Halo 3

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

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

Also provide me with pics from Bioshock that are more detailed than these.

http://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s68/MJOLNIR_VII/Halo3P5.jpg

http://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s68/MJOLNIR_VII/Halo3P6.jpg

http://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s68/MJOLNIR_VII/Halo3P7.jpg

http://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s68/MJOLNIR_VII/Halo3P8.jpg

Cutscenes are not actually real-time. They're pre-rendered, which is why they always look nicer than in-game graphics.

I've seen a video confirming the Halo 3 trailer was being run by the graphic's engine. Bungie themselves stated the Halo 3 trailer was not pre-rendered.

The first two levels, the graphics are subpar, but the highway level, and the flood level, the graphics are pretty good. Not Gears of War, but still pretty damn good.

Originally posted by shin_gear
How do cutscenes ultimately mean nothing when they're in real-time, being run by the console's engine? Way to tell me you were in a discussion about in-game graphics, which I told you I knew. I'm making another point.

Also provide me with pics from Bioshock that are more detailed than these.

http://i149.photobucket.com/albums/...VII/Halo3P5.jpg

http://i149.photobucket.com/albums/...VII/Halo3P6.jpg

http://i149.photobucket.com/albums/...VII/Halo3P7.jpg

http://i149.photobucket.com/albums/...VII/Halo3P8.jpg

That's why I picked HIGH RESOLUTION, IN GAME pictures, because I knew you would go and get pics on the net that show NO true depiction of the in game graphics.

WHY are you making a point about trailers, cutscenes and other stuff? What exactly is the purpose? WE (As in nobody BUT you) is concerned about that, it doesn't reflect the game graphics.

I don't need to provide pics to counter that as we're not discussing that. We're discussing IN GAME. In game pictures are what I showed.

Originally posted by shin_gear
I've seen a video confirming the Halo 3 trailer was being run by the graphic's engine. Bungie themselves stated the Halo 3 trailer was not pre-rendered.

Either way the Halo trailer isn't in-game graphics is it? What point are you making?

Are you that desperate?

-AC

How do they not show depiction of the game's graphics? Are you saying they don't display in-game graphics despite them obviously doing so?

So each and every time you're going to tell me "We're not discussing that" whenever I point out the FACT the Halo 3's trailer was run by the console's graphic engine? Desperate enough if you ask me.

Originally posted by shin_gear
How do they not show depiction of the game's graphics? Are you saying they don't display in-game graphics despite them obviously doing so?

So each and every time you're going to tell me "We're not discussing that" whenever I point out the FACT the Halo 3's trailer was run by the console's graphic engine? Desperate enough if you ask me.

They are not in game graphics, Shin. Those are not the kind of graphics you see when you actually PLAY the levels and the actual game, so they are not IN game graphics.

What's desperate is you not being able to debate, so you're trying and failing to raise a new point...with no point and even less success. I've seen the trailers and TV spots, cutscenes etc. They are nowhere NEAR the same as the actual game you PLAY, fact.

If you cannot debate what we are discussing, do not debate at all. Stick to discussing how hot female characters are and let us discuss the games.

-AC

Originally posted by Lana
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.

Halo 3 does mkore thigns Graphically compared to GOW therfore GOW can use more pixels to create sharper images. Halo 3 actually has to do more Graphics wise. Look at Enviroment Player Interaction. every time you blow up a vehicle and it goes flying around the battle field that is a display of the games graphic power to do so.

Everytime you have to create a ledge capable for people to jump it adding more area for the game to process Graphically. Why because unlike the very linear play of GOW Halo 3 has to incorporate itno its graphics the abuility to move around of many angles and access many areas from many different angles.

All of this done by the Gprahics Engine. So while you can look at the tech aspects the visual quality given a game is opinion based. Halo 3 looks great IMO because it shows great lighting and is vast in how you can interact with the enviroment. Unlike GOW which only gives the illusion of actual size and scope.

Originally posted by Newjak
You are right Graphics can be looked at but the problem is that many different games go for different aspects of "Graphics"

Halo 3 does mkore thigns Graphically compared to GOW therfore GOW can use more pixels to create sharper images. Halo 3 actually has to do more Graphics wise. Look at Enviroment Player Interaction. every time you blow up a vehicle and it goes flying around the battle field that is a display of the games graphic power to do so.

