War ARE more innovative games, they are also graphically superior. That doesn't mean you cannot like Halo's graphics more, it doesn't determine QUALITY of games (And I've never said it has), but it is what it is.

It's not Halo or Bungie's fault that they have such an ignorant and pretentious fanbase. I'd never blame the game or developers for that. I dislike the way Halo fans react far more than I dislike the game. I don't connect the two, that wouldn't be fair to Halo.

Originally posted by Newjak
Opinion is not fact you have yet to state a fact. So stop trying to convince us Halo 3 is bad and that you are some actual authority on the matter.

Huh? It's a fact that Bioshock and Gears of War ARE graphically more advanced and that they are more innovative games in terms of what is contained within, than Halo games. Those are facts, but it does not mean you cannot LIKE Halo's graphics or gameplay more, as I have to KEEP saying to you. You lack what it takes to see the point I'm making, you cannot differentiate, that's not my problem. If you don't understand my simple point, at least admit it. Stop implying you do and then getting it wrong time after time.

Furthermore, I've never tried convincing anyone Halo is a bad game, you're getting things that aren't there.

Originally posted by Newjak
Your opinion is that Halo 3 is bad

Not bad, mediocre, quite poor. "Bad" ranks pretty low on my list.

Originally posted by Newjak
and these other games are superior you have no real reason to think so other than based on your own likes and dislikes.

You are being silly and ignorant, I'll break it down for you ONE more time, PLEASE read it;

Gears and Bioshock are graphically superior and more innovative, like a concept supercar is mechanically superior to lesser cars. That doesn't mean that those supercars are factually overall better cars, that is opinion. Overall, Halo is not factually worst or better than any game, but in areas such as graphics, it is technically inferior to those two games.

Do you not grasp that?

-AC

Is it me or does Metroid Prime 3 have better graphics than Halo 3?

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
You thought wrong.

You can keep insisting I got offended if it makes you feel you're racking up points, I'll keep telling you I found it odd that you said Halo 3 owns us all and then posted the news. The news itself was not what confused me.

Lovely.

As I said, I always have understood that my opinion of the overall game is my opinion. You joined the debate late.

A) Graphics and innovation do not equal quality and I've never suggested such, in fact I defend the opposite, but that's besides the point. My point is JUST that they are superior in those areas.

B) Precisely. So? People have a hard time accepting facts when it comes to Halo, doesn't make them any less factual. Prefer Halo's graphics all you want. I prefer Bentleys to F1 cars, it doesn't make them faster.

That's not the issue.

I've said this a million times. The point I'm making isn't a connection between innovation, graphics and quality. It's just me making the point that those games are more innovative and graphically superior to Halo. Quality is entirely subjective.

I'm not trying to play anything. Bioshock and Gears of War ARE more innovative games, they are also graphically superior. That doesn't mean you cannot like Halo's graphics more, it doesn't determine QUALITY of games (And I've never said it has), but it is what it is.

It's not Halo or Bungie's fault that they have such an ignorant and pretentious fanbase. I'd never blame the game or developers for that. I dislike the way Halo fans react far more than I dislike the game. I don't connect the two, that wouldn't be fair to Halo.

Huh? It's a fact that Bioshock and Gears of War ARE graphically more advanced and that they are more innovative games in terms of what is contained within, than Halo games. Those are facts, but it does not mean you cannot LIKE Halo's graphics or gameplay more, as I have to KEEP saying to you. You lack what it takes to see the point I'm making, you cannot differentiate, that's not my problem. If you don't understand my simple point, at least admit it. Stop implying you do and then getting it wrong time after time.

Furthermore, I've never tried convincing anyone Halo is a bad game, you're getting things that aren't there.

Not bad, mediocre, quite poor. "Bad" ranks pretty low on my list.

You are being silly and ignorant, I'll break it down for you ONE more time, PLEASE read it;

Gears and Bioshock are graphically superior and more innovative, like a concept supercar is mechanically superior to lesser cars. That doesn't mean that those supercars are factually overall better cars, that is opinion. Overall, Halo is not factually worst or better than any game, but in areas such as graphics, it is technically inferior to those two games.

