Bungie explains Halo resolution

By Robert Purchese Published 1 October, 2007

Not 720p, but you won't notice.

Bungie has responded to claims that Halo 3 doesn't run in a high-definition resolution by saying saying it's "practically impossible to discern the difference".

The developer confirmed the lower 1152 x 640 resolution on its website, but went on to clarify that it used two frame buffers to create its final image - an unorthodox technique used to improve dynamic lighting range. Obviously.

"This ability to display a full range of HDR, combined with our advanced lighting, material and postprocessing engine, gives our scenes, large and small, a compelling, convincing and ultimately 'real' feeling, and at a steady and smooth frame rate, which in the end was far more important to us than the ability to display a few extra pixels," reckons Bungie.

"In fact, if you do a comparison shot between the native 1152x640 image and the scaled 1280x720, it's practically impossible to discern the difference. We would ignore it entirely were it not for the Internet's propensity for drama where none exists.

"In fact the reason we haven't mentioned this before in weekly updates, is the simple fact that it would have distracted conversation away from more important aspects of the game, and given tinfoil hats some new gristle to chew on as they catalogued their toenail clippings."

Halo 3 was released last week on 360, smashing sales records and receiving high scores across the board - especially from us, earning the much coveted 10/10.

Picture of Robert.

About Robert Purchese

Bertie is Eurogamer's Senior Staff Writer. When he's not hunting down news stories he's often found playing with his kids or gabbling about fantasy games and strange online worlds. @Clert on Twitter.

Read more articles from Robert by visiting the Robert Purchese archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (252) Latest comment 5 years ago

Comments for this article are now closed, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • GamesProgrammer Verified Games Team Programmer, Eutechnyx Ltd. #1 5 years ago

    i noticed! areas of the game are jaggy as fuck.

  • KingOfSpain #2 5 years ago

    Didnt MS say every game will be 720?

    Sounds like a bit of a cock-up.

  • dcangel #3 5 years ago

    My respect for Bungie just grew a little.

    Tinfoil hats is right. The look of a game is about more than pixels, and if I had to choose between using a "proper" HD resolution, or being able to render larger scenes in high dynamic range, I know which I'd choose.

  • Apologie #4 5 years ago

    i don't understand why these game have sutch high rates... there are better FPS. Bioshok, resistance fall of man.... and a few more, that defnatly make halo their bitch.

    Well, just my opinion.

  • makememoo #5 5 years ago

    my respect also just increased. If the resolution of Halo 3 not being quite what you expected (when it makes no difference what so ever) is the most important thing in your life then I'm not sure whether to pity or admire you. Pity for your complete lack of ability to live in the world, or admiration for not having a single thing more important to weigh on your mind. Changes are the latter is 0% of the set.
    Edited by makememoo at 01/10/07 @ 11:04

  • Aretak #6 5 years ago

    "Didnt MS say every game will be 720?

    Sounds like a bit of a cock-up."

    The same way that Sony said that every PS3 game would be 1080p you mean?

  • Twincoil #7 5 years ago

    In other news: who cares?

  • Dizzy #8 5 years ago

    Indeed... dynamic range is much more important. I have zero jaggies on my plasma BTW. I guess the build in AA helps ;)

    Funny that people now are obsessed with "HD". The Wii doesn't even have it and who cares?

    >i noticed! areas of the game are jaggy as fuck.

    Dude.. you hardly played the game. 1h play time on level 1?

    >Bioshok, resistance fall of man

    ROFL.. classic one that
    Edited by Dizzy at 01/10/07 @ 11:06

  • The_Inquisitor #9 5 years ago

    Everyone knows that the graphics in Halo 3 aren't its defining feature, but the game sure looks lovely. More to do with its art directions and fore mentioned light trickery than technical achievements, which is an achievement in its own right.

  • GamesProgrammer Verified Games Team Programmer, Eutechnyx Ltd. #10 5 years ago

    Im sorry but it would make a difference if it was runnin nativley in 720p they said the hardware upscaling to 720p makes no difference, and im not surprised upscaling never looks as good as the real thing, if it did they wouldnt be bothering with HD-DVD or Blu Ray films would they.

    There quote "native 1152x640 image and the scaled 1280x720"

  • Apologie #11 5 years ago

    Halo 3 is believed to cause disc errors, and possible 360 failures... have any of you guy's expirienced it?? i mean, there are several reports in te web.

  • GamesProgrammer Verified Games Team Programmer, Eutechnyx Ltd. #12 5 years ago

    @Dizzy

    Ive completed it on Heroic, so dont assume

  • afghan_jones #13 5 years ago

    explain to me why the first two and last two levels are so crap Bungie, explain that!



    EDIT: The bits in between are sublime though.
    Edited by afghan_jones at 01/10/07 @ 11:09

  • Dizzy #14 5 years ago

    >Ive completed it on Heroic, so dont assume

    ORLY? Then chance your EG GT m8.. now nobody believes it.

  • Moz #15 5 years ago

    From an interest in tech still seems abit lame that they couldn't get it running at full 720 when there are games out there that look a damb site better that are full 720.

    And as for running smoothly i get frame dropping all over the place in splitscreen co-op.

    Just seems that they are trying to cover up for having used the Halo 2 engine. The 360 is definately capable of better.

  • Mr_Dodger #16 5 years ago

    I wonder how many people were playing through this thinking "wow this is nice" and are now, in light of this revelation, going "Balls! It looks terrible! Jaggies wahh"

    If it looks great and you're enjoying it, don't sweat the irrelevancies.
    Edited by Mr_Dodger at 01/10/07 @ 11:11

  • Beano #17 5 years ago

    "i noticed! areas of the game are jaggy as fuck. "

    I agree... I was surprised with the ugly aliasing (and choppy framerate) when I first played the game. Especially when all the high praises it recieved. The news about the low frame-buffer resolution suddenly made sense to me. Graphics-wise Halo 3 was a big letdown for me - very sloppy for a huge game like this .
    The game is still a lot of fun thought.

  • Steroyd #18 5 years ago

    @Aretak

    Sony said games can do 1080p MS has it a requirement that every game be rendered in 720p looks like double standards for first party stuff.

  • Drpwnage #19 5 years ago

    I didn't notice that it's not in 720p, but I did notice all the horrible jaggies.

    The HDR lighting is very well done in places though.

  • Mr_Dodger #20 5 years ago

    Yes, there are games out there that look better. Absolutely.

    But how many of those do large scale mixed infantry/air/vehicle combat, quickly, and with HDR lighting? That's why you CANNOT compare this game with Bioshock or Gears - they are doing totally different things.

    UT3 might, but we don't know yet as it isn't out.

  • killyourtv #21 5 years ago

    does it advertise 720p on the back of the box?

  • GamesProgrammer Verified Games Team Programmer, Eutechnyx Ltd. #22 5 years ago

    @Dizzy

    There ya go ive updated the gamercard shit thing, now do ya believe me

  • Beano #23 5 years ago

    "Sony said games can do 1080p MS has it a requirement that every game be rendered in 720p looks like double standards for first party stuff."

    Halo 3 outputs 720p - but internally the game is only rendered in 640p.... that's still not real HD in my opinion.

    We would not call a 576p PS2 game HD just because the PS3 can upscale it to 720p and 1080p?

    One could only imagine the hate if Sony did something similar.... phew!
    Edited by Beano at 01/10/07 @ 11:18

  • Gurgeh #24 5 years ago

    "Halo 3 outputs 720p - but internally the game is only rendered in 640p.... that's still not real HD in my opinion. "

    And does your TV have 720 lines by 1280 pixels? Because if it doesn't you're never going to see "real HD" by your own definition.

  • Apologie #25 5 years ago

    But how many of those do large scale mixed infantry/air/vehicle combat, quickly, and with HDR lighting? That's why you CANNOT compare this game with Bioshock or Gears - they are doing totally different things.

    one game____ Resistance Fall of Man.

    BEtter than halo, only underrated.

  • tiddles #26 5 years ago

    Bungie - you go girl!!

    Halo 3 looks great.

  • projectmayhem #27 5 years ago

    @Aretak:

    Sony never said that. in fact, a quick google search shows Sony only ever said the PS3 is capable of 1080p and that we'll have native upscaling to 1080p if needed.

    /fanboy moment

  • The-Bodybuilder #28 5 years ago

    I just finished halo 3.

    Although it started slow (almost "mehish" for me), it picked up halfway through and peaked at the covenant level then finished with a superb last level (homage to the first halo).
    The multiplayer is awesome without a doubt and I haven't even tried the co-op.

    However, all that fun is null and void now, due to it not being real HD, only ED (Enhanced Definition).

  • The-Bodybuilder #29 5 years ago

    I do hate the jaggies though. Damn thier ugly.

  • Latin #30 5 years ago

    Surely it doesn't matter so much as I think the game looks good (not great but still good) and it plays great, which is the important thing.

    If you fly around the levels during theater mode, you really get an idea of the scale of the game and then you realise there was never really any chance that this game could have looked as good as Gears of War.

  • bunglebonce #31 5 years ago

    MY EYES!

  • d0bbo #32 5 years ago

    Some serious jaggies, but the HDR lightning is mightily impressive.

  • The-Bodybuilder #33 5 years ago

    >"explain to me why the first two and last two levels are so crap Bungie, explain that! "

    That last isn't IMO, an is probably the most "halo" level.

    The first 2, and the cortana one are subpar though (compared to the amazing rest).

  • sanctusmortis #34 5 years ago

    To be honest, when it creates the results Halo 3 does with lighting, who gives a damn?

    And the last level's my fave, so "first 2 and last 2 are pap" is just not true for me. In fact... I love those levels.

  • sugapunk #35 5 years ago

    @Steroyd: STFU, you don't know what you're talking about! Loads of third party games have been in 640p, including Tony Hawks Project 8 and Call of Duty 3.

    Acutally though, while the PS3 versions of those two games do run in native 720p, they run slow as hell compared to their 360 counterparts, so it seems that the 640p+scaler option is just an easy way to increase the framerate if they're having trouble.
    Edited by sugapunk at 01/10/07 @ 11:29

  • Darren #36 5 years ago

    The first thing I noticed when I played the game was how jaggy it looked but that's because the game doesn't use any anti-aliasing at all. Had the game used 2X AA, like pretty much every other decent Xbox 360 games does, then you'd certainly wouldn't have been able to tell the difference between 1138x640 and 1280x720 as proven by Call of Duty 3 which isn't rendered at 720p either but it DOES have AA. Halo 3 doesn't use tiled rendering hence the lack of AA. However, upscaling from 640p to 720p WITHOUT any AA just makes the jaggies even more apparent. On a system where 2X AA is virtually free thanks to its clever GPU design and ultra-fast 10 MB framebuffer that's a little disappointing IMO.

    Artistically Halo 3 looks fantastic, without a doubt, but technically it's a bit of a mixed bag. On the one hand the draw distance, modelling, textures and amount of stuff going on is impressive and on the other the lower than hi-def rendering resolution, lack of AA and any texture filtering makes the game look, at times, like an upscaled Xbox game. It's games like Halo 3 that kind of make Microsoft's claims that every Xbox 360 game will be 720p HD minimum and that jaggies will be a thing of the past sound like hot air. You might forgive launch games not meeting that criteria but not a major release some two years down the line.

    I will say that Halo 3 is a terrific game, it just isn't a showcase for what the 360 is capable of graphically.

  • Xerx3s #37 5 years ago

    Apologie: How on earth is R:FoM a better game?

    Oh yes, I went there. XD

  • Beano #38 5 years ago

    "And does your TV have 720 lines by 1280 pixels? Because if it doesn't you're never going to see "real HD" by your own definition. "

    1080p = "True HD"
    720p & 1080i = "HD"
    < 720p : Not HD... no matter how you try to spin it.

    720p on a 768p panel is still HD.

  • pyrat6 #39 5 years ago

    "We would ignore it entirely were it not for the Internet's propensity for drama where none exists.

    "In fact the reason we haven't mentioned this before in weekly updates, is the simple fact that it would have distracted conversation away from more important aspects of the game, and given tinfoil hats some new gristle to chew on as they catalogued their toenail clippings."

    Dear bungie - this is an ad hominem attack. It really doesn't strengthen your argument one bit. Do grow up.

  • Apologie #40 5 years ago

    RFOM = better weapons, graphics, equally great multiplayer and an overall better game. don't get me wrong, Halo may be good, but there are far better games.

  • Darren #41 5 years ago

    @Beano - I agree with you.