Everytime you have to create a ledge capable for people to jump it adding more area for the game to process Graphically. Why because unlike the very linear play of GOW Halo 3 has to incorporate itno its graphics the abuility to move around of many angles and access many areas from many different angles.

All of this done by the Gprahics Engine. So while you can look at the tech aspects the visual quality given a game is opinion based. Halo 3 looks great IMO because it shows great lighting and is vast in how you can interact with the enviroment. Unlike GOW which only gives the illusion of actual size and scope.

We're not discussing the QUALITY of game as a result of graphics, we're talking JUST about graphics and the technicalities behind it, in which case Halo just does not win. Gears and Bioshock are far superior and everyone knows it. People here keep pointing that out and you keep weaseling out of it.

Lighting is much easier than water, and Bioshock's water graphics and interaction are unprecedented, much less everything else being as amazing as it is.

You say Halo has to incorporate all these angles and interaction with environment, that's Gears main point. You're just saying things for the sake of it now. "The jeep going flying is a result of the graphics power."...what? What are you not getting? Halo does not have TECHNICALLY better graphics than Bioshock or Gears. You can go on about how and why, but the answer is; it just doesn't.

The graphics in Halo 3 technically just are not as good as Bioshock and Gears, Newjak.

There's honestly no need for us to keep going back and forth over pages, because people are quite blatantly putting your argument to rest and you just keep posting.

-AC

i found it was one off the best games ive ever played but to the end i found you were doing a lot of things you did on halo 1 like at the end raceing for the ship in a warhog

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]

It is obvous that what you have been saying is that anyone who thinks that Halo 3 is as a good a game as GOW or Bioshock are ""Owned by Bungie" or "are giving you Fanboy rants". There is no logic in your posts just flat out opinion of what you think makes a good game.

I don't have to put words in your mouth you have said them nd simply trying to say that people aren't gettign what you are sayng doesn't mean they are. You are changing what you are saying every post to try and sound smart.

Originally you said you thought Halo 3 wasn't very good and that anybody who believed that it ranked among GOW of and Bioshock are fooling themselves into believing it.

When I pointed out how people rank games is of their own opinion just like it is your opinion they are better games you changed tactics again.

Trying to say it is factual that they are better games based on two aspects that you believe couldn't be argued.

Once again I pointed out your acts are nothing than what you find more pleasing about a game thus are once again jsut opinion.

Then you changed tactics again trying to say that all along you've been trying to say you've been talking about the tech aspects of teh game. When I asked what the tech aspects you actually showed by your previous post and this post you do no have a clue of what the tech aspects are. You tried to sound like you knew what was going by saying some words but reality all you stated is you think the GOW and Bioshock Grahpics are better based on one small aspect of the Grahpics Engine.

Never actually taking into account that the Graphics Engine actually acomplishes more than just textures. It is responsible for everything you see and do on screen.

The fact is you like the very detailed textures of GOW without teh Scope and Range Provided by the Graphics of Halo 3. Face it your opinion on hat are ebtter graphics has nothing to do with what the Graphics Engines are actually doing.

There is no misreading or misjudging what you are saying. You just trying to sound smart and keep trying to coneal your opinions as fact based on what you beleive to be true. Thus I already know what you are going to say next. I've misread what you've said. Your going to try and spin what you said before to make it sound like you were actually trying say something else.

I'm fine with it why because as long as people understand everyhting you have been talking about is opinion based I'm ok.

As long as people udnerstnad that Graphically Hal 3 is actually doing alot mroe than what GOW had to do thus the Image Texture is different I'm fine with that.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
In all actuality though, if just telling the story was the aim, not making it more worthwhile as it goes on, they could have just done that in one game, multiple discs, or just one game anyway.

The excuse of "The story is so big that they just had to make it three games." is not a good one, if that is what you're saying. Making the gameplay better doesn't mean they'd have to change the story, which is hardly a revolutionary story anyway;

Aliens come, you have to defeat them.
-AC

We both know Gears of Wars, and most likely BioShock, will follow Halo's suit with sequels. And that's just as fine as telling the story with just one CD. The telling of a tale in the form of a trilogy is one of the best ways to tell a story. It allows for more details, character development and a connection.

And no, i'm not saying that the story's so big they had to make 3 CD's. I was trying to point out that it seemed some people wanted a different game and now seem mad that that wasn't the case when it wasn't suppose to be the case anyway. The game's a continuance of where 2 left off. It's the same story when it first came out in Nov. '01.

