• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

The Official Halo 3 Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
You're supposed to pick and pick at a scab, and eventually it will go away. The memory remains with the scar, but the thing that caused it is gone.
 
If they make the movie based on The Fall of Reach, that means that child actors will be involved. And that scares me a lot. Track records for good child acting in big budget films? Not too great.
 
Havok said:
If they make the movie based on The Fall of Reach, that means that child actors will be involved. And that scares me a lot. Track records for good child acting in big budget films? Not too great.

Haley Joel Osment and Dakota Fanning beg to differ.
 
I'll admit to not having followed the links or really reading any of your guys' posts, but since the Latinos got this info first can I safely assume that this will be en espanol? Ram will be pleased.
 
So, we had just turned the corner on the game. We'd taken three Warthogs and I had a Ghost, had a nice procession of death cruising around. One 'hog was toasted, and on the next lap the blue team set up a nice little roadblock. And like drunken lovers, we plowed into each other, and things got messy. (I managed a cowardly escape on the grav lift.)

It's this kind of stuff that has me <3 BTB, and Rat's Nest in particular.

http://www.gamevee.com/viewVideo/Halo_3/GeeVee/A_Roadblock_on_the_Rats_Nest/447836
 
Jesus, I change my avatar back to my traditional angry Calvin, and no compliments or anything.
fin said:
Me too. That user was sending me invites all night on Sunday while watching movies.
I hope he finds me. I need an outlet for my frustration.
 
backflip10019 said:
Haley Joel Osment and Dakota Fanning beg to differ.
My point was that there weren't any good child actors, but that they're so much rarer than decent adult acting. Its just that the number of bad child roles out there is so much higher than good ones, and since a significant portion of The Fall of Reach revolves around scenes where only children are present, I think it will have to work very hard not to feel juvenile.
 
the disgruntled gamer said:
Jesus, I change my avatar back to my traditional angry Calvin, and no compliments or anything.

I hope he finds me. I need an outlet for my frustration.
I wasn't going to say anything (okay, maybe I was going to), but your old avatar was better; change it back.
 
Dax01 said:
I wasn't going to say anything (okay, maybe I was going to), but your old avatar was better; change it back.
You were still in diapers when Calvin and Hobbes was canceled. You know not what you speak of.

Love the avatar change. Calvin has always fit you perfectly, TDG.
 
GhaleonEB said:
You were still in diapers when Calvin and Hobbes was canceled. You know not what you speak of.

I wasn't even born when The Far Side first appeared, and yet I know that is a better comic series than Calvin and Hobbes.
 
Don't hate on Calvin and Hobbes. I'll never forget the one where Calvin sticks his nose in mustard and "Inhales deeply". Pure Gold.
 
Mr Vociferous said:
- The mystery of the Halo ring -

The most powerful element of the story of Halo is that of the mystery around the installations, the Forerunners and the Flood. It was articulated incredibly in the first game and for them to use Fall of Reach as a stepping stone for the franchise would be horrible in this effect because there is no mystery. It would be the diametric opposite of a Halo experience and more of an homage to fans who like the backstory.

Plus...

There's a lot of changes which could be made that renew/enhance the experience but capture, possibly even better than the game did, the feeling of Halo. I don't think "Fall of Reach" can do that, particularly with a low budget. It seems to me like this guy, as much of a Halo fan as he is, is more interested with getting the project made then getting the project made right. I for one would rather have NO Halo movie than a shitty one and I've got a sticking feeling that this path will lead down a road which will embarass the franchise more than enhance it.

My thoughts exactly.
 
urk said:
got account hacked

urk, the easiest way to find out the new gt of your account is to remember games where you played with people from gaf, then go look at their bungie stats and then find the gamertag that doesnt fit in and none of you reconise...

also what was roughly your exp, highest rank and spartan ranking (major, colonel etc) before you got hacked?
 
Sai-kun said:
As one kid to another:


Fuck.

You.
sizr2.jpg
 
Cuckooo said:
urk, the easiest way to find out the new gt of your account is to remember games where you played with people from gaf, then go look at their bungie stats and then find the gamertag that doesnt fit in and none of you reconise...

also what was roughly your exp, highest rank and spartan ranking (major, colonel etc) before you got hacked?

Oh, I already have that information, but good lookin' out. :)
 
the disgruntled gamer said:
Dax is back!

Hey, where's Bungie's new game?

Dax01 said:
Naw, this is it for me for awhile.
It's not that I don't want you here, it's just you can't go back on your word like that.
I also believe Bungie will announce their next title sooner if you follow through on your posting hiatus because Luke will miss you so much.
 
Dax01 said:
At that point, I didn't think I wouldn't have any incentive to post for awhile...
Then Urk lost his account. :(
Now I really want to catch that mother fucker. It's one thing to steal Urk's account...
 
GhaleonEB said:
Love the avatar change. Calvin has always fit you perfectly, TDG.
Thank you. I've always thought so myself. I liked the Obama one because it was so goofy and quotable, but it wasn't really "me." Now, I've prepared a whole bunch of Calvin & Hobbes avatars to change to whenever I need to be fresh.

Dax01 said:
I wasn't even born when The Far Side first appeared, and yet I know that is a better comic series than Calvin and Hobbes.
If that's the way you feel, I really pity you.