    Xbox games run at 480p/576p and are upscaled by the Xbox 360 to 720p or 1080p but they aren't referred to as hi-def games. 600p/640p Xbox 360 games aren't, by that definition, hi-def either and if Microsoft are promoting them as such then they are misleading the public as they don't look much better than if they were running on a standard definition TV. In fact, I tried Halo 3 on a standard definition widescreen TV and it looked better than on my HDTV, mainly because the scanline technology helps mask the jaggies! LOL

  • Xerx3s #42 5 years ago

    Sony said games can do 1080p MS has it a requirement that every game be rendered in 720p looks like double standards for first party stuff.

    360 games can and have done 1080p as well.

  • bioreit #43 5 years ago

    Bad Xerx3s. Bad! No cookie for you.

    On a side note, I swear I'll actually fire up Halo 3 at the same time as you at some point - just been a hectic weekend!

  • Xerx3s #44 5 years ago


    RFOM = better weapons, graphics, equally great multiplayer and an overall better game. don't get me wrong, Halo may be good, but there are far better games.

    Lol.

  • Beano #45 5 years ago

    "360 games can and have done 1080p as well."

    Which ones?

    Just curious because as far as I know, 1080p games on Xbox 360 are just upscaled from 720p and not natively rendered in 1080p. Or am I wrong?

  • Rash' #46 5 years ago

    Aretak : "The same way that Sony said that every PS3 game would be 1080p you mean?"

    The old two wrongs make a right arguement...

  • kangarootoo #47 5 years ago

    "We would ignore it entirely were it not for the Internet's propensity for drama where none exists"

    Amen.

  • Dizzy #48 5 years ago

    "RFOM = better weapons, graphics, equally great multiplayer and an overall better game. don't get me wrong, Halo may be good, but there are far better games. "

    Rofl indeed... some trols don't even try.

    "There ya go ive updated the gamercard shit thing, now do ya believe me "

    Yea ofc.. but your profile seems a bit fucked up. You have the achievements but Bungie doesn't list you as having played a lot. Just level 1. How did you do that?
    Edited by Dizzy at 01/10/07 @ 11:43

  • Caimbeul #49 5 years ago

    Thats a bit cheeky dont you think - its not all that graphically wonderful!

  • Darren #50 5 years ago

    Only two Xbox 360 games to date run natively (i.e. are rendered) at 1080p: Virtua Tennis 3 (@ 60 fps) and NBA Street Homecourt (sacrifices the 60 fps @ 720p for 30 fps though). All its other games are upscaled from 720p or, in some cases, 600p/640p.

    As for Bungie claiming that Halo 3 isn't 720p but you wouldn't notice... erm... excuse me, but aren't they issuing this statement because a lot of people HAVE noticed?!? :?

  • speedjack #51 5 years ago

    Bungie's answer is spot on... However I'd love to know if they're going to fix the big black boarders you get on widescreen co-op on an HDTV. Far more noticeable.

  • Xerx3s #52 5 years ago

    Which ones?

    Iirc, VT3.

  • Dizzy #53 5 years ago

    "but aren't they issuing this statement because a lot of people HAVE noticed?!? :? "

    Only because some people have calculated the pixels on the screenshots. Nobody actually noticed with their eyes.

  • Steroyd #54 5 years ago

    Xerx3 I was just saying the difference between what Sony said and what MS does didn't say MS did say 1080p was impossible or anything.

    @sugapunk really? I remember reading about the requirements at launch and then a big deal was made that PGR3 wasn't running at 720p natively.

  • Xerx3s #55 5 years ago

    Anyway, I haven't noticed because I played it oldschool @ SD. \0/

    /blanc stare at HDMI only HDtv.
    /phones shop again to see if the premiums with HDMI are in
    /kicks tv

  • grandmaster Verified Director, Digital Foundry #56 5 years ago

    A creative decision was made to jettison 20% of the detail and rely on the GPU scaler to make up the difference. It doesn't affect my enjoyment of the game whatsoever, whereas an even more inconsistent frame rate definitely would, so assuming Bungie's technical abilities were tapped out, I think it was the right decision to make in the circumstances.

    I would be more concerned about the alarming gulf in quality between the various campaign levels. Like Stranglehold, it's as though multiple design teams of different ability level were assigned different campaign stages. Some of them are spectacular, others are dreadfully lit and more than a little boring to actually play.

  • Darren #57 5 years ago

    I can accept a lower rendering resolution for the game but Bungie haven't explained why they decided to not bother with anti-aliasing for Halo 3. Personally it amazes me that such a hugely important title to the 360 was released without using one of its key features which usually makes its games look nicer than their PS3 equivalents. You can see how good Halo 3 would have looked natively at 720p with AA when you take a screenshot from the replay feature. The difference between it and the jaggier ingame visuals is quite jarring in my opinion.

  • speedjack #58 5 years ago

    Wait until GTA4 comes out.

    Having seen the framerate on that I'm guessing you'll see the same trick applied.

  • Moz #59 5 years ago

    From reading alot of this maybe companies need to be a little more honest. And state the rendered res.

    Yes it can be argued that if the signal coming out of the box is 720P then they are technically correct in saying the game is 720P they've just used a "trick" to achive this, and "tricks" are used all over the place in games to improve the graphics.

    At the end of the day designers will carry on as they until someone takes legal action. And even then there is a high chance that a judge would rule in favour of the games company

  • Beano #60 5 years ago

    "RFOM = better weapons, graphics, equally great multiplayer and an overall better game. don't get me wrong, Halo may be good, but there are far better games."

    A bold claim - but surprisingly you are not alone. Just listen to the latest 1UP podcast.
    I find RFOM a exellent game (still play it online) and slightly better that Halo 2 (on par in singleplayer, superior in multiplayer). however I find Halo 3 better due to the new forge mode which gives new life the the multiplayer mode and replays.

    Technically RFOM is far superior to Halo 3 - sharp, detailed and extremely smooth. But also very dull colors and not as flashy and colorful as Halo3.

  • DjFlex52 #61 5 years ago

    "As for Bungie claiming that Halo 3 isn't 720p but you wouldn't notice... erm... excuse me, but aren't they issuing this statement because a lot of people HAVE noticed?!? :? "

    Not really.
    This whole controversy came about because a few internet techies investigated H3's resolution by counting pixels, scanlines and such.
    They were probably Sony henchmen ;)

  • Rash' #62 5 years ago

    The only thing surprising about this story is that we are still discussing this issue two years into the 360's life span. By now Devs should be sufficiently exp. in delivering a HD image on the console as MS does indeed sell the console as a native HD console. It's shocking too that the game in question is such a high profile title in MS own portfolio of first party games. Cleary the ambitions of the devs were too over reaching for the console to contend with. Having said that, does that detract from the quality of the game itself? Not in my exp.
    Edited by Rash' at 01/10/07 @ 12:01

  • Darren #63 5 years ago

    RFOM does looks nice but the textures are far from impressive - the game uses a non-streaming engine - and certainly don't come close to Halo 3's amazing texture work. Also RFOM does suffer from occasional v-sync tearing and some very blocky looking modelling, particularly some of the enemies.

    Still it looks like a hi-def game with lovely use of anti-aliasing which is more than can be said of Halo 3. If Halo 3 had used 2X AA then no-one would have been complaining about the lower rendering resolution because no-one, except people who grab screenshots for reviews, would have been aware of it.

  • DjFlex52 #64 5 years ago

    "Cleary the ambitions of the devs were too over reaching for the console to contend with. Having said that, does that detract from the quality of the game itself? Not in my exp."

    Exactly...remember what Sony said the PS2 was going to produce and be capable of in its early life?

  • Darren #65 5 years ago

    farticusmaximus - In my opinion, RFOM had a better framerate than Halo 3, or at least a faster, more consistent one. For example, I'm playing through the latter part of level six in Halo 3 at the moment where I'm inside a massive building and the framerate feels decidely sluggish for some reason, whether it's at 720p or 1080p. It actually feels like the game is lagging badly to me... :?

  • Moz #66 5 years ago

    @Darren I think your spot on there, with AA it would look a lot better.

    Though I wounder if it would still leave you feeling like it could have been so much better if they had done a new graphics engine.

    They really are going to have to pull there fingers out for their next game cos i'm not sure that being a Bungie game is going to be such a good selling point after this.

    EDIT:/ in responce to the above I have been playing through the game in split-screen co-op and have noticed plenty of niggly slow down.
    Edited by Moz at 01/10/07 @ 12:08

  • WiseNail #67 5 years ago

    Yawn, who really cares about things like this?

    Loved the Halo 3 campaign (except that rescue Cortana flood level which dragged a bit). Also really enjoyed Resistance Fall of Man, though if it (or Killzone) really wants to compete with Halo, then they need much more emphasis on vehicle combat, it's this area of Halo which makes it stand out from the pack to me.
    Edited by WiseNail at 01/10/07 @ 12:13

  • superdelphinus #68 5 years ago

    that seems like a particularly arrogant response

  • Sebo #69 5 years ago

    Good game, can't understand why everyone is so bothered about all these numbers.

  • Rodney #70 5 years ago

    @Xerx3s

    This is slightly off topic but I had the same problem at the weekend.

    I wanted to get a premium with a HDMI but I was told by Game staff that not such thing exists and they would have heard about it, if it did. They were so adamant about it. Kind of annoying that they are so ill informed about the industy they trade in.

    I got an Elite in the end. would have got the Halo 3 edition but it was too ugly.

  • Rash' #71 5 years ago

    superdelphinus, Agreed. It is a bit arrogant... But then I guess they have every reason to be arrogant, right?

  • Moz #72 5 years ago

    "then they need much more emphasis on vehicle combat, it's this area of Halo which makes it stand out from the pack to me."

    Tha's just a preference thing, i personally prefer RFOM for not having vehicle combat. and Love Halo for having it. It's makes the games different and gives you a choice.

  • InsoFox #73 5 years ago

    Excellent. I don't follow everything Bungie says or does, but I was pleased by this.

    I wish all developers had the self-belief write answers like this. They're absolutely right, of course.

    I think some people must think that developers go around lowering resolutions or making other graphical decisions just to annoy gamers. Don't you think they would have run it at 720 if they had felt the game would benefit from it? Of course they would have, but on balance there are more important things than squeezing the engine to work in that way.

    As for the 'just slightly better than Halo 2 graphics' style comments... methinks you view Halo 2 through a rose tinted spartan helmet. They were pretty good graphics for the ol' Xbox, but the feeling that little has changed graphically is just an illusion.

    You fire up the game and hear the same sounds you've been hearing for years, shooting the same enemies with the same weapons, none of which have had a design overhaul, that I can see... why would they? The designs were pretty good in the first place, particularly since Halo 2. So of *course* the upgrades are going to be concentrated around textures and a few polygons here and there of course it's all going to feel very familiar.

    But when you compare them side by side, you begin to realise just how much work has gone in and how many improvements have been made. Because the design is so similar it's easy to forget that Halo 2 looked worse, but believe me - it does, quite significantly.

  • GamesProgrammer Verified Games Team Programmer, Eutechnyx Ltd. #74 5 years ago

    @Dizzy

    "Yea ofc.. but your profile seems a bit fucked up. You have the achievements but Bungie doesn't list you as having played a lot. Just level 1. How did you do that? "

    I have no idea maybe Bungies stats software is shit, maybe it because i wasnt connected to xbox live everytime i played it, maybe its because halo itself has more bugs that we know about, maybe its because i only have a silver account.

    But if your suggesting ive managed to hack in to microsofts aceivements database and just give the relevant acheivements to myself, your a bit of a loon.

    If you want i could tell you how it ends if that would prove it to you but that would spoil if for everyone else.

    But this is my last post on this particular question, i really dont care if you dont beleive weather ive really completed it or not.

  • lambtron #75 5 years ago

    "there are better FPS. Bioshok, resistance fall of man"

    RFOM! hoho!

  • Dizzy #76 5 years ago

    "But if your suggesting ive managed to hack in to microsofts achievements database and just give the relevant achievements to myself, your a bit of a loon. "

    Not at all :) I know how hard that is.

    Must be the disconnected thing... guess I am not used to people not being connected all the time :)

  • GamesConnoisseur #77 5 years ago

    /long sign

    The end result is all that matters, would you prefer without certain additional exciting flair that improve visual just to have 'true' resolution which looks in fact poorer cousin to the slightly lower res but better visual?

    What do you want? Scoring points that X360 mega game of year is 'rofllolfest NOT TRUE HD!' Ok whatever, dont care as long as my gaming pleasure is sufficently aroused with right ingredients!