Do you not grasp that?

-AC

That means that you said the game was abd anybody who thought it was good was just being deluded.

But back on track realistically. GOW hasn't added anything Splinter Cell and Metal Gear solid hasn't. Biosock hasn't added anything to FPS then Morrowind did. Seriously the innovations you speak about are simply not there. As for the fact of what you can do in the game well let's just say is opinion as well.

Because there is a lot you can do Halo if you want to get nitpicky about it.

Also I don't you are quite getting what Graphics are. They are not just texture. They are lighting player environment interaction. All those things constitute graphics. And it is opinion which one is better graphically decided upon taste. I enjoy the much better lighting and flow of Halo 3 to the rough Details of GOW. This isn't like compairng a Sportscar to a normal car.

It is like comparing to different Sportscars that are close but prefer different things. For instance one has better handling the other better speed. It is up to the taste of the person deciding which one they like better.

There is nothing but opinions in this thread and you trying to shout anything as fact is absurd. Halo and GOW just prefer different things. You just happen to like the gameplay of one better than the other therefore you are trying to state why it is better.

But your problem is and you continue to do it. Is you keep trying to talk like Innovation and Graphics are absolute. They are not.

Halo 3 in my opinion offers some great innovations and gameplay different than Halo 2.

I hope you are finally understanding this because saying certain games are better graphically and even have more innovation doesn't make it so.😬

Originally posted by Newjak
Well we have gotten most of that out of the way. Although you are back tracking from what you have said earlier remember how Halo 3 is overrated and fanboys constantly deny it and have let Bungie control their lives.

You say it as if I'm the only one who finds the level to which Halo fanboys are buried in denial to be shocking.

Second, that was a slight exaggeration, though as time passes I'm starting to believe that if they released Halo themed underwear that some of the fans would buy it. A jocular claim, but one that nobody can afford to really deny.

Originally posted by Newjak
That means that you said the game was abd anybody who thought it was good was just being deluded.

How does it mean that? I said it's overrated and a lot of fanboys...overrate it. That's what I said, that's what I mean. I think it's a POOR, MEDIOCRE game, not horrible, not BAD. Overrating it would therefore be "OMG BEST GAME EVER!", "BEST FPS THERE IS!", *A lot of the comments in this thread*. So no, me saying I find it to be overrated and that fanboys overrate it doesn't mean anything like what you said.

Originally posted by Newjak
But back on track realistically. GOW hasn't added anything Splinter Cell and Metal Gear solid hasn't.

Of course it has, the combat systems in all those games are entirely different. If you were debating Splinter Cell Vs MGS then you'd have a point.

Originally posted by Newjak
Biosock hasn't added anything to FPS then Morrowind did. Seriously the innovations you speak about are simply not there. As for the fact of what you can do in the game well let's just say is opinion as well.

No, what you can do in the game isn't opinion is it? It's there, it's fact. Innovative isn't just "new"; it's also ahead of the times, as Bioshock is, as Gears was/is. Original and innovative are not inherent.

Originally posted by Newjak
Because there is a lot you can do Halo if you want to get nitpicky about it.

Like what? Drive cars? Red Faction, and the vehicles there were much more involved in the game, they help alter the terrain and caused ways to complete the level differently.

Originally posted by Newjak
Also I don't you are quite getting what Graphics are. They are not just texture. They are lighting player environment interaction. All those things constitute graphics. And it is opinion which one is better graphically decided upon taste.

You cannot decide what is TECHNICALLY better based on taste, do you not understand that? You wouldn't say Avril Lavigne is a better technical guitarist than Slash because you liked Sk8er Boi would you? Cos that would be wrong. Halo's graphics are not as good, technically, as Bioshock or Gears. You prefer them, you think they LOOK better, that's up to you. They are not technically better, though.

Originally posted by Newjak
I enjoy the much better lighting and flow of Halo 3 to the rough Details of GOW. This isn't like compairng a Sportscar to a normal car.