I think that if the people whom are disappointed would've looked at Halo 3 thinking "This isn't a new Halo, but the last part of the story", as clearly reiterated by Bungie/Microsoft over the last couple of years, they'd be less disappointed, if that was the reason they were mad. Alot of people wanted a "new" Halo and now feel jipped for no reason other than not listening to the games creators telling them otherwise.

And if Halo's story is "Aliens come, you have to defeat them", then is Gears of Wars story, "Grubs come, you have to defeat them"? What about BioShock, "try and escape alive". Downplaying Halo's "simple" story to a few words wasn't worth doing that if you didn't include any other games that can be downplayed like that but won't cause of bias.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
We're not discussing the QUALITY of game as a result of graphics, we're talking JUST about graphics and the technicalities behind it, in which case Halo just does not win. Gears and Bioshock are far superior and everyone knows it. People here keep pointing that out and you keep weaseling out of it.

Lighting is much easier than water, and Bioshock's water graphics and interaction are unprecedented, much less everything else being as amazing as it is.

You say Halo has to incorporate all these angles and interaction with environment, that's Gears main point. You're just saying things for the sake of it now. "The jeep going flying is a result of the graphics power."...what? What are you not getting? Halo does not have TECHNICALLY better graphics than Bioshock or Gears. You can go on about how and why, but the answer is; it just doesn't.

The graphics in Halo 3 technically just are not as good as Bioshock and Gears, Newjak.

There's honestly no need for us to keep going back and forth over pages, because people are quite blatantly putting your argument to rest and you just keep posting.

-AC

Graphics are much more than that. They are Scope, Textures, Mapping, Character Models, Lighting, Player Enviroment Interaction, Framerate. You keep saying that you beleive that GOW and Bioshcok have better Graphics based on textures and not actually saying why.

Graphics incorparates all of these elements. They are all handled by the graphics. And oddly enough everyone actually ahs agreed with me on the subject of Graphics. You just keep saying the Graphics are better because you think they look better but honestly just as Lana said you may find a Game better looking has nothing to do with Graphics.

Originally posted by Newjak
I haven't been putting words into your posts or misreading your quotes.

You have, which is exactly why you say "Are you saying this...?" followed by a deduction I've NEVER EVER said, because you don't read.

Originally posted by Newjak
It is obvous that what you have been saying is that anyone who thinks that Halo 3 is as a good a game as GOW or Bioshock are ""Owned by Bungie" or "are giving you Fanboy rants". There is no logic in your posts just flat out opinion of what you think makes a good game.

See, this is why you are being an idiot.

I am NOT saying that nor do I believe it. I have actually clearly stated the opposite to you many times, and if you are going to keep making up things to aid yourself then you are defeating your own argument.

Originally posted by Newjak
I don't have to put words in your mouth you have said them nd simply trying to say that people aren't gettign what you are sayng doesn't mean they are. You are changing what you are saying every post to try and sound smart.

I've NEVER said that, ever. I've only ever said I consider it a poor, mediocre game, NOT BAD (Many times) and that FANBOYS overrate it. Not that anyone who thinks it's good is "owned by Bungie.". Stop making things up you fool.

Originally posted by Newjak
Originally you said you thought Halo 3 wasn't very good and that anybody who believed that it ranked among GOW of and Bioshock are fooling themselves into believing it.

No I didn't, I said fanboys are deluding themselves to avoid disappointment in a lot of cases. NOT everyone who loves the game is a fanboy, I've told you this MANY times and you ignore it because you really, really want to reply to me.

The longer this goes on and the more you reply, the more it benefits me, because the more people will see you just get what you desire out of my posts. People with sense know what I'm saying about graphics is true, you have Shin_Gear on your side.

Originally posted by Newjak
When I pointed out how people rank games is of their own opinion just like it is your opinion they are better games you changed tactics again.

I didn't change tactics, my points have always been the same, but like I said, you debate what you see of my debate IN YOUR HEAD, you do not debate what is ACTUALLY THERE.

Originally posted by Newjak
Trying to say it is factual that they are better games based on two aspects that you believe couldn't be argued.

I'm not trying to say that you completely ignorant fool. How many more times have I got to explain it to you? Why are you ignoring it?