    Sony have made a big points of 1080p and gave impression it will be on all time with all games, not true.

    I did not notice until it was pointed out by rabid zealots, they must be really watching damn close as did not realise the difference myself. Call me blind, I know what I see!

    At the end not really bothered either way, its a big fuss for something that most people would normally not notice.

  • Xerx3s #78 5 years ago

    WHAT?! THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO AREN'T CONNECTED ALL THE TIME?! THE HORROR!

  • kangarootoo #79 5 years ago

    @Moz

    "And even then there is a high chance that a judge would rule in favour of the games company"

    A high chance? Its a certainty. Nothing illegal has been done here AT ALL.

  • Fab4 #80 5 years ago

    First of all I have not bought H3, but I played it at a friend's house, just to see if it was only noticeable by 'internet tech freaks' and its not, not by a long chalk. Even I, with my 39 yr old vision, can see jagged edges in a lot of places. Is this to do with it not running at 720p, or lack of AA? I not know. I do know that it can be quite distracting. And I was all ready to give it a go...not any longer.

  • Rash' #81 5 years ago

    I think if anything this story exemplifies the limitations of the 360 hardware. Yeah, I went there. :p

  • kangarootoo #82 5 years ago

    Hardware has limitations?

    Aaaahhhh, its the End of Days!

  • mono_eric3 #83 5 years ago

    My only comment on this is that MS should change their requirements for the back of the box.

    Allthough Halo3 does not render most of the game natively at 1280x720 that's not really an issue, all games worth their salt will render different passes at different resolutions so the 'native' resolution will always be a little fuzzy.

    My issue is that it states 1080p on the box. i know it 'supports' 1080p output, but its quite clear that although it upscales to 720p, upscaling to 1080p is a massive leap, and it does look naff on a native 1080p TV. Even running at 1080i on a non-native TV it looks fine, not too noticable, but 1080p should have stricter guidelines.

    Upscaling will always occur on the 360 due to the way the hardware is organised and running at slightly lower resolutions is a common occurence to give graphics coders more room to achieve better effects and visuals, at better framerates, BUT a game running at 640P can be seen as 720p without too much of a stretch but 1080p? thats pushing it.

    : D

  • nickthegun #84 5 years ago

    "We would ignore it entirely were it not for the Internet's propensity for drama where none exists."

    Heh. Its funny 'cause its true.

  • Beano #85 5 years ago

    It's funny because it's spin.

  • Shyvah #86 5 years ago

    Apparently the term is "epeen".

  • thesombrerokid #87 5 years ago

    Bloody Hell, how many times do people need to be told that

    IT'S EXTEAMLY DIFFICULT TO IMPLEMENT AA & HDR AT THE SAME TIME!!!!!!

    to date only vavle have managed to design a fixed point maths HDR Shader that they use in the source engine and it cost them a lot of money, UE3 forces AA off in favor of HDR and so does halo 3 and a bunch of other tech

    DX10 hardware is designed to be able to perform more floating point calculations therefore it wont be an issue on the PC in the future, but Bungie did answer the question as to why AA is off, the answer is HDR is switched on and the hardware can't handle both.

    the bigger question is who's responsible for bungie recycling a last generation engine, which clearly isn't capable of taking on modern shader techniques without runnning like a dog never mind HD resolutions, and thinking they got away with it?

  • Crea #88 5 years ago

    Grandmaster said:
    "I would be more concerned about the alarming gulf in quality between the various campaign levels."

    This is absolutely dead on, the graphics are not the issue for me at all, although as many have mentioned Halo 3 is eclipsed graphically by a number of its contemporaries.

    The greater issue for me is the wide quality gulf between the campaign missions. I was glad to see that Halo 3 sorted out some of the mistakes from Halo 2, i.e. forcing you to play the arbiter when you already so strongly identified with Master Chief. But Bungie STILL haven't got the message that Halo was absolutely at its peak in levels like the Silent Cartographer, or is that just me? It comes close a few times, with some similiar levels, but no cigar.

    The Silent Cartographer felt like a fully-realised location, most of the other missions feel to me a little more like game levels. The remote island setting obviously allowed them to forget about having to railroad the player.

    The flood also just don't work for me. They are far less interesting to fight, although again they seemed to have gained some variety and intelligence this time round.

    Halo is best when there's some far off installation to assault, and you're fighting, driving, flying, biking your way through hordes of covenant to get to it. Followed by and interspersed with intense, tactical, unmounted combat. End of story.
    Edited by Crea at 01/10/07 @ 12:59

  • Waldo #89 5 years ago

    Pretty lame when the 360's "flagship" game can't even do 720p; you know, like how it claims it does on the back of the box.

  • Kafeen #90 5 years ago

    "Halo 3 is believed to cause disc errors, and possible 360 failures... have any of you guy's expirienced it?? i mean, there are several reports in te web. "

    360's have been doing that since long before Halo 3 came out.

    A friend has had 2 die on him while playing Rainbow Six Vegas, 1 the drive stopped working, the other red ringed.

    Its nothing to do with the software, just dodgy hardware.

  • Carpathian #91 5 years ago

    Pyrat6: Dear bungie - this is an ad hominem attack.

    You score 1 bonus mark for introducing that phrase, though I think you could have gone as far as Ad hominem abusive, as most of the posts eventually will in this thread. You have to remember though that without this form of post, and the fun of watching a degeneration towards Godwins Law, that most threads would have about 4 posts ;o)
    Edited by Carpathian at 01/10/07 @ 13:05

  • Grogmonkey #92 5 years ago

    I blame the respective marketing departments for making people care about this crap. If both Microsoft and Sony hadn't pushed this whole 'HD' bollocks on everyone, people wouldn't be sitting in their darkened rooms counting pixels all day.

    It's a shame it's the developers that are getting the flak for the media hype that was created around 'the HD era'. You can bet your bottom dollar that if I'm ever called to answer questions about design decisions I had made on MY game, I'd tell everyone where to shove it.

  • Dizzy #93 5 years ago

    >And I was all ready to give it a go...not any longer.

    Ohhh please.

    Are you people all this sad in real life???? Are you ready to jump off a bridge when it rains or what?

  • Steroyd #94 5 years ago

    Lawl, RFOM is a stodgy soul-less affair that has a terrible frame rate, dull as dishwater graphics and utterly indistinct weapons.

    At the time CoD3 was RFOM's competitor, and CoD3 is vastly superior.

    What the s***? Play the damn game.

  • Dizzy #95 5 years ago

    "Halo is best when there's some far off installation to assault, and you're fighting, driving, flying, biking your way through hordes of covenant to get to it. Followed by and interspersed with intense, tactical, unmounted combat. End of story. "

    Agree... the draw of the first one was the interesting exploration of an alien artifact in space. The flood in the first Halo were pretty cool since they were kind of a plot twist and a horror effect. I must agree that the flood have lost a lot of their "feathers" in Halo 2 and 3. That being said they tried hard to do some new stuff with the flood in H3... but I preferred the non-flood levels with a few exceptions :)
    But ofc the whole story arc is about the war against the flood so Bungie had to use them :) Maybe new Halo games will be more like Star Trek.. exploring different planets in the hunt for Forerunner installations and technology and encountering new aliens and enemies? :)

  • Apologie #96 5 years ago

    . farticusmaximus

    frame rate issues?? are you f**** crazy?? RFOM is way more stable than Halo3, and have way better graphics. I begin to believe that you never played the game.

    Edited by Apologie at 01/10/07 @ 13:22

  • Darren #97 5 years ago

    @thesombrerokid - On the PS3 maybe - it uses an NVIDIA GeForce 7900 GTX GPU, which even on the PC cannot do HDR and AA simultaneously - but not on the 360 it isn't. Go and play Oblivion on the 360, which uses 2X AA and superb HDR lighting or F.E.A.R. where it's more subtle.

    As far as I'm aware, the reason Halo 3 doesn't use AA, has less to do with HDR lighting (which virtually every Xbox 360 game uses anyway and most use AA), it's more to with the fact that the engine doesn't do tiled rendering so AA isn't possible within the limited 10 MB framebuffer. The lack of AA in many early 360 games was apparently due to the engines not using tiled rendering as the development kits arrived too late for it to be implemented. Or that's my understanding anyway.

  • Steroyd #98 5 years ago

    I've played 'the damn game' and stick by my statements.

    Then you need a new pair of eyes.

  • Xerx3s #99 5 years ago

    frame rate issues?? are you f**** crazy?? RFOM is way more stable than Halo3, and have way better graphics. I begin to believe that you never played the game.

    Odd, I was wondering the same thing.

  • morriss #100 5 years ago

    RFOM is a below average shooter with little replay value.

  • Apologie #101 5 years ago

    RFOM have great multiplayer... (for free)

  • Dizzy #102 5 years ago

    Please lets not mention RFOM any more... it is a silly place anyway.

  • Fab4 #103 5 years ago

    @Dizzy - what is so fucking sad about trying a game, not liking it, and deciding not to buy it? I'd rather do that than be a fucking sheep.

  • Darren #104 5 years ago

    I thought RFOM was pretty good really; it's nothing revolutionary but it's very competent and enjoyable nevertheless. It even managed to run its splitscreen mode properly in widescreen as I've had many happy hours playing the game that way with a friend.

  • Apologie #105 5 years ago

    HALO3 is not aferall the game they wanted us to believe. Not mutch of improvement over the last ones, and they had a all new console way superior then the last one to make it better. Just a shame

    Im very disapointed
    Edited by Apologie at 01/10/07 @ 13:38

  • Dizzy #106 5 years ago

    "what is so fucking sad about trying a game, not liking it, and deciding not to buy it?"

    The reason is sad m8.

    Ohhh jaggies... I think i will go jump of a bridge, life is not worth living any more now.

    Next time give some REAL reasons. You are fucking 39 like me... I do not expect emo teen bullshit from your age group.
    Edited by Dizzy at 01/10/07 @ 13:43

  • Beano #107 5 years ago

    "...it is a silly place anyway."

    Ni !

  • Rash' #108 5 years ago

    Darren, But doesn't Oblivion run just as good if not better on PS3?

  • Fab4 #109 5 years ago

    @Dizzy - the only thing fucking sad is you equating not buying a game (yes...a game) to commiting suicide. I know H3 was hyped quite a bit, but i would have thought someone of your age could get your head around the concept that not everyone would buy it. I said I was willing to give it a go, meaning my original stance on the game was 'meh' anyway, the fact that it had 'jaggies' only cemented the fact. Seems fucking fanboys come in all ages.

  • DjFlex52 #110 5 years ago

    Im very disapointed

    @Apologie

    Nah, I doubt that.
    You're happy you have "ammunition" for your Halo crusades.
    The shame is that you think you have an legitimate argument, though, Halo fans can care less what you think.

  • Apologie #111 5 years ago

    . Rash'

    Oblivion is one of a few (multiplatform games) that plays better on the PS3 than on X360.
    Edited by Apologie at 01/10/07 @ 13:49

  • Rash' #112 5 years ago

    Why are we comparing RFOM with Halo 3? The game's good, but no where near comparable.

  • Rash' #113 5 years ago

    Apologie, doesn't change the fact that it's doing 2x AA with HDR on a GPU which apparently isn't capable of doing it.

  • Dizzy #114 5 years ago

    >the fact that it had 'jaggies' only cemented the fact.

    You still have not given a reason for not liking it. Troll R us? I am sorry dude... the Halo haters are everywhere.. it has become so easy to spot them nowadays, you never had a chance.

  • Bumhug360 #115 5 years ago

    Halo 3 isnt 720p native?????

    Didnt notice, dont care. Top game (and in general I hate fps on consoles)

  • Rash' #116 5 years ago

    Supine, I don't want to go down this path too much but it doesn't change the fact that Oblivion ran better on PS3 than it did on 360, with those features.

  • captainrentboy #117 5 years ago

    Do PS3 owners ever bring up any other game than Oblivion when comparing how both consoles cope with multi format releases? Yes it looks ever so slightly better....And so it fucking should, it had X amount of extra development time on it, what's sad is that tends to be the ONLY one PS3 owners can bring up.
    Ohhh and 720P, 640P, whatever, I thoroughly enjoyed the game, yeah I noticed the odd jaggy here and there,(SLIGHT SPOILER)... but when I was flying about a huuuge canyon in a Hornet taking on two frikkin Scarabs at once, I was having far too much fun to give a fuck.

  • Steroyd #118 5 years ago

    Why are we comparing RFOM with Halo 3?