It's as I said, if you prefered Avril Lavigne's music to Guns 'N' Roses, that's opinion if you think it's better by TASTE, because taste is opinion. You do not get to decide which is technically better, that is already a factual parameter.

Originally posted by Newjak
It is like comparing to different Sportscars that are close but prefer different things. For instance one has better handling the other better speed. It is up to the taste of the person deciding which one they like better.

Oh my, you are actually simple.

YES, it's up to the person to decide what car OVERALL suits them best, not what car is faster. If one car is faster, you cannot say it isn't just because you like the other car better. It's simply not true.

Originally posted by Newjak
There is nothing but opinions in this thread and you trying to shout anything as fact is absurd. Halo and GOW just prefer different things. You just happen to like the gameplay of one better than the other therefore you are trying to state why it is better.

It's not, there are clear facts and you are ignoring them because you seriously do not understand a word I am saying, no matter how clear or concise I spell it out for you.

I am NOT saying one is FACTUALLY better because I prefer it. Halo being better than one game is your opinion as Bioshock being better is my opinion, BUT (Pay attention, please) it is NOT opinion as to which TECHNICAL parts of those games are superior to one another. Do...you...understand? One car is faster than another car, but you like the other car. It doesn't mean it's the fastest just because you like it.

Please read that fully before you reply.

Originally posted by Newjak
But your problem is and you continue to do it. Is you keep trying to talk like Innovation and Graphics are absolute. They are not.

They are factually superior in Bioshock and Gears, that doesn't mean you have to like them more, that's my point.

I continue to "do it" because you keep saying things I'm either not saying, or getting my points wrong.

Originally posted by Newjak
Halo 3 in my opinion offers some great innovations and gameplay different than Halo 2.

THAT isn't opinion. It's either innovative and different or it is not. Halo 3 is not innovative, there are two preceding games that are pretty much identical save for the odd gun, mode and vehicle. Fairly recent games too. That isn't innovation, that's stagnation.

Originally posted by Newjak
I hope you are finally understanding this because saying certain games are better graphically and even have more innovation doesn't make it so.😬

No, them being better graphically and having more innovation is what makes it so.

-AC

I've watched that intro vid a lot on youtube from several people and each time Sarge says "they love the scent of..." it's something different everytime. I've heard blood, badass, a real man, green, hero and some others. Why does he always say something different? Does i don't think it depends on difficulty since I've heard more than four. Can you pick them or something?

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
You say it as if I'm the only one who finds the level to which Halo fanboys are buried in denial to be shocking.

Second, that was a slight exaggeration, though as time passes I'm starting to believe that if they released Halo themed underwear that some of the fans would buy it. A jocular claim, but one that nobody can afford to really deny.
How does it mean that? I said it's overrated and a lot of fanboys...overrate it. That's what I said, that's what I mean. I think it's a POOR, MEDIOCRE game, not horrible, not BAD. Overrating it would therefore be "OMG BEST GAME EVER!", "BEST FPS THERE IS!", *A lot of the comments in this thread*. So no, me saying I find it to be overrated and that fanboys overrate it doesn't mean anything like what you said.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri

No, what you can do in the game isn't opinion is it? It's there, it's fact. Innovative isn't just "new"; it's also ahead of the times, as Bioshock is, as Gears was/is. Original and innovative are not inherent.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri

Like what? Drive cars? Red Faction, and the vehicles there were much more involved in the game, they help alter the terrain and caused ways to complete the level differently.

Bioshock isn't even innovative for the FPS genre. Like I said Morrowind allowed you to shoot lighting and fireballs long before Bioshock. Plus it allowed you to do many other things with magic. By the way another game that was using a very similar style was Psi Corps for the Playstation 2. 😉

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri

You cannot decide what is TECHNICALLY better based on taste, do you not understand that? You wouldn't say Avril Lavigne is a better technical guitarist than Slash because you liked Sk8er Boi would you? Cos that would be wrong. Halo's graphics are not as good, technically, as Bioshock or Gears. You prefer them, you think they LOOK better, that's up to you. They are not technically better, though.

