Halo 3

Originally posted by BackFire
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.

Overall each one does something very good graphically and as to which style you like best is up to your preference.

I loved GOW but personally I like that whole wide scope things with the stellar lighting that Halo 3 has. It just seems so.... Epic to me.

Originally posted by Newjak
So what you are saying is that you believe Halo 3 is not the greatest game ever therefore anybody that does is a fanboy.

Why are you doing this? Why do you constantly say "Do you mean this? Are you saying this?" followed by something I have NEVER said or never even implied? Why do it? What exactly are you getting out of it besides another reply?

If someone came in and said "Hey, I think Halo is the greatest game ever. I just really enjoy it more than other games. Sure, it's not the most original, most innovative, or greatest thing to grace the Earth, but I think it's the best game in my opinion.", or ANYTHING like that, a well grounded, realistic view, even if I disagree, I don't mind. All I suggest is logic. People going around acting crazy about it are fanboys; "OH MY GOD HALO IS THE BEST GAME EVER! IT BLOWS EVERY OTHER GAME AWAY AND IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT YOU CAN GO AWAY!".

If you do not get what I am saying, don't touch my posts, don't quote them and them make shit up.

Originally posted by Newjak
Seeing how it may be the best game they ever played I find that a bit conceded of a statement to make for you.

What statement, you fool? I've never said "If you think it's the best game ever you are a fanboy.". Stop making things up. You are debating shit you think I've said in your head, that is why this debate is going nowhere. Here's how you debate:

Step 1: *Reads AC's post* (Arguable)
Step 2: *Draws own conclusion as to what he means, not what he's actually said*
Step 3: *Posts reply based on what's in head, not in AC's posts*.

That is what you are doing. You get my posts wrong, then reply to me as if I've just said what your silly mind has conjured up. If it is NOT there in direct quotes, do not say or assume I have said it. I have said many things contrary to the quotes and statements you continue to pin on me, so stop being an idiot.

Originally posted by Newjak
How is Bio shock and GOW ahead of it's time in what you can do.

Name games out now, or recently, with similar or identical gameplay in terms of advanced combat, interaction et al.

Originally posted by Newjak
Last time I checked you can actually preform more actions in Halo 3 then you can in GOW or Bioshock. And this isn't making anything up. So I guess that means Halo 3 is better by your own logic because it allows you to do more. Seriously are you even reading what you type anymore.

You aren't even reading what I type. Doing "actions" is not what I have ever been talking about, I'm talking about relevant innovative combat and/or gameplay techniques. Not the way Master Chief moves his hand (Read into that what you will).

Originally posted by Newjak
And what did GOW add. The ability to crawl on walls that has been in gaming for awhile.

You can't crawl on walls in Gears, I'm not sure what game you've been playing.

Originally posted by Newjak
Bioshock isn't even innovative for the FPS genre. Like I said Morrowind allowed you to shoot lighting and fireballs long before Bioshock.

Morrowind isn't an FPS, and in Bioshock you don't just gain magical powers. Bioshock is an extremely innovative FPS, for the current era.

Originally posted by Newjak
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. 😉

Bioshock has nothing to do with magic, whatsoever, Morrowind has nothing to do with FPS.

Try to stay relevant and keep up.

Originally posted by Newjak
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.

I do understand graphics, which is why I know Gears and Bioshock have MUCH better graphics than Halo 3, have you even played Bioshock? To play that game and say "Halo 3 has technically superior graphics." is utter naivety. THAT is blind fanboyism. Prefering the graphics is not, claiming them to be technically better is.

Originally posted by Newjak
Plus your analogies are bogus because Avril Lavrine obviously doesn't possess the same technical skill the other people did at guitar

Just like Halo clearly and factually does not possess the graphical capabilities of Gears or Bioshock. You proved my point for me, well done.

Originally posted by Newjak
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.

No, that's exactly why I'm saying it, because I know they are, and people who know about graphics know they are. Even people who have debated against ME have scoffed at the notion of Halo having better graphics than Gears or Bioshock.

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

I did get it, it was just very irrelevant. Different cars, like games. are better at different things, and therefore what car suits you best is opinion. What ISN'T opinion, is technicality. Ie; speed etc. Just like graphics.

Originally posted by Newjak
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.