    I dunno not only does Resistance get compared to Gears of War, and COD3 last year, but now it gets compared to Halo, COD4 and Killzone today, must be one heck of a game to run with so many comparisons for a solid year. :o

  • Darren #119 5 years ago

    Rash' - "Darren, But doesn't Oblivion run just as good if not better on PS3?"

    While it's true that Oblivion does run better on the PS3, the game lacks any anti-aliasing which is why it's sometimes described as looking, incorrectly IMO, better and sharper than the 360 version. I own both games and although they're identical for the most part in terms of visuals, the PS3 version does suffer more noticeably from jaggy edges. It's more than made up by the much improved loading times though and the texture filtering looks marginally superior. The lack of AA isn't particularly obvious because of the organic scenery and lack of straight edges. In fact Halo 3 only looks really jaggy in the built up artificial areas where the edges show it more; you can't really see them at all at the start of the game, in the jungle section for example and it's only when you reach the base at the end that they hit you in the face.

  • Fab4 #120 5 years ago

    @Dizzy - sorry to burst your bubble but i save my hate for worthwhile things....and games do not even come close. I dont particularly like SF FPSs but, as I said, I was willing to give it a go when my friend said I could test-drive his. I've bought games in the past that I was half-heartedly in to and played them once and then let them gather dust. The fact is the graphics *were* enough to make it a no, for me. Like it or lunp it, its the truth of the matter, for me. It doesnt make me 'emo', it makes me selective. There are a dirth of interesting games coming up, why waste money on ones that neither hold my attention and are graphically displeasing?

  • Steroyd #121 5 years ago

    Do PS3 owners ever bring up any other game than Oblivion when comparing how both consoles cope with multi format releases? Yes it looks ever so slightly better....And so it fucking should, it had X amount of extra development time on it, what's sad is that tends to be the ONLY one PS3 owners can bring up.

    We can move over to Colin McRae's Dirt if you want?

  • Rash' #122 5 years ago

    Darren, You failed to mention superior framerate. ;)

  • kissthestick #123 5 years ago

    its surprising a title like halo 3 didnt have 720p though, hmm

  • wowami #124 5 years ago

    I've just experienced a fantastic solo campaign - probably the best for years ( since the original Halo?? ) so
    A big thank you to Bungie!

    I dont care about resolution or jaggies - it;s the gameplay man!

  • Dizzy #125 5 years ago

    >We can move over to Colin McRae's Dirt if you want?

    Not really... that game has less geometry on PS3 so not comparable.

  • Luckyjim #126 5 years ago

    If they had to count the pixels to prove it, it really doesn't sound like it's that much of an issue. Why to people get so annoyed about numbers?

  • zuljin #127 5 years ago

    @Luckyjim
    Simply, the greater the number, the more fun you're having. Obviously.

    @Darren
    "I own both games..."
    Whyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy?

  • Warstar #128 5 years ago

    Bungie: So what gives? Did we short change you 80 pixels?

    That's a weird thing to say. Bungie short change us 80 x 1285 pixels = 184.000 pxiels. Or 1/5 of a 720p-picture.

    Rendering that on a 1080p HDTV you WILL notice :)

  • Apologie #129 5 years ago

    Oblivion, ColinMccraeDIrt, FightNightRound3 are all better in Ps3... evrything else are worse

  • Luckyjim #130 5 years ago

    All these Resistance comparisons - I found that game very brown and very boring. In parts, it didn't even look next-gen. To be honest though, and this extends to Halo 3, sci-fi fps bore the bollocks off me.

  • Steroyd #131 5 years ago

    What the f*** is a geometry.

  • Les #132 5 years ago

    EG and all other reviewers sure didn't notice... Long live HD! ;)

  • George-Roper #133 5 years ago

    @Warstar

    " Bungie: So what gives? Did we short change you 80 pixels?

    That's a weird thing to say. Bungie short change us 80 x 1285 pixels = 184.000 pxiels. Or 1/5 of a 720p-picture.

    Rendering that on a 1080p HDTV you WILL notice :)
    ignore poster"

    Well I didn't and i've, y'know, *PLAYED* the game.

  • Luckyjim #134 5 years ago

    @zuljin

    Yep, 12.5% better. Now I feel the fool ;)

  • miiiguel #135 5 years ago

    "I dunno not only does Resistance get compared to Gears of War, and COD3 last year, but now it gets compared to Halo, COD4 and Killzone today, must be one heck of a game to run with so many comparisons for a solid year. :o "

    How many exclusives PS3 has, for comparisions purposes ?, scratch that, for any purpose.

  • zuljin #136 5 years ago

    @Luckyjim
    Exactly! So consider Bioshock, you're talking 12.5% extra fun and frolics for the same price, who would ever want to buy Halo 3 eh?

  • Les #137 5 years ago

    "its surprising a title like halo 3 didnt have 720p though"

    Understatement of the year IMO. With MS making a big issue of HD gaming, the fact that its flagship title isn't actually in HD is ironic, to say the least...

  • captainrentboy #138 5 years ago

    I reeeally have to disagree with Fight Night being better on the PS3, and I've played both versions a lot, yes the fighters look ever so slightly better,(Although the slow-mo knock outs didn't look quite as well animated,and when your repairing their battered faces at the end of a round they look bloody terrifying) but the crowds are awful, and those load times are the stuff of nightmares. I was actually put off doing the training manually as I had to wait so long for the session to load.
    And again, didn't it have like an extra 8 months of development time, for a machine that was promised to be so much more graphically impressive than it's competition, it doesn't really have anything out yet to prove those claims.
    Edited by captainrentboy at 01/10/07 @ 14:41

  • J.C #139 5 years ago

    Actually halo 3 is, using a heavily modified halo 2 engine. but it looks the bollocks!

  • Warstar #140 5 years ago

    @George Roper:

    "Well I didn't and i've, y'know, *PLAYED* the game."

    I',m playing the game, there is something wrong with EGs overview, if that's what you've checked :)

    I think the game looks good, just a weird thing for Bungie to say.

  • Dizzy #141 5 years ago

    "Actually halo 3 is, using a heavily modified halo 2 engine. but it looks the bollocks! "

    All FPS are using a HEAVILY modified Doom 1 engine BTW.

  • Apologie #142 5 years ago

    Halo 3 is just ridiculously hyped, an overall unimpressive game, with standard graphics, and little to no improvement over it's gameplay.

    Bungie is really lacking some creativity these day's.

    After bioshok, Gears, or even RFOM..., Halo 3 is really leaving in the previous generation.

  • Machiavellian #143 5 years ago

    I am really wondering about the frame rate issues I here people are experiencing. I have played Halo 3 in 4 player co-op and have not experienced any frame problems no matter how much was going on. I believe if anyone is experiencing frame problems should look to clearing the 360 cache which is probably the culprit

    interesting enough, after playing the game with my friends, I started a solo game and the first two levels which I though were the weakest, I know like a lot more. Even the base level was fun and a challenge in Heroic.

  • captainrentboy #144 5 years ago

    Apologie, graphically yes, depending on your tastes I guess, I much prefer it's giganticous open plains over tight itty bitty enclosed fighting areas, some peeps amy not, whatever.
    But with its Theatre, Forge, Multi-Player options, and its automatic stat uplooading connectivity to bungie.net, it's anything but a last generation title. Very very few titles have its wealth of well implemented options.
    And to the guy above, I agree, I was quite dissapointed when I heard the stories about its online co-op play being very laggy, but six levels in on legendary with 2 other guys over Live, I think I've experienced just one bit of noticeable lag,and at the time it was particularly hectic. Not bad going really.
    Edited by captainrentboy at 01/10/07 @ 15:09

  • Luckyjim #145 5 years ago

    @Dizzy

    By that logic you can infer that all games use a heavily modified Pong engine (for the purpose of my analogy I'm considering that the first game - please correct me if I'm wrong).

    You seem to be getting design and substance confused.

    Still, Halo 3 certainly isn't as revolutionary as some would like us to believe

  • George-Roper #146 5 years ago

    @Apologie

    " Halo 3 is just ridiculously hyped, an overall unimpressive game, with standard graphics, and little to no improvement over it's gameplay.

    Bungie is really lacking some creativity these day's.

    After bioshok, Gears, or even RFOM..., Halo 3 is really leaving in the previous generation"

    You are entitled to your opinion, even if it makes you come across as a blind, deaf, cretin.

    If you don't even consider the Theater and Forge modes as creative, let alone the comprehensive multiplayer and linked up Bungie stats, you're beyond hope.

    I think Halo 3 is worthly of 10/10 just for the single/co-op Campaign mode alone.

  • dolphan #147 5 years ago

    People care enough about this stuff to take this to 150 comments?

    Why?

  • Apologie #148 5 years ago

    George Roper

    by your necessity to ofend i can only guess your one of thouse Halo fanatics...

    by the way, the single player campaign is the weakest part of the game.
    Edited by Apologie at 01/10/07 @ 15:18

  • George-Roper #149 5 years ago

    @Apologie

    "George Roper

    by your necessity to ofend i can only guess your one of thouse Halo fanatics...

    by the way, the single player campaign is the weakest part of the game."

    Nicely glossed over your 'lack of creativity' slur, in light of what I outlined, I see.

    /golf clap

  • Dizzy #150 5 years ago

    "By that logic you can infer that all games use a heavily modified Pong engine (for the purpose of my analogy I'm considering that the first game - please correct me if I'm wrong). "

    Indeed that was your own logic. The Halo 3 engine has nothing in common with Halo 2 except that it renders stuff in 3D. Hence my bold lettering of HEAVY. Maybe the sarcasm meter is broke?

    BTW pong was not the first video game... SpaceWar! is.
    Edited by Dizzy at 01/10/07 @ 15:29

  • Luckyjim #151 5 years ago

    @Dolphan

    Answering that question will only make us realise how worthless and futile our existence is.

  • GamesConnoisseur #152 5 years ago

    Halo 3 will generate a lot of flame wars, due to it's position, heritage (propelled Xbox onto the gaming scene) and identifiable M$ icon and not just its genre that people here have said to desist.

    I accept some people dont like Sci Fi FPS like Halo 3, perhaps preferring more real world based Tom Clancys, but Resistance and Killzone are in similar setting and genre as Halo 3! So obviously they get used as 'head to head' buttfest by supporters of either consoles.

    What we need to do is to lose all the baggage, and just focus on the gameplay quality, people wont argue that much against Metroid Prime gameplay even though its lower res but beautiful rendered, so why the fuss? Just go and play the damn game without rosy or hate spec!

  • George-Roper #153 5 years ago

    @Apologie

    Quote of yours from a Heavenly Sword review score discussion...

    "the game is a piece of art, the caracters, the story, the visuals, the music..., evrything is amazing..., gameplay is perfect as well. Don't mind the pathetic review eurogamer as well IGN and other sites gave, i was not so shure about to buy it after reading thouse but i'm so sooooo glad i did..., these is the best expirience a game can give."

    I'd like to know exactly what this 7/10 scored PS3 game has delivered, in terms of creativity and originality, please. I mean, from your rantings here, it seems that creativity and originality are the only aspects that make any game worth having, correct?

    That, or just admit that you're a raving lunatic who can only smack their head, repeatedly, against the monitor screen in absolute, impotent, fanboi rage at Halo 3 getting universal praise.

    Everyone brace yourselves, we could be in for a bumpy (albeit funny) ride...
    Edited by George-Roper at 01/10/07 @ 15:39

  • Luckyjim #154 5 years ago

    @Dizzy

    I thought I was using deductive/inductive logic based on your analogy. I was actually deducing that the 'engine' was not the common connecting essence but the 'form' was. But if you were using you analogy in the loosest possible sense (ie not logically) then it doesn't really matter.

    Thank you for correcting me with Space War. However, the proposition was still the same.

  • Apologie #155 5 years ago

    George Roper

    I praised heavenly sword for inumerous reasons, i don't remember originallity beign one of them...

  • DjWhizzkidd #156 5 years ago

    I dont give a shit about the resolution, its just the jaggies that annoy me. Its like playing a 6 year old PC game at times.
    But then the lighting gets good and it makes everything OK again.
    And then I played online and it was excellent fun.
    I guess the point is -

    Who cares?

  • George-Roper #157 5 years ago

    @Apologie

    But, but, according to the way you've slagged off Halo 3 here, in terms of creativity, how does Heavenly Sword compare?

    I mean, it's a short, bog standard, by-the-numbers beat-em-up, with zero replay value, isn't it? What precisely is creative there?