Originally posted by Newjak
Once again I pointed out your acts are nothing than what you find more pleasing about a game thus are once again jsut opinion.

That's not what they are, regarding graphics being superior. Backfire knows it, Lana knows it. We all know the graphics are TECHNICALLY and FACTUALLY superior. NOBODY is saying one game is OVERALL factually better, that's opinion.

I can't believe I have to keep saying this.

Originally posted by Newjak
Then you changed tactics again trying to say that all along you've been trying to say you've been talking about the tech aspects of teh game.

I have, graphically. YOU haven't seen it, but everyone else has, hence why Backfire game in and reiterated to you what I was saying. YOU just ignore it cos you want an excuse to reply.

Originally posted by Newjak
When I asked what the tech aspects you actually showed by your previous post and this post you do no have a clue of what the tech aspects are. You tried to sound like you knew what was going by saying some words but reality all you stated is you think the GOW and Bioshock Grahpics are better based on one small aspect of the Grahpics Engine.

So me, Backfire and Lana are all wrong?

You base YOUR argument on WHY Halo doesn't have superior graphics technically, but the fact is, it doesn't. "It doesn't because it has more to do!", so? It just DOESN'T have better graphics.

Originally posted by Newjak
Never actually taking into account that the Graphics Engine actually acomplishes more than just textures. It is responsible for everything you see and do on screen.

SO WHAT? Who cares? Stop discussing what you do, we're not. It's about PURE GRAPHICS TECH SPECS. Gears and Bioshock win.

Originally posted by Newjak
The fact is you like the very detailed textures of GOW without teh Scope and Range Provided by the Graphics of Halo 3. Face it your opinion on hat are ebtter graphics has nothing to do with what the Graphics Engines are actually doing.

This isn't my OPINION, it's not Backfire's opinion, it's not Lana's opinion, it's factual that they are superior graphics.

Originally posted by Newjak
There is no misreading or misjudging what you are saying. You just trying to sound smart and keep trying to coneal your opinions as fact based on what you beleive to be true. Thus I already know what you are going to say next. I've misread what you've said. Your going to try and spin what you said before to make it sound like you were actually trying say something else.

No, the FACT is you are seeing and replying to things in your head because you do not wanna admit you are wrong, Newjak. You misread EVERYTHING I say or worse, read it correctly and ignore it. Proof of this is in the fact that I have explained everything to you.

Originally posted by Newjak
I'm fine with it why because as long as people understand everyhting you have been talking about is opinion based I'm ok.

It's not. That's the problem. You're "Ok" as long as you feel you are right, and you are wrong.

Originally posted by Newjak
As long as people udnerstnad that Graphically Hal 3 is actually doing alot mroe than what GOW had to do thus the Image Texture is different I'm fine with that.

IT DOESN'T MATTER. So what if it does a lot more? The ACTUAL GRAPHICS are not as good.

-AC

Originally posted by FistOfThe North
We both know Gears of Wars, and most likely BioShock, will follow Halo's suit with sequels. And that's just as fine as telling the story with just one CD. The telling of a tale in the form of a trilogy is one of the best ways to tell a story. It allows for more details, character development and a connection.

And that doesn't apply to Halo since they DECIDED to make the story longer to milk the franchise. It COULD easily have been on one disc.

Originally posted by FistOfThe North
And no, i'm not saying that the story's so big they had to make 3 CD's. I was trying to point out that it seemed some people wanted a different game and now seem mad that that wasn't the case when it wasn't suppose to be the case anyway. The game's a continuance of where 2 left off. It's the same story when it first came out in Nov. '01.

I didn't "want" a different game, I never bought any of them after the original vastly let me down, but I've played them both. My point has to do with how little they've changed.

It's just Halo 2.5, which was 1.5. If people are fine with that, I consider it odd, but at least admit that's what it is.

Originally posted by FistOfThe North
I think that if the people whom are disappointed would've looked at Halo 3 thinking "This isn't a new Halo, but the last part of the story", as clearly reiterated by Bungie/Microsoft over the last couple of years, they'd be less disappointed, if that was the reason they were mad. Alot of people wanted a "new" Halo and now feel jipped for no reason other than not listening to the games creators telling them otherwise.

None of that is relevant to what I'm saying.