Yes, that is precisely how I interpreted it and explained it back to you...twice. You are just honestly too dense to grasp anything I say, but I'll use your OWN quote:

"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.". You say "One may be faster.", right? "One handles better.", right? Ok, so one car is faster than the other, while the other car is slower but handles better, right? Good. Now, overall it is up to the driver which car he or she prefers OVERALL, right? Right.

It is NOT up to the driver which car is faster, that is already determined, as is graphics.

Next post.

-AC

Originally posted by Newjak
You see I have read what you said it doesn't change it from being opinion.

It's not opinion, it's fact. You don't read anything.

Originally posted by Newjak
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.

You can keep telling yourself that, but there's a reason that even people who dislike Gears of War put it's graphics above Halo. Because they are superior.

As for Bioshock, it's a no contest.

Originally posted by Newjak
So what you are saying is that you believe Halo 3 is not the greatest game ever therefore anybody that does is a fanboy.

Why are you doing this? Why do you constantly say "Do you mean this? Are you saying this?" followed by something I have NEVER said or never even implied? Why do it? What exactly are you getting out of it besides another reply?

If someone came in and said "Hey, I think Halo is the greatest game ever. I just really enjoy it more than other games. Sure, it's not the most original, most innovative, or greatest thing to grace the Earth, but I think it's the best game in my opinion.", or ANYTHING like that, a well grounded, realistic view, even if I disagree, I don't mind. All I suggest is logic. People going around acting crazy about it are fanboys; "OH MY GOD HALO IS THE BEST GAME EVER! IT BLOWS EVERY OTHER GAME AWAY AND IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT YOU CAN GO AWAY!".

If you do not get what I am saying, don't touch my posts, don't quote them and them make shit up.

Originally posted by Newjak
Seeing how it may be the best game they ever played I find that a bit conceded of a statement to make for you.

What statement, you fool? I've never said "If you think it's the best game ever you are a fanboy.". Stop making things up. You are debating shit you think I've said in your head, that is why this debate is going nowhere. Here's how you debate:

Step 1: *Reads AC's post* (Arguable)
Step 2: *Draws own conclusion as to what he means, not what he's actually said*
Step 3: *Posts reply based on what's in head, not in AC's posts*.

That is what you are doing. You get my posts wrong, then reply to me as if I've just said what your silly mind has conjured up. If it is NOT there in direct quotes, do not say or assume I have said it. I have said many things contrary to the quotes and statements you continue to pin on me, so stop being an idiot.

Originally posted by Newjak
How is Bio shock and GOW ahead of it's time in what you can do.

Name games out now, or recently, with similar or identical gameplay in terms of advanced combat, interaction et al.

Originally posted by Newjak
Last time I checked you can actually preform more actions in Halo 3 then you can in GOW or Bioshock. And this isn't making anything up. So I guess that means Halo 3 is better by your own logic because it allows you to do more. Seriously are you even reading what you type anymore.

You aren't even reading what I type. Doing "actions" is not what I have ever been talking about, I'm talking about relevant innovative combat and/or gameplay techniques. Not the way Master Chief moves his hand (Read into that what you will).

Originally posted by Newjak
And what did GOW add. The ability to crawl on walls that has been in gaming for awhile.

You can't crawl on walls in Gears, I'm not sure what game you've been playing.

Originally posted by Newjak
Bioshock isn't even innovative for the FPS genre. Like I said Morrowind allowed you to shoot lighting and fireballs long before Bioshock.

Morrowind isn't an FPS, and in Bioshock you don't just gain magical powers. Bioshock is an extremely innovative FPS, for the current era.

Originally posted by Newjak
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. 😉

Bioshock has nothing to do with magic, whatsoever, Morrowind has nothing to do with FPS.

Try to stay relevant and keep up.

Originally posted by Newjak
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.

I do understand graphics, which is why I know Gears and Bioshock have MUCH better graphics than Halo 3, have you even played Bioshock? To play that game and say "Halo 3 has technically superior graphics." is utter naivety. THAT is blind fanboyism. Prefering the graphics is not, claiming them to be technically better is.

Originally posted by Newjak
Plus your analogies are bogus because Avril Lavrine obviously doesn't possess the same technical skill the other people did at guitar

Just like Halo clearly and factually does not possess the graphical capabilities of Gears or Bioshock. You proved my point for me, well done.

Originally posted by Newjak
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.

