Except Crysis 2 is coming to the Xbox 360...Quote:
Originally Posted by FRain
It boils down to creative use of memory allocation.
Printable View
Except Crysis 2 is coming to the Xbox 360...Quote:
Originally Posted by FRain
It boils down to creative use of memory allocation.
Yeah, games don't just revolve around fucking graphics. Bungie just didn't "upgrade the graphics engine some and called it a game". They've at the very least, tuned the AI and object memory to allow for larger battle scenes in-game. More than likely they've also addressed the networking layer too. Who knows what else they may have in store in terms of saved films, forge and possibly even the return of firefight.
We've only seen a few environments in a beta stage engine. We have yet to see, for ex, any real water upclose with any objects interacting with them or waterfalls, etc. Basing a rendering engine off stills isn't the best method either
Even so, KM, I'm unimpressed by the graphics. The bipeds look fantastic, but everything else looks like Halo 3. I'm not seeing the impressive lighting I was expecting from the trailer and that one presentation they gave on their lighting tech. Then again, dynamic lighting is only impressive when you can see it changing.
Honestly, we want to see something new. We are demanding fanbois.
Perhaps Bungie's secret project is targeted for Microsoft's next console- that's gotta be coming out in a year or two. I don't expect Bungie to impress me as much as Crysis first impressed me, but I want to be impressed. Like it or not, visuals are a big thing these days.
And besides, if we have another Halo game, we're stuck with the same universe, the same characters, essentially the same gameplay, so the only new thing left to impress us is: visuals.
Far from it. There are so many changes and upgrades they can make to saved films, forge and multiplayer variants still. Plus, there is the possibility of the return of Firefight which itself can really be upgraded.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob Oplawar
We've already seen the inclusion of civilian vehicles as one mode of transportation. Plus new weapons with thier own dynamics which don't permit the same old gameplay. Don't think so two demsionally (sp). You're also basing everything about this game you know on old games which this game isn't. Campaign wise, we're on single planet (which a Halo game has never touched on), following a single team. However, this doesn't limit or directly affect other mechanics of the game (ie, multiplayer, theater, etc)
Meanwhile the original xbox ran on 64mb and a 733mhz celeron and managed to run games like Doom3 and halo 2, im expecting a fair bit more to be grinded out of the xb360.Quote:
Originally Posted by FRain
GrantedQuote:
Originally Posted by Kornman00
Well, why can't I draw on experience? Halo 2, 3, and ODST were good but not great. I've said before that the Halo IP is being drawn out way too long- if you're going to keep doing it, you have to make it great, not good. Otherwise people like me start to get rather annoyed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kornman00
What about ODST?Quote:
Originally Posted by Kornman00
Look, I fully expect Reach to be quite fun, and a pretty good game. But there are hundreds of fun, pretty good games out there. What is Bungie doing to set themselves apart? Little that I can see. A good game is not the same as an impressive game, and I haven't been impressed by Bungie since Halo 1. As I said, I'm hanging onto the hope that their unannounced next game will be more impressive.
e: OK, I'm not giving them enough credit. Halo 2 and Halo 3 made successive massive improvements to the multiplayer, and ODST added an awesome gametype to the mix. I have been impressed by that. I guess it's just my preference for campaign (and admittedly, visuals- ok, I'm shallow) over multiplayer that's left me disappointed. For a while I liked to think of Bungie's skill as lying in immersive universes, skillfull storytelling, etc, but in hindsight it's pretty clear that what they're so great at is fun, replayable, social multiplayer.
It's Halo 3: ODST and therefore doesn't count :saggy:Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob Oplawar
:-p
Here's a question, why exactly is it called Halo Reach, if it has nothing to do with the halo's should it not just be called "Reach"?Quote:
Originally Posted by Kornman00
Since everyone is getting so picky over the slightest details i think i'l join in.
Something tell's me we will have some sort of link to halo 1 in some way or another and i don't mean visualy or design wise.
Oh, that's easy warlord
You see, being a prequel to the first Halo game, this game is actually how our dear friend John manages to get lucky, survive the battle of Reach and Reach Halo. Ergo, Halo Reach :downs:.
It's all about thebenjamin'sHalo's baby!
Yeah, we'll probably get some plug like that in ODST (when you beat the game on legendary) that ties to the first Halo. Also, I'm pretty sure we'll see a few more new skulls. ODST had some support for a few new ones but they never made it to release. I'm pretty sure the "director's cut" skull will this time though.
The skulls are just so arbitrary and random in their effects, I don't really respect them. My ideal of Halo combat doesn't involve having to melee flying drones every third round. If Firefight was legitimate, it wouldn't need such gimmicks.
It really needs objectives and counter-objectives. The Covenant need to be trying to move a bomb in or your team is trying to keep a door shut that would give the Covenant a flanking advantage. Just killing covies for the sake of killing them, I find to be somewhat numbing.
Even adding objectives might not be enough. Halo is best when it allows you to be bold and aggressive and it's hard to feel that when you're just sitting and defending.