Originally posted by FistOfThe North
And if Halo's story is "Aliens come, you have to defeat them", then is Gears of Wars story, "Grubs come, you have to defeat them"? What about BioShock, "try and escape alive". Downplaying Halo's "simple" story to a few words wasn't worth doing that if you didn't include any other games that can be downplayed like that but won't cause of bias.

Yeah, exactly. Gears has a very generic plot as does Halo, I'd never defend it there.

Bioshock's plot is factually a lot more complex. "Try and stay alive." simply doesn't cover any of the themes or underlying concepts of the story. Halo had to put out books and comics and it still doesn't accomplish in all of those, and three games, what Bioshock does in one. There are many more themes in that game than in Halo. If you said "Aliens come, you have to defeat them, more or less.", playing Halo wouldn't surprise you very much, save for the odd twist or turn, it's ultimately just that. If I told you "Bioshock is basically about trying to stay alive.", you wouldn't come away from the game thinking that, because there's a lot more to it. It's not bias.

Originally posted by Newjak
And I'm not talking about teh Quality of the Game I'm talking about the "Graphics" of the Game which oddly enough you keep trying to talk as only being textures.

Here's the deal; factually Halo 3's graphics are not better overall, technically. Gears and Bioshock are, and people here know it. You are denying it because you love Halo. That's the fact.

Originally posted by Newjak
Graphics are much more than that. They are Scope, Textures, Mapping, Character Models, Lighting, Player Enviroment Interaction, Framerate. You keep saying that you beleive that GOW and Bioshcok have better Graphics based on textures and not actually saying why.

No, I believe they have better graphics, as does Backfire and as does Lana, because of the reasons Backfire stated before I could reply, as I was typing. They simply have far superior technology overall.

Originally posted by Newjak
Graphics incorparates all of these elements. They are all handled by the graphics. And oddly enough everyone actually ahs agreed with me on the subject of Graphics. You just keep saying the Graphics are better because you think they look better but honestly just as Lana said you may find a Game better looking has nothing to do with Graphics.

Oh my...are you genuinely missing brain parts? FORGET about PREFERING a game regardless of graphics, ok? Forget that.

Here's what you need to realise; based SOLELY on technical specs and ability, OVERALL, Gears and Bioshock are superior technology, graphics wise. That is a fact. Not JUST textures, overall.

Originally posted by Backfire
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.

See? It's not just me. You're just ignorant, and that's just Gears.

Halo 3 isn't worthy of being compared to Bioshock graphically.

You love Halo or you can't read, one of the two. I genuinely find it shocking how many times things must be explained to you.

-AC

Apprantly I just made all of this up about Bungie Owning us and Corrupting us and Halo 3 not derserving to be lumped to together with GOW and Bioshock.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri

There's a reason Bungie and Microsoft had to plaster Master Chief all over TV, drink cans and such, but whether or not the fans will see why is due to the epic question; to fanboy or not to fanboy? If people truly believe there's all this marketing because he's a good character and they are good games that could do as well without marketing, it's naivety.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri

"When a game is coming out that I am interested in, I'll say I think it looks amazing if it does, but I won't say it IS until I play it and until it proves me right. Halo 3 fans have been saying it all along because they simply know that it won't be anything amazing.".

And it's true.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I'm not in here being viciously abusive toward people OR the game, but I've already been met with many fanboyisms and rants telling me to get out, just because people can't hack the truth.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
You said you can live with it being Halo 2.5, I think that's just a shocking piece of proof of how far inside people Bungie have put themselves. The game has had $50 million dollars worth of hype, people have ditched college, work and whatever else to play it and they essentially get Halo 2 with better graphics, guns and still complaints that plagued the first two games.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri

The excuse that vehicles are enough of an advancement to justify the hype around this game. It just doesn't work, it's not a matter of being pro-Halo or anti-Halo, or even neutral. I think anybody who isn't so corrupted by Bungie would admit they haven't done enough. Even people who ultimately like the game are saying that.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri

Gears of War, Bioshock, these games that it constantly gets lumped in with do not deserve to be lumped in with it.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
A) How is that relevant to anything? Sales mean squat.

B) No, apparantly, Halo 3 owns YOU. It truly does own you all, Bungie owns you all. They say jump, you ask what kind of somersault.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri

If they make two more sequels with nothing new but an extra gun, I'll be as critical. The difference is, Gears of War was the debut game, didn't receive half as much hype as the original Halo and was still miles better, in my opinion, than anything Bungie could or will ever muster. THAT game has dynamic fighting, the hiding, the way you move, the way you seriously DO have to rely on brains to fight. Halo doesn't have that to the same degree. Maybe you have to move your sprite behind a rock now and then, but Gears actually makes it PART of the game and environment.