  • kangarootoo #158 5 years ago

    @Grogmonkey

    "You can bet your bottom dollar that if I'm ever called to answer questions about design decisions I had made on MY game, I'd tell everyone where to shove it."

    Yeah, thats the spirit. Stupid customers paying your wages with their stupid money.

    Is the line above one that you wheel out when interviewed for a job?

  • kangarootoo #159 5 years ago

    @headbog

    "HD or TrueHD are merely marketing terms used by TV manufacturers for a standardized resolution, not unlike VGA, XGA and SVGA on PCs."

    I thought there was some standardisation insofar as something has to display in at least 720 to be called HD (whether that is legally binding under trade description law, who knows).

    For info, if not clarification of anything...
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-defini...

  • smelly #160 5 years ago

    >In other news: who cares?

    I'll highlight that the next time someone goes on about the lack of hi-def on the wii. *smile*

    But personally I think bungie guy is right. Give me more effects, higher framerates, etc over having smoother pixels any day of the week.

  • zuljin #161 5 years ago

    @headbog
    "Furthermore, in the Manchester cathedral, the Alien-esque creatures flooding the interior were frustrating at best. Once they were cleared, you had to larger enemies bursting through the central door/archway thing - and you had to mow them down too. it took me about 15 attempts to clear them, only to find that even then the check pointing didn't save until well after that - and their were more larger bad guys in the room beyond. "

    I thought the automatic save was quite good really. There are benefits and disadvantages over a system where you have to save yourself. I usually found in Resistance that the reason it seemed crap was because certain bits were quite hard, which could be done much more easily with hindsight.

    Like the cathedral you mention, I found a trick to lose no health at all inside there, meaning I didn't have too much trouble getting to the next save point.

  • Grogmonkey #162 5 years ago

    @Kangarootoo

    Damn right. Stupid customers. Name one area where having customers makes things easier and less complicated.

    My point, in less emotive terms, is that developers don't do things without reasons. Whether it's a gameplay decision or a sacrifice that has to be made due to time or technology constraints, nothing is taken lightly and it's always in the interest of keeping the game as much fun as possible for the highest number of people possible.

    If Bungie decided that sacrificing a higher resolution was better than losing something else (like shiny HDR), then I accept their decision, because I wasn't there in the design meetings, and I didn't see all the tech demos.

    By all means, people can question the decision, but they have to remember that they don't know what the game would have looked like at a higher res. Only Bungie do. They made a call in the interests of what they thought the consumers would like, probably based on what THEY would prefer to see. Because game development is almost always about making the game YOU want first, and hoping other people like it second. If you make a game to keep other people happy you will invariably fall flat on your face.

    Also, I believe the line I used to get my current job was: 'I am lub j00r gaem plx gief job'.

  • Machiavellian #163 5 years ago

    Bungie never said that Halo 3 would be revolutionary they did state that it was evolutionary. Though I love bioshock and Gears, neather have the replay value of Halo 3. Though Halo 3 does not look as good as those game, you can also state that that neither of those two games have the type of gameplay as Halo 3 either. It's easier to compare Bioshock and GOW with each other since they are corridor shooters then to compare Halo 3 with those two games. You only have to watch a saved film of the Halo 3 campaign to see that there is a ton of stuff going on within Halo 3 that neither GOW or Bioshock combined cna equal. Halo 3 4 player co-op is probably the most fun I have experienced in any game so far to date. Toss in the scoring meta game including the skulls also add another dimision to the game and it's replayability.

  • Darren #164 5 years ago

    Les - "Its surprising a title like halo 3 didnt have 720p though"

    Understatement of the year IMO. With MS making a big issue of HD gaming, the fact that its flagship title isn't actually in HD is ironic, to say the least...

    I agree that it is somewhat ironic that one of the Xbox 360's most important titles to date, if not THE most important, doesn't run in high-definition at all. If I was Microsoft I'd actually be embarrassed that such information has been made public as I just assumed that the game was running at 720p, only without any anti-aliasing! And to think this game was once tooted as supporting 1080p natively!!! LOL

    I'm sure Sony will make the most of this when they release Killzone 2, which I'm fairly certain does run at 720p and supports AA too. Sure they're different kinds of games but from what I've seen of the game, it does look fair more impressive visually, more gritty and realistic (although after Lair I'm not going suggest that the game might actually be as good as Halo 3 as well!).

  • zuljin #165 5 years ago

    @headbog
    "Esier said tha done. either I had stuck the difficulty too high, or there was somthing fundamentally wrong with that level."

    Personally I think the latter. If you actually run back to the entrance, all the enemies have to go through that door. You can pick off any lone creatures, and when they swarm I manage to kill off most the little uns with about 2-3 grenades.

  • Les #166 5 years ago

    @Machiavellian

    I was under the assumption this thread was about Halo 3's resolution...
    Edited by Les at 01/10/07 @ 16:36

  • Darren #167 5 years ago

    Headbog - Where on earth did you get the idea that PS3 The Darkness runs at 576p? I have both consoles and based on the demos - I own the full 360 game by the way - they look absolutely identical visually bar the fact that the PS3 version has no anti-aliasing! ;)

  • George-Roper #168 5 years ago

    @Darren

    "I'm sure Sony will make the most of this when they release Killzone 2, which I'm fairly certain does run at 720p and supports AA too. Sure they're different kinds of games but from what I've seen of the game, it does look fair more impressive visually, more gritty and realistic (although after Lair I'm not going suggest that the game might actually be as good as Halo 3 as well!)."

    And i'm sure that Sony will continue their trend in quality, too.

    Killzone 2, PS3: 7/10 'Could have been so much better'

  • Calgon #169 5 years ago

    We can move over to Colin McRae's Dirt if you want?

    Thats one I think Sony fanboys are best off sweeping under the rug considering the circumstances...

    Sony Engineers worked with Codemasters on the NEON engine for months which has the new PS3 rendering platform at its core. I dont understand then why it was so late after the PC and 360 versions, it sounds like the PS3 was the lead platform so shouldnt they have launched with the lead platform? Unless they were having problems.

    Post release, the game's out and there's improvements as expected such as smoother framerates and 7.1 audio, but it still comes at a cost compared to the 360 and PC versions in the form of lower enviromental/geometric detail and AA. Not alot to boast about and infact makes the 360 look better when you think about it.

  • captainrentboy #170 5 years ago

    "the game is a piece of art, the caracters, the story, the visuals, the music..., evrything is amazing..., gameplay is perfect as well. Don't mind the pathetic review eurogamer as well IGN and other sites gave, i was not so shure about to buy it after reading thouse but i'm so sooooo glad i did..., these is the best expirience a game can give."

    Haha, ohh good God Apologie, of all the games to bleet on about in such a positive manner, that one? I played it, completed it, and it was God of War with a chick,(albeit with a combat system not quite as deep) nothing more. The absolutely wonderful cutscenes were the highlight (Andy Serkis was mental) I'm not saying it was a bad game, but if ever anything deserved 7/10 it was that.
    Why you have such rediculously negative views on Halo 3 has just been revealed, you're nothing but a fanboy :)

  • kangarootoo #171 5 years ago

    @Grogmonkey

    Well lets give some context to my comment.

    I totally agree that some gamers can be irrationale "this teh next gen, I expect the moon on a stick yesterday, reality be damned" type people some times. But that is not to say you cannot have your work held accountable, and you didn't specify who the person asking the question was. It could easily be your manager, in which case defending your descisions is just part of your job sometimes (trust is all very nice, and very important, but it doesn't overide everything else all the time).

    My issue is with a more general attitude of "I made the game I wanted to make and didn't care what anyone else thought". That ot me is just not professional, because listening what your audience thinks is an important part of what makes your product successful (which regardless of what we think of artistic integrity, is what allows us to do the jobs we do).


    "Because game development is almost always about making the game YOU want first, and hoping other people like it second. If you make a game to keep other people happy you will invariably fall flat on your face."

    I just can't agree with that statement I'm afraid. Now I'm not saying just take any old anecdotal input from whoever happens to walk past. Sticking to a clear plan is important, or you will just waste time making changes to serve the opinion of the moment. However, I would hope the fundamental brief served to any dev team is based on some form of market research however basic.

    To just say "I've have this great idea, lets go make it" is probably why things are so random in this industry. Surely having some idea that gamers care about your game idea and are prepared to part with money for it before you start is important?

    Any mmo will live or die on its community feedback. Even the belief that the devs don't care what the community thinks is enough to kill an mmo in its early stages.

    Every other industry demands that kind of information so why not us? Maybe that is why game development very rarely gets funding from non-game sources, because if we walked into a bank with a great idea the loan manager would say "and where is your research showing there is a market for this?" and we would go "ah fuck, give me a month and lets talk again".


    Now back on subject, Bungie knew for sure that regardless of the rantings of a few individuals on the web, most of their customers couldn't give a fart in a storm about this whole "not true 720" rubbish. If it was a deal breaker they would know about it and would have made changes to cater for the demand (because if nothing else, Bungie TOTALLY have their focus testing sorted).

    Anyway, sorry to jump on your case, but you pressed the magic "I don't care what gamers think, I go my own way" button that makes me flip out :) I think that attitude is fine if its a hobby, but we are in business and we need to be concerned that our paying customers will like what we pre-spend their money on.

    Edit: When I say "if nothing else" in reference to Bungie above, I mean that as a term of phrase. They actually have a fuck load sorted when it comes to running an effective studio (though I don't envy their overtime, but then their royalties are probably... royal).
    Edited by kangarootoo at 01/10/07 @ 16:44

  • Calgon #172 5 years ago

    Darren you might own the Darkness but that doesnt mean you have the tallent to count the pixels, perhaps its a quote from the devs he got his idea from(not saying it is but its better than a battle of "I have the game and it looks like X amount of pixels per frame";)

  • kangarootoo #173 5 years ago

    On the subject, I can't tell the bloody difference. Now maybe, as has been suggested along the way, I need new eyes. Why would I want new eyes I ask, when it seems apparent that having said new eyes will turn me into a whining twerp*


    *I apologise for my use of the word "twerp", but sometimes you just have to wheel out the heavily artillery.

  • monkie_king #174 5 years ago

    i thought Computer Space was Nolan Bushnell's port of PDP-1 Spacewar?

  • Darren #175 5 years ago

    @Calgon - The games DO look identical bar the lack of AA in the PS3 version. Do you honestly think that they'd look that similar if one version ran at standard definition (which is what 576p is) and the other in hi-def at 720p? I'm sorry but... no. If that was the case then this whole HD generation has been a lie! ;) LOL

  • Apologie #176 5 years ago

    George Roper

    I praised heavenly sword for inumerous reasons, i don't remember originallity beign one of them... it's amazingly cinematic, beautifully made, it's soundtrack is pretty good, and the gameplay is well balanced. Not perfect, but in it's essence a beautifull game.
    Now the point is that Halo3 is being considered the best game ever made, witch is pretty arguable considering it's lack of inovation and average graphics. "especially in the FPS class, where there are very tempting alternatives".

    all in all, a good game, just not the overwhelming piece of software you fanboys say.
    Edited by Apologie at 01/10/07 @ 16:56

  • smelly #177 5 years ago

    "I agree that it is somewhat ironic that one of the Xbox 360's most important titles to date, if not THE most important, doesn't run in high-definition at all."

    Oh FFS!

    It *DOES* run in hi-definition!!

    Just hi-def along the horizontal (not vert)


    "On the subject, I can't tell the bloody difference"

    LMAO.. Which is what i've been saying all along, but people just presume that if you say "hi-def isnt that important, more effects and higher framerates are" they presume yer a wii fanboy or something.

  • Calgon #178 5 years ago

    I love the "I know more about games than you" folk... wait no, no I dont at all. ;)

    I think everyone born in the 80s saw the real birth of videogames, first one I had... I think it was a Philips VideoPac(you know I cant find much information on it online but it had all the games youd expect and the joysticks where pretty good too) or maybe we had an Atari first, who cares I just played the damn things when I could back then for fun(so much better than trying to maintain a hardcore image).

