Halo 3

Originally posted by Newjak
You said people can make games of THAT QUALITY refering to the fact that the games were better quality compared to Halo 3 and then in the next sentence you say it is based on the games being dynamically and graphically superior.

Listen to yourself, Newjak. The game is of lesser quality overall in MY OPINION, why do I have to keep telling you this?

The graphics/dynamics part is NOT opinion, the overall quality is. I'm not discussing the "car", I'm discussing the "car parts".

Originally posted by Newjak
And then you personally felt less fullfilled because of of the Qualitly of the games being different. But you before you stated that the Games were Factually Superior becuase of A)Graphics and B) Dynamics.

No, the GRAPHICS and DYNAMICS are factually inferior therefore I was PERSONALLY unfulfilled by the OVERALL game.

Why do yo keep ignoring this? Genuine, civil question. Why are you debating with me over what I factually said? I said what I said, not what you think I did, not what you "find". Either accept it or keep to the topic.

Originally posted by Newjak
Personally I'm just enyoing watching yourself contradict everything you say.

I'm not contradicting anything. You feel the need to constantly reply to this because you know your on topic debate is dead, so you need something to go back and forth over. Little do you know that all you are doing is making yourself look stupid.

Maybe I'll try it! Newjak, why did you say Halo is factually better quality than Gears, Bioshock and every game ever made, ever? Why did you say that?

-AC

Originally posted by AstroFan
Im at work for another 9 anyway. 🙁

Originally posted by Newjak
Yeah because we all know GOW was lined with breakable furniture.

Yes, we do.

Originally posted by Newjak
And your right you don't need Enviroments to be non-static for Player-enviroment Interaction but Dynamic Enviroments that have multiple things that change and can be interacted with are Graphically harder to do. Thus having a Vehicle Blow up and go flying is harder than sitting shooting a wall to make littel bullet holes.

That's not the point, though. Your argument is "Halo did more!", so what? Gears may have done less, but as a result its graphics are FACTUALLY SUPERIOR. Nobody is discussing what has more going on. Gears may have less going on but what IS there is graphically superior to what Halo has.

Originally posted by Newjak
And the point is Halo 3 could have easily cut back layer-Enviroment Interactions, Scope to have better Texture and Character Models because in the end the Graphics could have easily done so but what have cost it Graphically in other areas.

That's the point, it cut back to have more, and as a result, Gears is superior in graphics. Not sure why that's hard to get.

Originally posted by Newjak
Just like GOW is Graphically lacking in some areas.

Yes, like frame rate and lighting, but it's overall superior to Halo 3 graphics.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Listen to yourself, Newjak. The game is of lesser quality overall in MY OPINION, why do I have to keep telling you this?

The graphics/dynamics part is NOT opinion, the overall quality is. I'm not discussing the "car", I'm discussing the "car parts".

No, the GRAPHICS and DYNAMICS are factually inferior therefore I was PERSONALLY unfulfilled by the OVERALL game.

Why do yo keep ignoring this? Genuine, civil question. Why are you debating with me over what I factually said? I said what I said, not what you think I did, not what you "find". Either accept it or keep to the topic.

I'm not contradicting anything. You feel the need to constantly reply to this because you know your on topic debate is dead, so you need something to go back and forth over. Little do you know that all you are doing is making yourself look stupid.

Maybe I'll try it! Newjak, why did you say Halo is factually better quality than Gears, Bioshock and every game ever made, ever? Why did you say that?

-AC

You said that GOW and Bioshock are Graphically and Dynamically better games and seeing how you are still trying to argue that it is Graphically better I find every statmenet where you are trying to cover up to be quite funny.

Except I'm still replying to the on topic debate so that point is just flat stupid.

Except I never actually said that Halo 3 is better Graphically or Dynaimacly or that it is fact that is opinion. I've said what I've said from the beginign I like the look of Halo 3 better, I like Halo 3 better. You are the you was trying convince people that it was a subpar game that shouldn't be put in league with Gear or Bio and anyone that did was corrputed by Bungie. Or that Halo 3 is factually a better game and trying to use points like Graphics and Dynaimcs as the facts behind it.

So you ailed at everything in this thread.

Failed to prove why GOW has better Graphics. Why it is a better game other than your opinion and are now trying back track cover what you said eariler to save face.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Yes, we do.