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.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri

Here's the deal; factually Halo 3's graphics are not better overall, technically. Gears and Bioshock are, and people here know it. You are denying it because you love Halo. That's the fact.

No, I believe they have better graphics, as does Backfire and as does Lana, because of the reasons Backfire stated before I could reply, as I was typing. They simply have far superior technology overall.

Oh my...are you genuinely missing brain parts? FORGET about PREFERING a game regardless of graphics, ok? Forget that.

Here's what you need to realise; based SOLELY on technical specs and ability, OVERALL, Gears and Bioshock are superior technology, graphics wise. That is a fact. Not JUST textures, overall.

See? It's not just me. You're just ignorant, and that's just Gears.

Halo 3 isn't worthy of being compared to Bioshock graphically.

You love Halo or you can't read, one of the two. I genuinely find it shocking how many times things must be explained to you.

-AC

Backfire even goes on to mention why Halo doesn't have better textures than GOW Spec wise.

You are equating Grhapics Solely to textures and how the things look but "Grahpic" actually are moe than that.

You you told me you thought GOWs Textures were better I would agree. If you told me that GOWs character modls are ebtter I would agree

But graphically you have yet to actually state why the Grapics are better other than just you liking the Textures better.

and that is what it is.

That's the best post you've made, and yes, if that's your evidence then you are making it all up about me "always" saying "Bungie is corrupting everyone.".

Because in all of those quotes the only thing you'll find is well constructed points and well founded claims. The one quote (And there is just one) where I said "Bungie owns you all." is in reply to InnerRise who said "Halo 3 owns you all." based on price. It wasn't the heart of my debate, I wasn't going around saying everyone is controlled by Bungie.

If anything you just condensed my argument and made it more powerful by quoting points that damage your case, Newjak.

You got one thing right; I do not believe Halo 3 deserves to be put with Gears and Bioshock, what's the problem?

I love how you clearly spent time grabbing those quotes and it did nothing for you.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
They are not in game graphics, Shin. Those are not the kind of graphics you see when you actually PLAY the levels and the actual game, so they are not IN game graphics.

What's desperate is you not being able to debate, so you're trying and failing to raise a new point...with no point and even less success. I've seen the trailers and TV spots, cutscenes etc. They are nowhere NEAR the same as the actual game you PLAY, fact.

If you cannot debate what we are discussing, do not debate at all. Stick to discussing how hot female characters are and let us discuss the games.

-AC

I think I'll mention facts about Halo 3 when I want to, thanks. I don't care if it has nothing to do with the discussion you were in. I'm pointing out the reality that the Halo 3 trailer was in real-time. Go ahead and tell me it wasn't part of the discussion you were in. That would be mentioning another one of my points.

You apparently can't debate without being ridiculously biased and insulting people while you're at it. 😂

Originally posted by Newjak
The problem is you don't know the technical spec to compare graphics. I've even given you them so you you could compare them.

Backfire even goes on to mention why Halo doesn't have better textures than GOW Spec wise.

You are equating Grhapics Solely to textures and how the things look but "Grahpic" actually are moe than that.

The only thing Halo has over Gears is lighting, overall Gears is a far more graphically superior game, as proven and as said. I'm not sure what more there is to be deduced.

Textures, mapping, character models and everything else EXCEPT lighting and possibly frame rate is better than Halo 3. It's an overall graphically superior game, you just won't admit it.

Originally posted by Newjak
You you told me you thought GOWs Textures were better I would agree. If you told me that GOWs character modls are ebtter I would agree

Ok, done, moving on.

Originally posted by Newjak
But graphically you have yet to actually state why the Grapics are better other than just you liking the Textures better.

It's not me LIKING THEM better is it? It's them BEING better. It's the models BEING more advanced, it's the mapping BEING superior. That is what you fail to understand. Me liking them is not why they are better, they are superior because they are, technically.

Originally posted by Newjak
and that is what it is.

And that's what your argument is. Done.

We all know you'll keep replying cos you either don't read, can't read or refuse to read. No matter how many times it's laid out, you ignore it.

-AC