    If you really dont like a game save your money dont play it because with that attitude you'll probably never enjoy them no matter what... "played it so I can diss it now... YAY! Its just overrated, I must be better and have higher standards cos Im da hardcore gamer! Heres a list of other games you mustnt have played if you think this isnt crap!". I suppose in their minds theyve paid good money to troll an evil 360 title so they should be allowed to.
    Edited by Calgon at 01/10/07 @ 17:11

  • George-Roper #179 5 years ago

    @Apologie

    "I praised heavenly sword for inumerous reasons, i don't remember originallity beign one of them... it's amazingly cinematic, beautifully made, it's soundtrack is pretty good, and the gameplay is well balanced. Not perfect, but in it's essence a beautifull game.
    Now the point is that Halo3 is being considered the best game ever made, witch is pretty arguable considering it's lack of inovation and average graphics. "especially in the FPS class, where there are very tempting alternatives".

    all in all, a good game, just not the overwhelming piece of software you fanboys say"

    Amazingly cinematic? Halo 3? Check (and then some)
    Beautifully made? Halo 3? Double Check
    Pretty good soundtrack? Halo 3? Triple Check
    Gameplay well balanced? Halo 3? Quadruple Check

    Seriously, you're a hypocritical fanboi who can't stand that fact that the 360 has a stunning 10/10 game, blowing away most, if not all, of the PS3's line-up out of the water.

    Go back under your bridge.

    Edit #2: In fact, for the record, I think the soundtrack to Halo 3 is the best ive heard in recent times. It perfectly captures the atmosphere of the game.


    Edited by George-Roper at 01/10/07 @ 17:10

  • wowami #180 5 years ago

    & George Roper

    "Go back under your bridge. "

    /applaud

  • deaner #181 5 years ago

    Oh yes. Clearly pushing the boundaries of modern videogaming, delivering a new and entertaining kind of gaming experience in the most innovative way, making the most of the best of current and cutting-edge technology. A definate ten-out-of-ten!

    ...or not.

    :oD

  • Calgon #182 5 years ago

    Yes because any game that doesnt "push the boundaries of videogames" or innovate in everything they do cannot possibly deserve a 10 simply for being great with lasting appeal to millions of gamers.

    or not! ;)

  • Apologie #183 5 years ago

    George Roper

    Once again you miss the point.

  • kangarootoo #184 5 years ago

    @Apologie and George Roper

    Both of you are as bad as each other. Utter fanboys, neither of which is able to be constructive on the subject of their unbridled love. Get a room.

  • MENTAL1ST Verified Senior Software Engineer, Picsel UK Ltd. #185 5 years ago

    Apologie: Is that why it gets called Godess of War then?

    I prefer to think of it as 'Not-as-Good' of War.

  • Apologie #186 5 years ago

    kangarootoo

    no comments

  • George-Roper #187 5 years ago

    @kangarootoo

    "Both of you are as bad as each other. Utter fanboys, neither of which is able to be constructive on the subject of their unbridled love. Get a room."

    Get fucked.

    No seriously, get fucked. You come across like some aloof tosser who sees things 'more clearly' than everyone else. Reality check, you're on a fucking games site. Get some perspective.

  • Dizzy #188 5 years ago

    >i thought Computer Space was Nolan Bushnell's port of PDP-1 Spacewar?

    Indeed but it looks like we now even have a flamewar about SpaceWar!

  • morriss #189 5 years ago

    RFOM is a below average shooter with little replay value.

  • Calgon #190 5 years ago

    Yeah lets be fair everone has favourites some do have bias and thats true with just about everything not just consoles(it gets worse when theres money involved or home town/country) but atleast acknowledge whos in the right place and whos doing the trolling.

  • Apologie #191 5 years ago

    morriss

    "RFOM is a below average shooter with little replay value"

    you don't know what you'r talking about. RFOM is amazing, both single player and multiplayer, even more impressive considering it was the first FPS launched for the PS3.

  • drumm23 #192 5 years ago

    Does the PS3 come packaged with a tin-foil hat... or do you have to stump out extra for one? Perhaps that's the new SKU thing - it comes with rumble AND tin-foil hat. Excellent.


    I'm half way through Halo 3 and it's the best game I've played on a console in years.
    Live is unbelievably well implemented, Forge is eating up hours of my life and the campaign is just a master-class. 640 upscaling FTW.

  • Calgon #193 5 years ago

    LOL he comes in saying Halo3 is overrated/let down and has the cheek to call RFOM amazing?

  • Apologie #194 5 years ago

    Calgon

    LOL he comes in saying Halo3 is overrated/let down and has the cheek to call RFOM amazing?

    RFOM in my opinion have better graphics than Halo, don't have frame rate issues "as Halo", have more intresting and inventive weapons than Halo, and have a very competent Multiplayer.
    The only advantage Halo have over RFOM is it's multiplayer. If i had to choose one, i would go with Resistance.

    I own both X360 and Ps3... so don't call it fanboysm ok

    The difrence is Halo is in it's 3rd instalment..., die hard fans will never admit that a 1st generation Ps3 Game actually rivals it's Masterpiece. (some press inclueded)
    Edited by Apologie at 01/10/07 @ 18:33

  • Apologie #195 5 years ago

    Eurogamer shoul be a shame by giving 10/10 in the present console generation to a game that don't run at 720p, don't really improve on gameplay, and have frame rate issues. Nice game, but not even close to a perfect score.

  • smelly #196 5 years ago

    Sigh.. yes.. im sure the fact it doesnt work in pure 720p makes it a terrible game.

    Are you enjoying it? Yes or no?

    if yes, then DOES IT ****ING MATTER what resolution its running at? And if you werent told, would you care?


    PS: WTF is RFOM?
    Edited by smelly at 01/10/07 @ 19:11

  • captainrentboy #197 5 years ago

    And for fuck sake, where are these Halo 3 frame rate issues that have suddenly been brought up? I've completed it on Heroic and I didn't notice a single hiccup in its smoothness :/
    The only time it ONCE dipped was on three player co-op over Live, and that was once in six missions.
    I think some people are just making shit up.
    And whilst RFOM was merely alright, and not too bad for a first effort, its artificial 'intelligence' was an absolute joke, there's one big problem right away.Ohh and it was very very Brown for a lot of it.

  • Scimarad #198 5 years ago

    Is it wrong that I thoroughly enjoyed R:FOM AND Halo 3?

    Apparently so, according to the sad tossers in this thread...

    I'm not sure why but there is no denying that Halo 3 looks like crap in split-screen co-op. It's frankly embarassing how defensive some people get when you dare to say something slightly negative about it. Just because it is graphically a bit rough that doesn't stop it being a great game...but it IS undeniably a bit rough.

    This can all be summed in the following; Fanboys = Losers , in a very literal sense.

  • MakyoDetector #199 5 years ago

    Most people won't notice it (most people are not playing the game on a 720p display device - anything else but 720p and your image is already scaled, which makes it softer) but some will find that lack of sharpness annoying. I heard there's no AA either.

    From a tech viewpoint, this is a major embarrassment for Bungie. No wonder they lashed out when asked about it and gave some dim-witted excuse about rendering to two framebuffers (which makes no difference in this argument, believe me).

    H3 was supposed to be the most technologically advanced game on the X360. And now... it's not even HD.

    Disclaimer: This is a tech opinion from the POV of a developer. I have an X360. Fanboys suck cock in hell.

  • MENTAL1ST Verified Senior Software Engineer, Picsel UK Ltd. #200 5 years ago

    As detailed tech-specs will tell you, Xbox 360 comes with 10 megs of special graphics RAM, which the GPU uses to write to. This 10 megs is just enough for two 1024*640 32-bit render buffers (you need double the size because of Microsoft's antialisaing requirements). Unfortunately if you want 1280*720, you need to use tiling, which can cause complications and waste vertex shader instructions (Despite that it's still considerably faster than PS3 or equivalently-specced PC graphics cards that use regular fast RAM).

    As such, as Xbox games want more and more fancy graphics, more of them will want to end up restricting themselves to the 'magic' resolution. Currenty, you need special permission from MS Certifiction to allow this.

    I doubt this will result in a rash of Xbox games put out at lower resolution than competing PS3 games, though. Since the Xbox has faster rendering at 1280*720 with MSAA anyway, it'll likely be only Xbox-exclusive titles (or Xbox/PC exclusive titles) that'll take this option.

  • yagisencho #201 5 years ago

    I played the campaign for nearly 5 hours straight last night. There were several 'Whoa!' moments, helped in no small part by the lovely graphics. If you can tell the difference between 640 and 720 vertical resolution, then you have a much larger television than I do (34" CRT HDTV).

    For the poor bastards with 50"+ HDTV televisions who feel they aren't getting 100% resolution for their money: I cry hot tears of angst for thee.

  • MENTAL1ST Verified Senior Software Engineer, Picsel UK Ltd. #202 5 years ago

    "The Darkness Demo > 1024x576 "

    Several of you seem to be saying that The Darkness looks the same apart from 'no anti-alising'.

    I submit to you that it does have antialiasing on, it's just that you can see the edges of the pixels more obviously since it's scaled up from a lower resolution.

    Obviously it'll look very similar since the resolutions aren't that different and the both machines are rendering the same thing.

    Edit: ballsed up i tags
    Edited by MENTAL1ST at 01/10/07 @ 20:37

  • SeesThroughAll #203 5 years ago

    "In fact the reason we haven't mentioned this before in weekly updates, is the simple fact that it would have distracted conversation away from more important aspects of the game, and given tinfoil hats some new gristle to chew on as they catalogued their toenail clippings."

    Hahahahaha!

    Relax dear, you're not that important...

  • Dixons #204 5 years ago

    Simple equation. The more somebody cares about 'missing' resolution, the less likely they are to have had sex. Ever.

  • GamesConnoisseur #205 5 years ago

    +1 Zerolight

    Why some people is still going on about HD/NOT HD?

    Gameplay is what its all about, I got Resistance and enjoyed it, but its no Halo 3. Still look forward to what Nathan Hale will get up to in sequel and sure they will improve (that famous explanation as to WHY not as good as Gear of War from RFOM dev!) and also looking forward to Killzone 2.

    BUT that doesnt change Halo 3 being that damn good, whatever resolution it is at, I have just watched the extra interactive DVD (collector edition) of Bungie crew on the various stage of developments with Halo 3, damn good showing boys (and not forgetting the three girls or so at Bungie).

  • Apologie #206 5 years ago

    Eurogamer shoul be a shame by giving 10/10 in the present console generation to a game that don't run at 720p, don't really improve on gameplay, and have frame rate issues. Nice game, but not even close to a perfect score.

    How can a game be possibly rated max while not excelling in every category.

  • Scimarad #207 5 years ago

    Gameplay might be the most important thing but it IS worthy of discussion when a game like Halo 3 has such obvious visual issues. And, no, it isn't my TV - most games look fine, in fact on Blue Dragon you'd hard pressed to spot any actual pixels most of the time.

    If I buy a game that can't handle full screen when doing co-op and has horrible jaggies I think I'm justified in moaning about it! When EG said it looks quite similar to Halo 2 I kind of assumed they meant Halo 2 running on the 360 with AA. Not ACTUALLY Halo 2...

  • m0thr4 #208 5 years ago

    @zerolight:

    Not sure what you mean by "10% loss".

    1280x720 = 921,600 pixels
    1154x640 = 738,560 pixels... which is 80% of true 720p and therefore a 20% 'loss'.

    @Everyone else who says, 'who cares'?:

    No one should care if they enjoy the game... and no Xbox 360 owner should complain as this trick has been employed in the vast majority of Xbox 360 games released over the last year. The same trick is more difficult to pull off on the PS3 (although the latest dev kits should sort that out) which is why PS3 ports of Xbox 360 games either have less flashy graphics or worse framerates than their Xbox 360 counterparts.

  • Dixons #209 5 years ago

    "How can a game be possibly rated max while not excelling in every category?"

    Because the whole is greater than the sum of its parts perhaps?

    Show us where on your body the Master Chief touched you..

  • Scimarad #210 5 years ago

    @farticusmaximus

    Really, that's interesting considering not only have I played but I've also finished it - Try looking me up on Bungies website if you don't believe me.

    It most certainly DOES have issues and it strikes me that you are the one getting defensive about it - Not suprising considering the comments you make in most PS3 related threads. I enjoy games on several different consoles so somehow I don't think I'M the fanboy...

    Really, I wouldn't give a crap about it if there weren't so many of you denying the whole thing;-)


    Edited by Scimarad at 01/10/07 @ 21:34

  • Calgon #211 5 years ago

    m0thr4: The same trick is more difficult to pull off on the PS3 (although the latest dev kits should sort that out) which is why PS3 ports of Xbox 360 games either have less flashy graphics or worse framerates than their Xbox 360 counterparts.

    Vast majority? absolute crap, there's games that dont meet 720p on PS3 too(Sony talked up aload of crap about "PS3 is true HD" which the fanboys are trying deny and spin the meaning of it pretending they werent trying to misslead us), its annoying with the double standards trolls have(then they come out with "what's this got to do with Sony?... How can I be a fanboy I own both"... like thats going to convince anyone you're not a fanboy, even if it is true. It's the behaviour - the attitude - the trolling!).