No, that's exactly why I'm saying it, because I know they are, and people who know about graphics know they are. Even people who have debated against ME have scoffed at the notion of Halo having better graphics than Gears or Bioshock.

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

I did get it, it was just very irrelevant. Different cars, like games. are better at different things, and therefore what car suits you best is opinion. What ISN'T opinion, is technicality. Ie; speed etc. Just like graphics.

Originally posted by Newjak
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.

Yes, that is precisely how I interpreted it and explained it back to you...twice. You are just honestly too dense to grasp anything I say, but I'll use your OWN quote:

"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.". You say "One may be faster.", right? "One handles better.", right? Ok, so one car is faster than the other, while the other car is slower but handles better, right? Good. Now, overall it is up to the driver which car he or she prefers OVERALL, right? Right.

It is NOT up to the driver which car is faster, that is already determined, as is graphics.

Originally posted by Newjak
You see I have read what you said it doesn't change it from being opinion.

It's not opinion, it's fact. You don't read anything.

Originally posted by Newjak
Why are GOW and Bioshock Graphically and Spec Wise better games than Halo 3?

The only thing that Gears of War doesn't have in its favour is frame rate. The textures, despite your contrary belief are very well done, even in deep fields of vision, as are the way the shadows are projected. The walls specifically in earlier acts, the way the paint textures are rendered, the way they peel. The lighting reflects realistically on any surface, indoors or outdoors, without relying on "Oh wow! Light beams through the trees!" as in Halo 3, and the first Halo for that matter.

The sprite physics...well, the sprites in Gears of War actually have physics believe it or not. Their bodies don't just drop like rocks.

"Gears has major standards for other engines to follow."

To quote Gamespot.

As for Bioshock, as I said, it's a no-contest there. The water graphics, hardest of all kind of graphics to create, are the best in any game. The water effects in general as it splashes onto the face and either trickles down causing real-life blurry vision or tiny, distracting water droplets are something that Halo couldn't come close to. The way objects take damage is realistic down to the look and the sound of your wrench hitting them. Scuffmarks on doors, clothes, walls, wet marble shimmering under the light as if it's real enough to touch. Arguably the best and definitely most powerful use of the 360 yet, as I'll solidify my point with pictures in the end, and next couple of posts (As you can't post more than one attachment).

How do you compare the graphics in the picture here:

http://img206.imageshack.us/img206/9451/1190542187qt1.jpg

To this:

http://img101.imageshack.us/img101/998/1187596072wg6.jpg

Or compare this:

http://img231.imageshack.us/img231/628/halo3mo2.jpg

To this:

http://img174.imageshack.us/img174/614/1187596039rv1.jpg

Just how? To deny Bioshock has much superior graphics is denial, plain and simple.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
It's not opinion, it's fact. You don't read anything.

You can keep telling yourself that, but there's a reason that even people who dislike Gears of War put it's graphics above Halo. Because they are superior.

As for Bioshock, it's a no contest.

Why are you doing this? Why do you constantly say "Do you mean this? Are you saying this?" followed by something I have NEVER said or never even implied? Why do it? What exactly are you getting out of it besides another reply?

If someone came in and said "Hey, I think Halo is the greatest game ever. I just really enjoy it more than other games. Sure, it's not the most original, most innovative, or greatest thing to grace the Earth, but I think it's the best game in my opinion.", or ANYTHING like that, a well grounded, realistic view, even if I disagree, I don't mind. All I suggest is logic. People going around acting crazy about it are fanboys; "OH MY GOD HALO IS THE BEST GAME EVER! IT BLOWS EVERY OTHER GAME AWAY AND IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT YOU CAN GO AWAY!".

If you do not get what I am saying, don't touch my posts, don't quote them and them make shit up.

What statement, you fool? I've never said "If you think it's the best game ever you are a fanboy.". Stop making things up. You are debating shit you think I've said in your head, that is why this debate is going nowhere. Here's how you debate:

[b]Step 1: *Reads AC's post* (Arguable)
Step 2: *Draws own conclusion as to what he means, not what he's actually said*
Step 3: *Posts reply based on what's in head, not in AC's posts*.

That is what you are doing. You get my posts wrong, then reply to me as if I've just said what your silly mind has conjured up. If it is NOT there in direct quotes, do not say or assume I have said it. I have said many things contrary to the quotes and statements you continue to pin on me, so stop being an idiot.