That's not the point, though. Your argument is "Halo did more!", so what? Gears may have done less, but as a result its graphics are FACTUALLY SUPERIOR. Nobody is discussing what has more going on. Gears may have less going on but what IS there is graphically superior to what Halo has.

That's the point, it cut back to have more, and as a result, Gears is superior in graphics. Not sure why that's hard to get.

Yes, like frame rate and lighting, but it's overall superior to Halo 3 graphics.

-AC

Thats is the POITN YOU SIMPLY ARE NOT GETTING.

Is the fact that Halo 3 did decide to do more in some areas of Graphics while Gears decided to do more back graphically in different areas. Thus they were graphically lacking i nthe otehr areas.

Thus they both do Graphically what they set out to do extremely well thus one isn't better in Grahpics becuase Overall both Grahpics did what they wanted and did just as good as the other one did with their respective parts.

So no GOW is not overtly Superior to Halo 3 Grpahics Wise.

Originally posted by Newjak
I'm ignoring what you are saying because basically you keep saying different things to try and cover your tracks.

No, I have no tracks to cover. I said something and you got it wrong. If you're not going to accept that at least stop bringing it up, because it's just stupid.

Originally posted by Newjak
You said that GOW and Bioshock are Graphically and Dynamically better games and seeing how you are still trying to argue that it is Graphically better I find every statmenet where you are trying to cover up to be quite funny.

Yeah, they are graphically and dynamically superior, that's not opinion. We're not discussing overall, we're discussing parts. Overall is opinion.

Originally posted by Newjak
Except I'm still replying to the on topic debate so that point is just flat stupid.

Then at least do that. If you're going to be an idiot and not accept that you got all of what I've been saying wrong, and refuse to accept my explanations, I can live with that, but as I said, do the thread a favour and stop bringing it up, because it's just going to end up with me having to continually say "I didn't say that, I said this.", "OH MY GOD NO! YOU SAID THIS!", which is dumb. Because I know what I said. Even IF you genuinely did find it confusing the first time, you should have stopped this when I explained it.

Originally posted by Newjak
Except I never actually said that Halo 3 is better Graphically or Dynaimacly or that it is fact that is opinion. I've said what I've said from the beginign I like the look of Halo 3 better, I like Halo 3 better. You are the you was trying convince people that it was a subpar game that shouldn't be put in league with Gear or Bio and anyone that did was corrputed by Bungie. Or that Halo 3 is factually a better game and trying to use points like Graphics and Dynaimcs as the facts behind it.

So you ailed at everything in this thread.

Failed to prove why GOW has better Graphics. Why it is a better game other than your opinion and are now trying back track cover what you said eariler to save face.

I'm not trying to convince people of anything overall, so that's that point out of the way. I don't believe Halo 3 deserves to be in the same league as those two, others might, I don't, it's opinion overall. Graphics and dynamics? It factually does not.

I'm not using dynamics and graphics to prove anything BESIDES dynamics and graphics. I'm not discussing overall, you are.

You specifically said Halo is factually better in every way to every game that has ever existed, and anyone who disagrees is silly. You said that, I swear! You did! Haha, you're trying to cover your tracks.

(Annoying, isn't it? Yes, then stop doing it to me when you know it's a lie).

I've not failed to prove anything, you not admitting it doesn't mean I've failed. Thankfully I do not NEED your admittance, they are graphically superior games whether you choose to accept it or not, so saying "I admit it." isn't needed.

-AC

Originally posted by Newjak
I know ti had breakable furniture but my point was that it wasn't every abundant throughout the levels.

It was where it was relevant, I've never seen a couch in an underground cavern. In most or all of the city levels it was there.

Originally posted by Newjak
Thats is the POITN YOU SIMPLY ARE NOT GETTING.

Is the fact that Halo 3 did decide to do more in some areas of Graphics while Gears decided to do more back graphically in different areas. Thus they were graphically lacking i nthe otehr areas.

I KNOW that you cretin, Halo 3 being better with light and frame rate, Gears being better EVERYWHERE else.

Originally posted by Newjak
Thus they both do Graphically what they set out to do extremely well thus one isn't better in Grahpics becuase Overall both Grahpics did what they wanted and did just as good as the other one did with their respective parts.

So no GOW is not overtly Superior to Halo 3 Grpahics Wise.

Yes, it is. You are AGAIN saying "They did different things!", so? Gears did more superior things with graphics than Halo did.

-AC

Originally posted by Newjak
That sucks

Yeah, I only get like 3/4 hours a night to play(or do anything really).