It's as I said, if you prefered Avril Lavigne's music to Guns 'N' Roses, that's opinion if you think it's better by TASTE, because taste is opinion. You do not get to decide which is technically better, that is already a factual parameter.

Oh my, you are actually simple.

YES, it's up to the person to decide what car OVERALL suits them best, not what car is faster. If one car is faster, you cannot say it isn't just because you like the other car better. It's simply not true.

I understand that I can not make what is Technical Opinion but thankfully you don't understand technically what Graphics are so I'm not worried because all you've done is base what you think the better graphics are on opinion not what is true.

Plus your analogies are bogus because Avril Lavrine obviously doesn't possess the same technical skill the other people did at guitar but let's be honest she is a better singer than Slash. 😉 But back to the point your opinion is that HAlo 3 is below these other games thus you keep trying to say they are technically without actually knowing what is technically better graphic wise.

Plus you obviously didn't get my Car analogy. I was never trying to say one car is absolutely better than spped.

I was trying to say that to exactly similar cars in terms quality don't necessarily have to be faster. One may be faster the other handles better. Both are superbly designed it is up to what the consumer likes better as to which one they will buy.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I am NOT saying one is FACTUALLY better because I prefer it. Halo being better than one game is your opinion as Bioshock being better is my opinion, BUT (Pay attention, please) it is NOT opinion as to which TECHNICAL parts of those games are superior to one another. Do...you...understand? One car is faster than another car, but you like the other car. It doesn't mean it's the fastest just because you like it.

Because you do not understand the technical aspects of the games you are trying to say you do. There is nothing factual bout what you are saying.

Because I could ask you now what makes GOW and Bioshock Graphically better and everything you would state would be nothing more than your opinion on how they looked. Not actual facts on how the graphics operate.

So just because I want to see you make a fool of yourself trying to pretend you know something you do not.

Why are GOW and Bioshock Graphically and Spec Wise better games than Halo 3?

Originally posted by Newjak
So now you actually understand it is your opinion.

And actually your idea that Bioshock and GOW are Graphically and Innovatively superior mean what exactly to the quality of the game. And by the way I don't think everyone would agree that GW graphics are better than Halo 3 look another opinion.

Besides you do realize that very few elements that either game had are hardly new components to game.

Also innovative has nothing to do with whether a game is great or not.

Seriously stop trying to play intellectual with us. Everything you have said is opinion based everything is. Halo 3 will probably be more successful than either Bioshock or GOW. So your trying to make it seem like mindless drones are the cause that the game itself really isn't that good.

Opinion is not fact you have yet to state a fact. So stop trying to convince us Halo 3 is bad and that you are some actual authority on the matter. Your opinion is that Halo 3 is bad and these other games are superior you have no real reason to think so other than based on your own likes and dislikes.

Bioshock and Gears of War = graphically and dynamically superior to Halo 3. Go to Facts.com to find out more. hysterical

Originally posted by shin_gear
Nah, you're wrong and AC's right, as usual. 😂

Bioshock and Gears of War = graphically and dynamically superior to Halo 3. Go to Facts.com to find out more. hysterical

So why are they better Graphically please enlighten me?

🙂

Meh...beats me. I've seen footage from both games and they seem pretty equal in terms of quality. I don't know what makes one game better looking than another. It's like judging between two women. As for which has greater detail, I don't know how one could truly figure that out considering they're two extremely detailed 360 games, and if we're talking about graphics including trailers in real-time, I myself haven't seen anything that surpasses the Halo 3 trailer, but I've seen games with similar or equal quality.

Originally posted by shin_gear
Meh...beats me. I've seen footage from both games and they seem pretty equal in terms of quality. I don't know what makes one game better looking that another. It's like judging between two women. As for which has greater detail, I don't know how one could truly figure that out considering they're two extremely detailed 360 games, and if we're talking about graphics including trailers in real-time, I myself haven't seen anything that surpasses the Halo 3 trailer, but I've seen games with similar or equal quality. As for Soul Calibur 4...that game's graphics are CG quality pretty much.