Name games out now, or recently, with similar or identical gameplay in terms of advanced combat, interaction et al.

You aren't even reading what I type. Doing "actions" is not what I have ever been talking about, I'm talking about relevant innovative combat and/or gameplay techniques. Not the way Master Chief moves his hand (Read into that what you will).

You can't crawl on walls in Gears, I'm not sure what game you've been playing.

Morrowind isn't an FPS, and in Bioshock you don't just gain magical powers. Bioshock is an extremely innovative FPS, for the current era.

Bioshock has nothing to do with magic, whatsoever, Morrowind has nothing to do with FPS.

Try to stay relevant and keep up.

I do understand graphics, which is why I know Gears and Bioshock have MUCH better graphics than Halo 3, have you even played Bioshock? To play that game and say "Halo 3 has technically superior graphics." is utter naivety. THAT is blind fanboyism. Prefering the graphics is not, claiming them to be technically better is.

Just like Halo clearly and factually does not possess the graphical capabilities of Gears or Bioshock. You proved my point for me, well done.

No, that's exactly why I'm saying it, because I know they are, and people who know about graphics know they are. Even people who have debated against ME have scoffed at the notion of Halo having better graphics than Gears or Bioshock.

I did get it, it was just very irrelevant. Different cars, like games. are better at different things, and therefore what car suits you best is opinion. What ISN'T opinion, is technicality. Ie; speed etc. Just like graphics.

Yes, that is precisely how I interpreted it and explained it back to you...twice. You are just honestly too dense to grasp anything I say, but I'll use your OWN quote:

"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.". You say "One may be faster.", right? "One handles better.", right? Ok, so one car is faster than the other, while the other car is slower but handles better, right? Good. Now, overall it is up to the driver which car he or she prefers OVERALL, right? Right.

It is NOT up to the driver which car is faster, that is already determined, as is graphics.

It's not opinion, it's fact. You don't read anything.

The only thing that Gears of War doesn't have in its favour is frame rate. The textures, despite your contrary belief are very well done, even in deep fields of vision, as are the way the shadows are projected. The walls specifically in earlier acts, the way the paint textures are rendered, the way they peel. The lighting reflects realistically on any surface, indoors or outdoors, without relying on "Oh wow! Light beams through the trees!" as in Halo 3, and the first Halo for that matter.

The sprite physics...well, the sprites in Gears of War actually have physics believe it or not. Their bodies don't just drop like rocks.

"Gears has major standards for other engines to follow."

To quote Gamespot.

As for Bioshock, as I said, it's a no-contest there. The water graphics, hardest of all kind of graphics to create, are the best in any game. The water effects in general as it splashes onto the face and either trickles down causing real-life blurry vision or tiny, distracting water droplets are something that Halo couldn't come close to. The way objects take damage is realistic down to the look and the sound of your wrench hitting them. Scuffmarks on doors, clothes, walls, wet marble shimmering under the light as if it's real enough to touch. Arguably the best and definitely most powerful use of the 360 yet, as I'll solidify my point with pictures in the end, and next couple of posts (As you can't post more than one attachment).

How do you compare the graphics in the picture here:

http://img206.imageshack.us/img206/9451/1190542187qt1.jpg

To this:

http://img101.imageshack.us/img101/998/1187596072wg6.jpg

Or compare this:

http://img231.imageshack.us/img231/628/halo3mo2.jpg

To this:

http://img174.imageshack.us/img174/614/1187596039rv1.jpg

Just how? To deny Bioshock has much superior graphics is denial, plain and simple.

-AC [/B]

I can genuinely tell you've been waiting a long time to do that, despite the fact that he has continually put words in my mouth despite civilly explaining my stance to him multiple times. However, yeah, overlook the entire civil debate because I called him stupid or something, despite him being so.

-AC

Me, waiting to do that? Lol, no. I'm here because I like Halo 3, and want to read what people have to say about it.

So then why did you just overlook the fact that I have been waging a debate against a guy who refuses to read what I say, inteprets it how he wants so he can reply how he wants, just to report me when I rightly call him stupid?

He's being stupid, he's not conducting himself properly in this debate because he's wrong, and now someone else has shown up and agreed with me, someone ELSE who knows what they're on about, he's trying to weasel out of it.

-AC

I'm not overlooking anything. I read that you named him a fool and that's breaking a rule, Einstein. Don't do it again.

