Allow me to explain why Halo 3 and Gears graphics can't be compared

[Shpeshal Ed]

there's plenty of people around here that think Gears >>>>> Halo 3

I can assure you

[Shpeshal Ed]

Originally Posted by Matthew

He kinda rants at nobody.

I rant at your mother

[Kohi]

Halo 3 isn't as massive in scale compared to Crysis and definitely not multiplayer side like BF2. It's not that scale that bothers me, it's the exact same art style repeated. From all the levels I've seen nothing really stands out that differentiates itself from previous games besides just the scale alone.

[Shpeshal Ed]

Originally Posted by Kohi

Halo 3 isn't as massive in scale compared to Crysis and definitely not multiplayer side like BF2. It's not that scale that bothers me, it's the exact same art style repeated. From all the levels I've seen nothing really stands out that differentiates itself from previous games besides just the scale alone.

ummm.....isn't that the point of a franchise?

[vinnie97]

wut is dis, gangbang Spheshal Ed night?

[fiasco8]

Originally Posted by Kohi

Halo 3 isn't as massive in scale compared to Crysis and definitely not multiplayer side like BF2. It's not that scale that bothers me, it's the exact same art style repeated. From all the levels I've seen nothing really stands out that differentiates itself from previous games besides just the scale alone.

Not to be picky, but wouldn't this be hard to judge considering Halo 3 and Crysis are not out yet? The argument swings both ways though.

[Shpeshal Ed]

Originally Posted by vinnie97

wut is dis, gangbang Spheshal Ed night?

isn't that most times I start these kinds of threads?

[Dutch guy]

Originally Posted by Shpeshal Ed

Halo 3 is MASSIVE in scale. A large portion of the game takes place in GIANT outdoor plains and battlefields, all while OTHER battles rage in the background. The draw distance iis near limitless due to Bungie using ACTUAL GEOMETRY for the draw distance and the objects in it. This would be very taxing, as I'm hoping Power666 or Icemage can attest to.

We ain't doing geometry we're trying to play some games.........ballin!

But seriously now Halo 3 doesn't even look bad, in my opinion it's graphics are better than anything on the 360 right now, except Gears and Bioshock.

[Dutch guy]

Originally Posted by Kohi

Halo 3 isn't as massive in scale compared to Crysis and definitely not multiplayer side like BF2. It's not that scale that bothers me, it's the exact same art style repeated. From all the levels I've seen nothing really stands out that differentiates itself from previous games besides just the scale alone.

You call 1 against mostly below 10 enemies massive?

[Argon]

With the availability of the graphics card, and thus a GPU, the CPU tries to concentrate on the AI, draw-distance determination, sound, and physics. Though, I'm supposing there might be a matter of joint memory or something like that that WOULD make the two linked in performance.

It's really a game of cycles per second; I'm not sure how much physics and stuff was put into gears, but the more time per cycle spent on AI means less time spent on other stuff. Ed is right in that aspect, that the primary tradeoff is between framerate, graphics, and physics. You can't have all three, without all of them being less than ideal.

So, uh, Kohi...

1. Halo has a tiny scale? Compared to...BF2. And..Crysis. Do those...both run on the 360? Sorry, might be me, I'm kind of under the impression that while the 360 could handle BF2, Crysis was coming out on PC, DX10 PC with graphics that will tax the hell out of high-end PCs.

2. A game is disappointing in graphics because it sports the same art direction...I think you're going to want to restate that, unless you're hoping Halo will pull a WW on you.

3. However, I agree entirely, that, like a lot of sequals, Halo 3 is building on its success, not trying something new. So was Halo 2, really. So is every other sequal to any other game, really. If that's a cause for complaint, though, would you prefer no sequals?