If you would like you can PM and I can explain how you can tell from an actual Graphical standpoint.

But i don't want to answer in this thread because I want to see what AC cooks up.

Lol...I'm not saying Gears of War's graphics are better. I was mocking the idea of saying it being graphically superior to Halo 3 is a fact, when it's not and can't be proven.

Also, I agree and am aware that graphics do not just have to do with detail. 😊

Originally posted by shin_gear
Lol...I'm not saying Gears of War's graphics are better. I was mocking the idea of saying it being graphically superior to Halo 3 is a fact, when it's not and can't be proven.

Also, I agree and am aware that graphics do not just have to do with detail. 😊

Seriously he ahs no clue is solely saying GOW is better graphically because of texture.

Personally I find them to be kind equal although I think overall Halo 3 probably gets the slight nod.

Note the personally in there. 🙂

Halo 3 has horrible Aliasing, worse than most 360 games.

Also the textures and mapping simply isn't as good as Gears.

The only graphical aspect that Halo 3 does just as well, if not better, is the lighting.

That said. It really is unfair to compare the two games. Gears of War has better graphics but as a result the scope of the game is much smaller. There simply isn't as much going on during battles as there is in Halo 3 because it would not be possible to have battles as large and with as many participants while looking as good as Gears does. That's why in Gears most battles are relatively small. Halo 3 sacrificed graphical prowess for larger battles, where as Gears sacrificed large battles for graphicsl prowess. It was a tradeoff made by both games, they went different routes.

Either way, Gears certainly does have better graphics - textures, mapping, character models; pretty much everything but the lighting, but it doesn't matter. It was a result of what was important to the developers of each game.

Originally posted by BackFire
Halo 3 has horrible Aliasing, worse than most 360 games.

Also the textures and mapping simply isn't as good as Gears.

The only graphical aspect that Halo 3 does just as well, if not better, is the lighting.

That said. It really is unfair to compare the two games. Gears of War has better graphics but as a result the scope of the game is much smaller. There simply isn't as much going on during battles as there is in Halo 3 because it would not be possible to have battles as large and with as many participants while looking as good as Gears does. That's why in Gears most battles are relatively small. Halo 3 sacrificed graphical prowess for larger battles. It was a tradeoff made by both games, they went different routes.

Either way, Gears certainly does have better graphics - textures, mapping, character models. Pretty much everything but the lighting, but it doesn't matter. It was a result of what was important to the developers of each game.

So so better look GOW went smaller.

For better variety and Scope Halo 3 through away some of the textures.

Both require a lot from its Graphic Engines

The large maps kinda goes with the whole scope thing. But yes, the draw distance in Halo 3 is better than in Gears as well. There's some segments of the Jungle level where you can see quite far and it looks very beautiful.

The guns and vehicles is more a matter of the art, rather than the graphics.

But yeah, Gow went small to achieve it's amazing graphics while Halo 3 gave up some graphics to have massive battles with dozens and dozens of participants.

Originally posted by BackFire
The large maps kinda goes with the whole scope thing. But yes, the draw distance in Halo 3 is better than in Gears as well. There's some segments of the Jungle level where you can see quite far and it looks very beautiful.

The guns and vehicles is more a matter of the art, rather than the graphics.

But yeah, Gow went small to achieve it's amazing graphics while Halo 3 gave up some graphics to have massive battles with dozens and dozens of participants.

Thus it really is hard to say which one is better graphically because what they wanted to achieve they each did very well with their graphics.

Which oddly enough AC hasn't quite caught unto yet. 😛

Alright, so Gears of War may look better graphically in-game, but what about how the two look in real-time cutscenes? Which game looks better in those?

Well, he may be just taking into account the textures, mapping, and character models, as such, he's right. Those aspects simply aren't as good in Halo 3, but there is good reason as to why.