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, 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.

I remeber an journalist from EGM talking about the graphics of Kane And Lynch and how people have said that the graphics are not as good as most 360 games, and some have said it looks like an XBOX game.

He said that the reason for the game being not so good looking was because of the massive amount of people on screen at the same time, while Gears of War, the developers have told them that it was really hard to get more than 8 guys on screen and keep an steady frame rate.

If he acts like a fool I'll call him a fool, it's a term even mods use, so reporting me for it was essentially pointless. Haha "Don't do it again.", as if your warning means anything to me.

Either pitch in or drop out. I'm contributing more Halo discussion to this thread than the so-called fans. You might wanna throw your opinion out there if you even have one.

Originally posted by Smasandian
I remeber an journalist from EGM talking about the graphics of Kane And Lynch and how people have said that the graphics are not as good as most 360 games, and some have said it looks like an XBOX game.

He said that the reason for the game being not so good looking was because of the massive amount of people on screen at the same time, while Gears of War, the developers have told them that it was really hard to get more than 8 guys on screen and keep an steady frame rate.

That was Gears' main graphics "flaw", frame rate. It sacrificed masses on screen to make the graphics better, and they are.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
How do you compare the graphics in the picture here:

http://img206.imageshack.us/img206/9451/1190542187qt1.jpg

To this:

http://img101.imageshack.us/img101/998/1187596072wg6.jpg

Or compare this:

http://img231.imageshack.us/img231/628/halo3mo2.jpg

To this:

http://img174.imageshack.us/img174/614/1187596039rv1.jpg

Just how? To deny Bioshock has much superior graphics is denial, plain and simple.

-AC

Originally posted by shin_gear
Way to find a pair of shit pics of Halo 3 and compare them to Bioshock to prove Bioshock's supposedly better graphics. How desperate can you get?

FACT.

Even better than the the graphics displayed in the Halo 3 trailer?

A) How is that relevant? We're not discussing trailers, we're discussing in-game.

B) Then I could say Bioshock's trailer has better graphics than that.

Originally posted by shin_gear
Way to find a pair of shit pics of Halo 3 and compare them to Bioshock to prove Bioshock's supposedly better graphics. How desperate can you get?

Those are both high resolution screen caps.

Halo 3's graphics just aren't better.

-AC

If you would, show me a trailer of Bioshock better looking than the Halo 3 one.

Why? We're not discussing trailers, we're discussing in-game graphics. What purpose would be achieved by determining what trailer is better?

To quote you; how desperate can you get?

-AC

Finished the fight.

Spartan S25 out.

You and whoever are discussing in-game graphics, supposedly. I'm speaking of graphics regarding gameplay and/or real-time cutscenes. I'm not about to argue which game looks better in-game, and you did post a pair of shit Halo 3 pics. That's the desperate action that was taken, and was all I was pointing out.

Originally posted by shin_gear
You and whoever are discussing in-game graphics, supposedly. I'm speaking of graphics regarding gameplay and/or real-time cutscenes.

Gameplay isn't cutscenes. You're either discussing gameplay or cutscenes, this is a discussion about gameplay graphics. Not cutscenes, which ultimately mean nothing.

Originally posted by shin_gear
I'm not about to argue which game looks better in-game, and you did post a pair of shit Halo 3 pics. That's the desperate action that was taken, and was all I was pointing out.

It wasn't desperate, I actually searched for high resolution Halo pics, and I found high resolution IN GAME pics.

It's an in game Halo pic Vs an in game Bioshock pic. I'm not gonna post some promo shot of Halo's trailer that has nothing to do with in game graphics at all. I'm gonna post what we're discussing.

-AC

On the graphics thing - you can say all you want about plot, gameplay, etc...but graphics is one thing where you CAN say that one game factually is better than another in that aspect. I don't mean character and setting designs, but rather the crispness, quality, and detail of things like lighting, textures, shadows, etc. The technical aspect of it. That really isn't down to opinion as you cannot say that a game has better graphics than another if the first has pixelated textures, jagged edges, etc., and the second doesn't.

I will say this much, though. Lighting is a HELL of a lot easier to get right and looking nice than water.

Of course, graphics isn't everything in a game. And you can prefer one game's visuals over another, sure. But it's one of the very few things that can be factually measured in a game.