But atleast I can afford to play. LOL

Interacting with the environment actually has little to do with the graphics engine. Sure, they're textured models, but actually interacting with background junk is part of the gameplay, not the graphics. Creation of huge backgrounds isn't something that puts a strain on the graphics engine either because as you'll notice if you look carefully, most games draw up a part and then repeat it.

just as Lana said you may find a Game better looking has nothing to do with Graphics.

That's not actually what I said. I said you may prefer one game's look over another, but graphics is one thing that can be factually shown to be better or worse.

And frankly, right now, the capability more than exists to do something with the amount of interaction and background stuff as Halo with the same quality and detail as Gears or Bioshock. Especially considering how long Halo's been in the works. No, the graphics are not bad. They're pretty nice. But they really only have one aspect that they stand out in - one that is incredibly easy to do - and the rest is just average.

And for the last time, cutscenes are pre-rendered. They are not in-game graphics. They are movies designed, fully animated, and rendered, and then stuck on the disc.

Thank goodness I been too busy playing Halo 3 and away from all this shit of "Gears of War and Halo 3 and Bioshock and graphics...and..and..and you FANBOY!..and...."

Going back to the launch discussion. There were exactly 100 people at my gamestop. Those people had pre-orders...the other 100 (which made it a total 200) didn't have a pre-order. The launch was handle very responsible. There were no incidents...like someone getting shot or having a boxing match *cough*PS3 launch*cough*. There were 3 lines for the pre-orders. One line was for the regular copy. The second line was for people who wanted the special edition. And the third was for the legendary (which yours trully was standing)

I got my copy. Drove home...and play the game. It's exactly what I wanted. Weapons and levels were just fine. Controllers very easy to use. Best of all...I'm shooting covenant aliens.

See, there are times in which innovation means jack shit. You can say that all Halos are practically the same. However, it's still fun to play. Mario is been jumping on top of flying turtles and using mushrooms for more than 20 years. The games are still fun. Master Chief shoots and kills...still fun.

I've never found Halo fun, to be honest.

And we ran our launch better 😛

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
See, there are times in which innovation means jack shit. You can say that all Halos are practically the same. However, it's still fun to play. Mario is been jumping on top of flying turtles and using mushrooms for more than 20 years. The games are still fun. Master Chief shoots and kills...still fun.

They aren't all the same simply because Mario is in them, and all Mario's core games have vastly different styles of gameplay; Sunshine, Galaxy, 64, they're just all platformers.

Twilight Princess isn't the same as Ocarina of Time, Majora's Mask or Windwaker just because Link is in them.

Halo isn't just Master Chief in a new game, it's actually just Halo again.

-AC

Originally posted by AstroFan
Yeah, I only get like 3/4 hours a night to play(or do anything really).

But atleast I can afford to play. LOL

By the way this is in response to AC. Seriously man stop before you just make yourself look like a fool.

In the previous two posts you just laid out the biggest contradiction you've made the entire time and I just have to take the time, laugh and write it out for you.

You just said that your thought on GOW and Bioshock being better Quality Games was your opinion and when I pointed out it was a contradiction of you actually saying the games were better factually quality you said that it was just your opinion. Of course you said again that it was just your opinion.

Yet the reasons you stated for you thinking it was an opinion was that you said it had better graphics and was better dynamically.

Yet in a completely different post you state that it is factual that Gears is better Graphics Wise. So you just contradicted yourself in two separate posts.

You said that it was your opinion on the quality of games yet one of the reasons you listed for it being a better quality game was Graphics. And you are saying Graphically Gears factually better than Halo 3.

Thus you have stated by your own words that you believe that Gears can factually be proven to be better quality so it can not be an opinion because an opinion something not based on facts which you are clearly trying to state here.

So then either it wasn't your opinion Gears is a better quality game or you idea that you have factually proven Gears to better Quality is false and wrong(which it is)

And as for the other subject

Halo: Does lighting, framerate, Environment Interaction, and Scope better Graphically.

Compared to Gears: Which does Texture, Character Models, and Mapping.

I hardly find that to be Gears dominating in how much more it does graphically better.

Anyways thank you for your time it was fun proving just how much you can contradict yourself trying to prove yourself right. 🙂

Originally posted by Lana
Interacting with the environment actually has little to do with the graphics engine. Sure, they're textured models, but actually interacting with background junk is part of the gameplay, not the graphics. Creation of huge backgrounds isn't something that puts a strain on the graphics engine either because as you'll notice if you look carefully, most games draw up a part and then repeat it.