    Its a handfull of games and thats all, the vast majority are rendered at 720p, or above in some cases. The real reason is that 360 isn't a pain in the ass to program for and it has the stronger GPU.

    Apologie : RFOM in my opinion have better graphics than Halo, don't have frame rate issues "as Halo", have more intresting and inventive weapons than Halo, and have a very competent Multiplayer.

    Thats overrating RFOM, image quality you might be right on but not by a great margin (apart from the muted brown ROFM colour pallet... give me Halo's rich colourfull pallet any day), but framerates are worse in RFOM than Halo3(rather than the other way around which you're not getting anywhere with, Halo3's frame rate is solid - even with more action than you can dream of seeing on screen at once in RFOM), draw distance is worse, there's less onscreen action/geometry, the overall lighting isn't as good, no HDR?

    You can deny being a Sony fanboy, you may own a 360 it still wouldn't make you exempt. Same as Nintendo fanboy will always be a Nintendo fanboy at heart no matter how many consoles they own(nothing wrong with the favouritism part = natural, trying to hide your bias in discussions involving the other platforms is what doesnt fly with people, there are too many like that these days... waste of money if you ask me how will you enjoy anything from it with such petty attitude?)
    Edited by Calgon at 01/10/07 @ 21:55

  • Apologie #212 5 years ago

    Dixons

    "How can a game be possibly rated max while not excelling in every category?"
    Because the whole is greater than the sum of its parts perhaps?
    Show us where on your body the Master Chief touched you..

    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Do you know the meaning of a perfect score??

    * guess you are confused about who's Master Chief bitch here by the way...;)
    Edited by Apologie at 01/10/07 @ 21:45

  • Scimarad #213 5 years ago

    One useful thing I've discovered reading the thread: Framerates and AA are definitely in the eye of the beholder.

    No, not the old AD&D RPG.

  • George-Roper #214 5 years ago

    @Apologie

    "Do you know the meaning of a perfect score??

    * guess you are confused about who's Master Chief bitch here by the way...;)"

    Yep, I do. It when a game gets 100% or 10/10 or 5/5, etc.

    Halo 3 got 10/10.

    RFOM did not get 10/10. Nor did Heavenly Sword.

    Deal with it.

  • Scimarad #215 5 years ago

    Also, the relevance people give to review scores is entirely proportional to how useful they are to their argument;-)

  • Dixons #216 5 years ago

    "Do you know the meaning of a perfect score??"

    If you're going to come on a website and dispute one of its scores, the least you could do would be to familiarise yourself with said website's scoring policy. Then you might be taken seriously.

  • VMerken #217 5 years ago

    I'm not an Xbox 360 owner so i don't know how important 720p is, but I've always went with the adage: "when using a lower res isn't too dramatic, it's okay"

    If they had upscaled this from 640x480, say, then I'd worry about it but going from 1154x640 to 1280x720 doesn't sound too dramatic. It's not HD by definition, but that shouldn't stop one from enjoying a nice game.

    Capcom introduced black borders to be able to run RE4 on Gamecube. Smaller resolution? Yes. Dramatic, relatively speaking? A bit. Dramatic enough to not buy the game? No.

    Heh, this reminds me of an old demo on the Commodore 64. It showed a complex 3D scene emulating the Quake engine with realtime vector shading. Rendered natively in 1x1, then upscaled with linear sampling to 320x240. What Bungie did, only ever so slightly more dramatic ;)

  • Scimarad #218 5 years ago

    Review scores are all a matter of opinion, anyway.

    Although I've been slagging off the visuals in Halo 3 a bit (most to piss of the annoying fanboys!), if you look in my games collection on EG you'll see I've still rated it a 9.

    Of course, I also rated Resistance a 9:-)

  • Apologie #219 5 years ago

    Dixons

    how can you possibly say that RFOM have frame rate issues?? the game was impecable... not to mension 720p all the way.

    The point here, as i said before, is that RFOM is not the one being considered the best game ever, Halo is, and while being a good shooter, the fact that it's flawed, not exacly inovative and average at best in it's gaphics make me think that you guy's are just blind. Nontheless good game, enjoy it.

  • Calgon #220 5 years ago

    I know - what planet are these people from? Smelly and Les are just as bad although not as sensational... "these 360 fanboys need to shut up talking about how good their games are all the time, all smug in their 360 forums and articles :(" they dont like it they can stop reading and participating, we wont be missing much and it will do their blood pressure some good, problem solved. A) They dont get their panties in a twist over the fact that 360 is finally get some praise and alot of people are really saying alot of good things of the games(perhaps they fear "the 360 train a comin" to roll over the competition? lol joking ;) ) B) Those here to discuss topics will no longer have to respond to trolls who cant accept when people dont agree with their blatant fanboy bias.

  • Calgon #221 5 years ago

    Frame rate & drawdistance = Halo3 > ROFM
    Textures , lighting & geometry = Halo3 > ROFM
    HDR = Halo3 >> ROFM
    Animation = Halo3 > ROFM
    AI = Halo3 > ROFM

    I can go on but it all depends on what you are focussing on... whether you realise it or not Apologie you are talking pure image quality, shaders perhaps... those with a keener eye can see much more than just the surface and appreciate all of it too.

  • Scimarad #222 5 years ago

    Will you lot give it a rest? Nobody gives a shit! All you are doing is pissing each other off when you could actually be playing some games...

    I'd pretty much disagree with most of what you said there but it doesn't make me right. It's all a matter of opinion.
    Edited by Scimarad at 01/10/07 @ 22:26

  • IronGiant #223 5 years ago

    Bioshock and Resistance are better looking games, IMHO. I loved Halo, had fun with Halo2 until it ended too soon and with Halo3 after a few hours gameplay i'm not really that bothered. It looks and feels like Halo and maybe thats the problem, im bored with it.

    "Rofl indeed... some trols don't even try."

    LOL! you're a fine one to talk.

  • IronGiant #224 5 years ago

    "RFOM is a below average shooter with little replay value. "

    Ahh there speaks a real genius. Coff, ahem.

  • Scimarad #225 5 years ago

    I wish I had the ability to play a game for 5 minutes and surmise it holds nothing of value whatsoever...Okay, that DOES work with some games but you know what I mean!

  • Les #226 5 years ago

    Funny how idiots have turned this into a new fanboy flame war. Or maybe not funny at all...

    Anyway, one of the flagship titles of the HD consoles doesn't run in HD. Given that HD has been touted as the defining characteristic of this ‘next gen’ that’s just plain ridiculous. It doesn’t matter if you care about graphics or not, it still is ridiculous:

    Console manufacturer: this console is great, it has HD graphics.
    Gamer: But your flagship title isn’t HD
    Console manufacturer: Doesn’t matter, you will not see the difference
    Gamer: Then why is your console so great?!
    Console manufacturer: Graphics aren’t important, it’s all about the gameplay

    It might still be all about the gameplay (I for one share that opinion) but the moment you make HD one of the defining characteristics of your machine and then don’t deliver upon it with your flagship title, that’s rather odd to say the least… Might even be considered 'lying', the worst sin a console manufacturer can commit to its loyal following...

  • Merefield #227 5 years ago

    /looks forward to playing the PC port in super hi-res on his dual core 8800 Ultra rig :p
    Edited by Merefield at 02/10/07 @ 08:33

  • Darren #228 5 years ago

    @Smelly - A high-definition product is defined by its VERTICAL resolution not horizontal so Halo 3 is most definitely NOT rendered in hi-def as it draws 640 lines not the required minimum of 720. Go look up the definition if you don't believe me; I didn't make it but I do know what the difference between Standard Def and Hi-Def are. Just as Halo and Halo 2 on the Xbox are not hi-def because they're upscaled to 720p and 1080p from 480/576p, neither is Halo 3. ;)

  • Darren #229 5 years ago

    @Headbog - I'm absolutely flabberghasted by that info you posted earlier and owe you an apology. The Darkness on the PS3 looks absolutely identical to the 360 version to me bar the abundance of jaggies but it looks like they're the result of the upscaling rather than the lack of AA then. It makes me wonder what all the fuss is about high-defintion if developers can get away with releasing a PS3 game that doesn't even run in HD at all. :?

  • Arwin #230 5 years ago

    If the game had AA, then this wouldn't have mattered at all. But it doesn't, so it does make it a little worse than it should be.

    Of course, if you had to choose between a stable framerate and this, or true 720p with AA and shitty framerates, then the choice would be obvious.

  • Arwin #231 5 years ago

    Frame rate & drawdistance = Halo3 > ROFM ROFM > ROFM ROFM ROFM

  • kangarootoo #232 5 years ago

    @George Roper

    "Get fucked.

    No seriously, get fucked. You come across like some aloof tosser who sees things 'more clearly' than everyone else. Reality check, you're on a fucking games site. Get some perspective."

    Lol is all I have to say about that. Perspective indeed. Sorry if that comes across as aloof ;)


    @headbog and Darren

    Do you really find that the Darkness looks the same on both systems? I've only played the demo version on each, but I found the lighting on the PS3 to be noticeably poorer, which made the textures look poorer as a result. The motion blur of the 360 version was absent also. Does the full game look the same on both systems?

  • Lateralaus #233 5 years ago

    doesnt bother me, it looks good enough most of the time and hasnt bothered me once since i got it on wednesday and its the only game I've played

  • Calgon #234 5 years ago

    Les no lying would be telling you, that you will see 1080p @60fps on two screens *cough*Sony*cough*. MS are no longer relying as much on Halo, bungie made the decision MS just let them do it, its not as if its rendered in SD either... you are a bitter bitter fanboy whos spinning this for all its worth.

    Sony fanboys continue to be the most delluded... pretending their average at best games compete when NO respected reviewers agree with them.

    Its so funny to see them taking swipes at every reviewer saying they got paid. Those watching the trolls can only laugh because they just look stupid and more petty than ever with the crap they are coming out with recently... grow the fuck up. Its regarded as better than any game on the PS3 right now and rightfully so, get over it, go and play RFOM(theres far better 3rd party games than that IMO so Id play them if I had PS3).
    Edited by Calgon at 02/10/07 @ 13:08

  • Calgon #235 5 years ago

    Kirly_Wombat you are joking right? a buffer contains frames you know that much atleast I hope, frames are made up of pixels - yes?

    The amount of pixels you can draw is determined by the amount of "fillrate" you have left(at the rendering stage). Having two buffers means drawing the frames twice = more fillrate used which is where the comparison to 1280 was made.

  • kangarootoo #236 5 years ago

    "Sony fanboys continue to be the most delluded"

    /sigh

    Why does everything descend into talk of which fanboys are most deluded.

    Is that really the standard on which to be appraised? That someone might be immature, deluded and unobjective, but they aren't as immature, deluded and unobjective as the next idiot in the line.

    In the words of Chris Rock "you low expectation having motherf*cker".

    Edit: not you personally Calgon I might add. Just having a rant. Didn't mean to call you a mofo.
    Edited by kangarootoo at 02/10/07 @ 13:50

  • George-Roper #237 5 years ago

    @Les

    " Funny how idiots have turned this into a new fanboy flame war. Or maybe not funny at all...

    Anyway, one of the flagship titles of the HD consoles doesn't run in HD. Given that HD has been touted as the defining characteristic of this ‘next gen’ that’s just plain ridiculous. It doesn’t matter if you care about graphics or not, it still is ridiculous:

    Console manufacturer: this console is great, it has HD graphics.
    Gamer: But your flagship title isn’t HD
    Console manufacturer: Doesn’t matter, you will not see the difference
    Gamer: Then why is your console so great?!
    Console manufacturer: Graphics aren’t important, it’s all about the gameplay

    It might still be all about the gameplay (I for one share that opinion) but the moment you make HD one of the defining characteristics of your machine and then don’t deliver upon it with your flagship title, that’s rather odd to say the least… Might even be considered 'lying', the worst sin a console manufacturer can commit to its loyal following.."

    Typical, cretinous, Wiifanboi reaction.

    Fact is, Halo 3 might lose a few pixels but STILL manages to pull off some astounding HDR and lighting effects whilst STILL looking a shitload better than any other Wii title out there.

    Visuals encompass more than just straight up resolution and I, for one, am happy to lose a few pixels here and there in order to gain some amazing HDR and lighting.
    As a Wiifan it's a shame you won't even have the fucking option of either, isn't it.