That's not actually what I said. I said you may prefer one game's look over another, but graphics is one thing that can be factually shown to be better or worse.

And frankly, right now, the capability more than exists to do something with the amount of interaction and background stuff as Halo with the same quality and detail as Gears or Bioshock. Especially considering how long Halo's been in the works. No, the graphics are not bad. They're pretty nice. But they really only have one aspect that they stand out in - one that is incredibly easy to do - and the rest is just average.

And for the last time, cutscenes are pre-rendered. They are not in-game graphics. They are movies designed, fully animated, and rendered, and then stuck on the disc.

Also it is part of the gameplay moving Objects but in order for each object to be movable or interactive it must be graphically designed to do such things.

Thereore the amount of effort it takes to run such large thigns and the strain it does put on the Graphics engine does place it in Graphics.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
They aren't all the same simply because Mario is in them, and all Mario's core games have vastly different styles of gameplay; Sunshine, Galaxy, 64, they're just all platformers.

Twilight Princess isn't the same as Ocarina of Time, Majora's Mask or Windwaker just because Link is in them.

Halo isn't just Master Chief in a new game, it's actually just Halo again.

-AC

It's the same shit. Press a button and Mario jumps. Press a button Zelda swings his sword. Press a button and some Final Fantasy character tells you the story of his/her orphanage. Halo...press a button Master Chief shoots. Don't matter what sequel they're on...it's the s a m e. But they're still fun to play. Key word "f-u-n"

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
It's the same shit. Press a button and Mario jumps. Press a button Zelda swings his sword. Press a button and some Final Fantasy character tells you the story of his/her orphanage. Halo...press a button Master Chief shoots. Don't matter what sequel they're on...it's the s a m e. But they're still fun to play. Key word "f-u-n"

Expect Mario does change. The only thing Super Mario Bros has in common with Super Mario Galaxy is jumping as you so put it. Other than that the gameplay has pretty much changed. From Super Mario 64 to Super Mario Sunshine, simply adding in FLUDD changed Sunshine's gameplay. Adding Yoshi to Super Mario World changed its gameplay.

Fact is Halo 3 is just Halo 2.

Originally posted by Newjak
Seriously man stop before you just make yourself look like a fool.

With regards to the debate, I'm right. With regards to your shameless continuation of "You said this! Despite explaining otherwise, you did!", you're the fool.

Originally posted by Newjak
In the previous two posts you just laid out the biggest contradiction you've made the entire time and I just have to take the time, laugh and write it out for you.

Swell, glad you know you were wrong. Anything to say on Halo?

Originally posted by Newjak
You just said that your thought on GOW and Bioshock being better Quality Games was your opinion and when I pointed out it was a contradiction of you actually saying the games were better factually quality you said that it was just your opinion. Of course you said again that it was just your opinion.

I never said anything of the sort. Factually better graphically and dynamically, which is a contributing factor to my OVERALL SUBJECTIVE OPINION of the WHOLE GAMES.

Originally posted by Newjak
Yet the reasons you stated for you thinking it was an opinion was that you said it had better graphics and was better dynamically.

No, no, no, no, no.

It IS better graphically, it IS better dynamically. It is not better overall FACTUALLY, THAT is my opinion. The overall verdict is my opinion.

Originally posted by Newjak
Yet in a completely different post you state that it is factual that Gears is better Graphics Wise. So you just contradicted yourself in two separate posts.

No I haven't, you are deciding what my posts mean, then when I tell you, and they go against what's in your mind, you take it as contradictory. If you had read and accepted what I said in the first place, instead of making your own posts up that I had "said", you'd not be in this mess.

Originally posted by Newjak
You said that it was your opinion on the quality of games yet one of the reasons you listed for it being a better quality game was Graphics. And you are saying Graphically Gears factually better than Halo 3.

PARTS can be factually better without the OVERALL PRODUCT being factually better. What car has the more advanced parts is fact, whether you like the car or not is opinion, SAME with the game. Graphic superiority is fact, opinion of the game is not.

Originally posted by Newjak
Thus you have stated by your own words that you believe that Gears can factually be proven to be better quality so it can not be an opinion because an opinion something not based on facts which you are clearly trying to state here.

Type that again, without pulling gigantic pieces of crap from your behind and typing with them.