  • Les #238 5 years ago

    I hate it when people quote idiots I put on ignore... Next version of the 'ignore' function should have a quote-filter...

  • VMerken #239 5 years ago

    Les, I understand your viewpoint, but let's take a look at another fictional discussion:

    Bungie: "Sir Microsoft! It has come to our attention that we are unable to render Halo 3 in 720p natively, but rather 640p."
    Microsoft: "Hmm, that is troublesome, Bungie. You understand that we cannot publish Halo 3 on our new-gen console when that is the case."
    Bungie: "Yes, sir. But, we could upscale to 720p without too much of a quality loss and release it as such."
    Microsoft: "Tsk... Bungie..."
    Bungie: "... you're right, sir. We should not stray from our principles in order to release an otherwise finely executed, well-balanced game. I kindly apologise, we will of course suspend the project indefinitely."

    How do you think "Gamer" would react once news channels made this public?

    (A) Gamer: "That is a most noble move by Bungie. We fully respect their decision to stay true to HD principles and not to release Halo 3."

    or

    (B) Gamer: EXPLETIVES!!! DELETED!!!

    Your point is well-taken, but does it seriously outweigh all the other elements of the game?
    Edited by VMerken at 02/10/07 @ 15:16

  • Les #240 5 years ago

    "Your point is well-taken, but does it seriously outweigh all the other elements of the game?"

    No it doesn't. My point is not that this does discredit the game itself: I don't care how many pixels are rendered by the engine. But if I'm not mistaken, the prime feature of the 360 according to MS, was that it would introduce the era of HD gaming. It does make this statement seem rather hollow. And it's yet another proof that the 360 isn't properly equiped to deal with HD graphics. Nor has the PS3 shown this either, but the fact that Halo 3 isn't capable of it says nothing about PS3 (you have to spell everything out for the lunatics around here. I do this for the comfort of my fellow EG posters as I've probably added most of the idiots to my ignore list already so will not be bothered by it).

  • VMerken #241 5 years ago

    Les, yes, but most of these statements must be taken with a grain of salt anyway. If a title is "hot", concessions are sometimes made, only to get it out there asap...

  • Apologie #242 5 years ago

    Aspic

    finally somebody lucid about the subject

  • George-Roper #243 5 years ago

    @Aspic

    "Previous history of Halo. This week Halo 2

    Score at launch:
    http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?art... (9/10)
    Score a while later:
    http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?art... (6/10)

    Overhyped shite. "

    LMFAO.

    You compare the original release of Halo 2, on the Xbox, to a PC release *how many years later*?

    And then summise that it's overhyped shite? Are you fucking daft?

    Worst.

    'Proof'.

    Ever.

    And, BTW, Halo 3 got 10/10. Just in case, y'know, you somehow missed it. =)

  • George-Roper #244 5 years ago

    @Aspic

    "No. I'm comparing the initial review of an overhyped piece of shite like Halo 2 which the vast majority of people thought was shite at the time to a review a few years later which basically said it was totally meh. May be because online FPS was so new an exciting for XBox at the time but personally I think its because the game is a product of its marketing budget and is just so run-of-the-mill in reality its painful. See Doom 3 for another example.

    Halo 2- OK. Halo 2 - overhyped piece of monkey wank. Halo 3 - I'd rather not waste my money again thanks very much"

    Fucking HELL, do you even realise how flawed that comparison is?

    Halo 2 is not Halo 3. Repeat after me. Halo 2 is not Halo 3.

    Seriously though, you're going nowhere with this. It's a non-argument, as the huge amount of people who've bought Halo 3 can attest to.

  • George-Roper #245 5 years ago

    @Aspic

    "No its not. But from what I've read the gameplay is exactly the same old treaded out poo. Console players these days are just braindead monkeys anyway. The equivalent of the idiot who buy the latest manafactured pop shite that they are told is great.

    Halo 3 does not interest me. It looks shite imo. It is not the dog's bollocks. Get over it mate. Or a life. Whatever makes you happier...."

    /applaud

    Now that you've made a complete cunt of yourself, you may leave the discussion.

    Next!

  • Stratus #246 5 years ago

    Okay guys, I am not a fanboy of any kind! No really! Even if I were a fanboy I would consider myself in the Halo fanboy camp as I was a HUGE fan of the original (damn game was what convinced me to buy a HDTV just for 480p obviously as the game didn't support anything any higher.)

    I have finished Halo 3 on Heroic and am currently on the level "Cortana" on Legendary. A very good game all things considered.

    I don't care one iota about the resolution "problem." But for the love of God, what the hell is up with the spotty, inconsistent framerate? Yes, I cleared my cache. Yes, I have played Bioshock, GOW, and every other fast paced game on the 360. Halo 3 has undoubtably the poorest framerate that I have yet seen on the 360 (not even mentioning the aliasing issues which I could live with.) The crazy thing about it is that the real framey parts of the game are almost always INDOORS!! Not the sprawling environments which require a vehicle to traverse. The indoor areas with closed environments and Halo 1 level design. By no means does it make the game unplayable, but it sure as shit makes it less enjoyable when I almost get motion sickness from the dropped frames ( a common problem for a certain percentage of the population but not myself unless things get really choppy.)

    To those of you who wonder how anyone could have framerate issues let me help you understand. It isn't that the game runs slowly or slows down to a crawl in certain areas. It isn't that those of us who see the framerate issues think the game is slow. This is important. The game moves you along just fine without any slowdown. Slowdown and a smooth, steady framerate are not always the same thing. Ok? What Halo 3 is doing to the most part during the indoor areas (never understand that one) is DROPPING FRAMES to keep the game running in a "smooth" fashion. It actually is not running the frames needed to keep true fluidity. It is dropping frames to keep the speed up. Now I'm likely not explaining this properly as I am not a game dev and have limited knowledge of the actual goings on behing the technical aspects of a game. But I think alot of people think framerate equals speed, whereas for alot of us a solid framerate equals smoothness as you pan your viewpoint around and take in the environment.

    Case in point. On the second level where you must rescue the Marines that are being slaughtered by the Brutes inside the barracks. The entire area where you are fighting the Brutes has a piss poor framerate. From the second you round the corner and the Brute Chieftan is holding the Marine up while choking him to the part where you first fight the Buggers (Drones) is choppy as fuck. (Love this site cause I can swear!!) Try standing in the showers and doing a slow, smooth 360 degree turn. Watch the slide show my friends. This happens on a very regular basis throughout Halo 3. You can actually count the chops as the camera pans around. Some areas to the point where I actually feel queasy.

    Bungie claims they cut the resolution to help maintain framerate. I shudder to think what the game would have run like otherwise.

    Good decision I suppose?

    EDIT: BTW, I'm in Canada where we have NTSC. I understand that Pal runs things at a different framerate, correct? Would Halo 3 run the same on Pal as on NTSC? Forgive my ignorance but I love this site and it's obviously European.
    Edited by Stratus at 03/10/07 @ 01:36

  • Scimarad #247 5 years ago

    You know, one thing I certainly wasn't looking forward to on a next-gen consoles was having to clear my sodding cache! I've got a PC if I want to do stuff like that...

    I had to laugh at the comment about PS3 fanboys being the 'more deluded'. For one thing, 'deluded' is a given if you are talking about fanboys. Secondly if you want to talk about extremely vocal fanboys I don't think they are the ones that somehow turn every comments thread into a slagging match about how crap the PS3 is.

    I'm so tempted to do an 'idiot fanboy' census - I'm pretty sure I know which console would win. Sometimes I'm distinctly embarrased to be a 360 owner and it isn't anything to do with the console or it's games.
    Edited by Scimarad at 03/10/07 @ 08:12

  • Les #248 5 years ago

    "For one thing, 'deluded' is a given if you are talking about fanboys."

    +1

    A product of this day and age: Brands are the new gods to worship.

  • Calgon #249 5 years ago

    Absolute hypocrisy... anti-MS fanboys are an embaressment as a gamer. Complete thick headed attitude, petty and deluded about how the rest of the world see's things the way they do = pointless discussing anything with them. They troll because they want to force said opinions on others(they dont want a discussion that would mean listening to things they cant accept), seriously fuck off trying to spin that around, some are in the right place here and others arent... how can you expect a level headed conversation with the trolling idiots on this page. If showing you're not an "xbot" is crying for weeks(probably years with some of them) because people rate a game better than you do? Then Im glad to be out of that "group" because its fucking pathetic!

    It is just a game, most people think its a great game worthy of praise and theres some that don't... the ones taking the latter to extreems are the most vocal most*not all* haven't even played the damn game(such anger and bitterness, its the sort of thing that ruins EG, good fun for the first day but a week laters its "shut up already!", its the only reason Im commenting on it Im not even a Halo fan, I just hate to see such hypocrisy) yet somehow feel they are above those who like the game, dismissing the majority as Xbots.(ie millions compared to their hundreds)

    edit: oh and Les = fanboy!
    Edited by Calgon at 03/10/07 @ 15:50

  • Carrybagma #250 5 years ago

    Calgon, HD is supposedly a 'standard'. If publishers ignore the specifications and call something HD when it's not, how can it still be a 'standard'? If we're going to go that way, then Nintendo may as well ignore standards too and call all their 480p stuff HD. Trading standards might have something to say about that. It reminds me of 56k modems and ISDN lines being marketed as 'broadband'.

    I'm quite sure that this doesn't detract from the game, but Bungie/Microsoft have scored a bit of a Sony-style own-goal by rubbishing the perfectly reasonable observation that it's not quite HD. They'd have done better to spit it out to begin with and say 'It's not quite HD standard, but it actually looks better than if it had been.' Some would still bitch, but most would shrug it off.

    I predict further revelations along these lines, seeking to embarrass Microsoft's & Sony's HD claims, although I think Sony shot off both feet months ago. I also predict many smug Nintendo fanboys singing the benefits of SD..

  • Calgon #251 5 years ago

    Carrybagma I honestly beleive half of the people complaining about it, wouldnt give two shits, if it wasnt an IP theyve always hated because its linked to a company theyve always hated... Theres a reason theyve jumped all over it and its not because they were dissapointed fans thats for sure. Now we all know 360 and PS3 are HD machines and have already proved that with 9 ot of 10 games released so far, theres been some exceptions which might even continue... I really wouldnt care its not like they've charged you extra for the priveledge.(If the majority of games are 720p, say 90% or above; is it worth complaining about the "HD era comments"? You are still better off with a HDTV this gen either way with 360 and PS3)

    It seems as though the trolls are more organised these days and come in groups at every major 360 occasion - "Yup not a 10... told you it wasnt a 10 guys! phone the troll towers and tell them 'crises over', we shall celebrate this day for years to come, where we discovered something to attack Halo3 scores with... its not perfect, not even HD, we'll spin into some cheating scandal and call them all M$ loving mugs again" ;)

    Well I for one said way back at the start, too much was made of the HD thing...
    a) They can't expect more than half of their audience to buy a new HD TV in a such a short space of time along with an already expensive enough(although good value) peice of hardware. That could be why Wii is doing more strongly as you wont be missing much on a SD screen, with 360 and PS3 it shows sometimes that the games were made to be played in HD.
    b) If it comes at the expense of framerate or effects then some will be dissapointed after all them pre-rendered videos shown by Sony... to get anywhere near there would be hard enough... with 60fps at 1080p too? you can forget about it.(which someone from MS tried to tell us and the fanboys blasted him for it, like they do)

    It IS jealousy 99% more than genuine dissappointment is my point... the Halo haters have been around a long time now. I never got the first Halo really, only played it twice through in the end. It looked great in places, I liked the open spaces and vehicles and it was an all around a solid experience - a step forward for consoles.

    Compared to PC FPS' movement felt slow at first, I was pissed at the 2 weapons thing at first but then both of those made sense, to me it seemed they wanted to make it more of a thinking game than the usual console fare around that time. It worked too, also the AI was a step forward and the co-op... so even though I didnt quite fall in love with it like some seemed to, I did notice there was plenty to like about it.

    If you heard someone saying Halo was shit, 9 times out of 10 if you asked them if they even owned an Xbox the answer would be "no! but I...".

    Sooo Im pretty tired now and Im not sure if all the above is relevant or that Ive trailed off but yeah... fanboys! shut up and that - the Halo3 fanboys dont need to they are busy playing it, so the only people left to shut up are the haters, which would mean accepting that it is a 10/10 game, do it! :D or agree to disagree with the majority of gamers and reviewers if you can't manage that.
    Edited by Calgon at 04/10/07 @ 03:35

  • Carrybagma #252 5 years ago

    :o)