I've said nothing of the sort.

Originally posted by Newjak
So then either it wasn't your opinion Gears is a better quality game or you idea that you have factually proven Gears to better Quality is false and wrong(which it is)

Stop telling me what I mean and what I've said, this is how it factually is:

"PARTS can be factually better without the OVERALL PRODUCT being factually better. What car has the more advanced parts is fact, whether you like the car or not is opinion, SAME with the game. Graphic superiority is fact, opinion of the game is not.".

That is it, that is what I said and what I mean.

Originally posted by Newjak
And as for the other subject

Halo: Does lighting, framerate, Environment Interaction, and Scope better Graphically.

Gears does; everything else except lighting and frame rate, better.

Originally posted by Newjak
Compared to Gears: Which does Texture, Character Models, and Mapping.

Environment interaction, etc. It's the factually better gaming graphics.

Originally posted by Newjak
I hardly find that to be Gears dominating in how much more it does graphically better.

Who said dominating? I said it's better graphically, cos it is.

Originally posted by Newjak
Anyways thank you for your time it was fun proving just how much you can contradict yourself trying to prove yourself right. 🙂

I wish I can say it was fun, but you are one of KMC's worst debators who has to resort to sticking fingers in his ears and going "Lalalalalalalala" to debate. You cannot actually debate, just reply.

-AC

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
It's the same shit. Press a button and Mario jumps. Press a button Zelda swings his sword. Press a button and some Final Fantasy character tells you the story of his/her orphanage. Halo...press a button Master Chief shoots. Don't matter what sequel they're on...it's the s a m e. But they're still fun to play. Key word "f-u-n"

You might have a point if those things you said were all that there was to playing Mario, Zelda, and Final Fantasy 😛 However, they aren't.

But shooting is about the only thing there is to Halo.

It's really not a fair comparison.

Originally posted by Newjak
Actually the Enviroments do play a huge part in Graphics because there is limited space for texturing such large scale maps. And to run such large scale things do take a lot out of the Graphics Engine to do.

Also it is part of the gameplay moving Objects but in order for each object to be movable or interactive it must be graphically designed to do such things.

Thereore the amount of effort it takes to run such large thigns and the strain it does put on the Graphics engine does place it in Graphics.

Anything can be designed to be moved, but that's not the graphics but the game engine. Graphics covers how things look and that's it. Not interactivity with said things.

And I know it takes a lot of resources to create huge backgrounds. And I covered this already. The majority of the time one piece is actually created and then repeated over the area, thus creating a large detailed area without taxing the graphics engine.

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
It's the same shit. Press a button and Mario jumps. Press a button Zelda swings his sword. Press a button and some Final Fantasy character tells you the story of his/her orphanage. Halo...press a button Master Chief shoots. Don't matter what sequel they're on...it's the s a m e. But they're still fun to play. Key word "f-u-n"

No, that's incorrect and really silly.

They're the same cos you press a button and they jump? How very odd of you. They're platformers and part of a character franchise, that's it. Those games I mentioned are not the same simply because Link or Mario is in them, Halo is just Halo again.

Sunshine isn't Mario 64 2.5, Galaxy isn't Sunshine 2, neither were anything like Luigi's Mansion, or Mario Kart etc. He's in them, it doesn't make them the same game.

Halo is just Master Chief running around doing the same stuff in the same way, just on different levels. Mario and Zelda franchises have much more difference to them.

-AC

Originally posted by Lana
You might have a point if those things you said were all that there was to playing Mario, Zelda, and Final Fantasy 😛 However, they aren't.

But shooting is about the only thing there is to Halo.

It's really not a fair comparison.

The premises are pretty much establish in the original game. Halo is still a new franchise. Mario, Zelda and FF have had their fair amount of sequels. After all Halo Wars is coming so something different is coming.

Originally posted by ESB -1138
Expect Mario does change. The only thing Super Mario Bros has in common with Super Mario Galaxy is jumping as you so put it. Other than that the gameplay has pretty much changed. From Super Mario 64 to Super Mario Sunshine, simply adding in FLUDD changed Sunshine's gameplay. Adding Yoshi to Super Mario World changed its gameplay.

Fact is Halo 3 is just Halo 2.

Name one Mario game that doesn't involve using mushrooms and having a princess. As I said before these franchises are veterans franchises with their premises already establish. It takes a few sequels for a franchise to evolve.