Dax01 said:
At that point, I didn't think I wouldn't have any incentive to post for awhile...
Then Urk lost his account. :(
And yet, since your return you've made more posts bashing Calvin and Hobbes than you have about Urk's account.

*oops*

EazyB said:
Now I really want to catch that mother fucker. It's one thing to steal Urk's account...
:lol
 
the disgruntled gamer said:
And yet, since your return you've made more posts bashing Calvin and Hobbes than you have about Urk's account.
That isn't so. Since when have I bashed Calvin and Hobbes? All I said is that The Far Side is better, not that Calvin and Hobbes isn't bad in anyway.
 
Dax01 said:
All I said is that The Far Side is better, not that Calvin and Hobbes isn't bad in anyway.
I know without a doubt that you say this having an intimate (if even that) knowledge of only the former subject on which you speak. Otherwise, you wouldn't feel the way you do.
 
Cocopjojo said:
I know without a doubt that you say this having an intimate (if even that) knowledge of only the former subject on which you speak. Otherwise, you wouldn't feel the way you do.
Think what you want, but you're incorrect.
 
Mr Vociferous said:
Because it's an "excellent back story," in my opinion, is NEVER a wise reason to initiate a trilogy of films on any concept with a pre-existing subject matter and medium. Maybe as a flashback - maybe as a prequel to follow the trilogy - maybe as a graphic novel - and maybe as some other medium, but I'd rather our first Halo film NOT be a backstory to the REAL story. That's like telling us here is why X, Y and Z are important, with X, Y, and Z not making an appearance until the sequel. My math skillz are no good, but that don't sound like good and proper arithmetic.

I disagree so hard with all of that. I don't think I can possibly imagine a movie of the games working, but The Fall of Reach? It's perfect. It fits and it would work. In fact, The Fall of Reach is about the only way I can think of that they *could* start a movie franchise.
 
Does anyone remember that in that old Halo: CE game you could zoom in on objects and witness gloriously detailed textures? Will this ever happen again in modern gaming?

http://games.monstersatplay.com/review/xbox/halo.php said:
The textures in this game have to be seen to be believed. I'm a bit of a stickler for textures, as smeary low-resolution textures tend to dampen my enthusiasm for a title. Imagine my utter shock when I witnessed objects getting more detailed as I approached them instead of less. While the textures are normally high-resolution and look great from all distances, there is an extra layer of texture detail the becomes visible when the camera is very close to an object. Rocks look more rocky up close, water looks more liquid up close and trees look... well, they look like fucking trees instead of a blurry indistinct mess. There are a handful of poorly-textured objects throughout the game (mostly in the large outdoor snowfield level) which stand out in sharp relief against the otherwise detailed scenery, but these are thankfully few and far between. All told these are the best textures I've yet seen in a console game, and Halo definitely sets the bar a little higher for future games in this area.

So what happened? My next gen games, including Halo 3, don't have textures like this. Even Halo 2 was a step back in the texture department. Are multiple texture layers even feasible with current-gen consoles? Or is normal mapping and bump mapping better and cheaper than this type of texturing?

I've always wondered about this...
 
ch951231.gif


(Side note: I have the Complete collections of both Calvin and Hobbes and Far Side. I love'em both dearly. But what Watterson pulled off with C&H was simply magical.)

You can stop now, Dax.
 
soldat7 said:
Does anyone remember that in that old Halo: CE game you could zoom in on objects and witness gloriously detailed textures? Will this ever happen again in modern gaming?



So what happened? My next gen games, including Halo 3, don't have textures like this. Even Halo 2 was a step back in the texture department. Are multiple texture layers even feasible with current-gen consoles? Or is normal mapping and bump mapping better and cheaper than this type of texturing?

I've always wondered about this...

Wut?

Halo 3's textures are many times better than Halo 1's textures, and yes they have added detail as you get closer. It's called detail normal mapping nowadays and done on most modern games from Gears of War to Halo 3. There'll be a normal map that is used to add "bumps" to an object, and then when you get close there'll be another normal map used to add finer detail. The detail normal map tiles across the geometry at a higher frequency than the ordinary normal map.
 
Falagard said:
Wut?

Halo 3's textures are many times better than Halo 1's textures, and yes they have added detail as you get closer. It's called detail normal mapping nowadays and done on most modern games from Gears of War to Halo 3. There'll be a normal map that is used to add "bumps" to an object, and then when you get close there'll be another normal map used to add finer detail. The detail normal map tiles across the geometry at a higher frequency than the ordinary normal map.

From a distance yes. They are more elaborate and varied and realistic to be sure. But up close they are not. In fact to take it further, I have yet to play a game since Halo CE where I can ZOOM IN on a texture and have it actually look BETTER and MORE detailed. I'm guessing this is because of a texture trick that is no longer used due to the proliferation of other texture mapping techniques that look better in a general case and are cheaper to employ.

Go fire up Halo 1 and Halo 3 to see what I'm talking about. Zoom in on a basic rock in both games to see what I'm talking about. Halo 1 textures zoomed in are more realistic looking than Halo 3 textures zoomed in. Not that it really counts for much since you rarely zoom in on a texture, but from a technical standpoint I have always been curious. I recall being dearly disappointed with Halo 2 because of this little detail (OK, 'dearly' is a bit of an overstatement). ;)

Edit: Even better, zoom in on a Forerunner wall. It's remarkable how much better the up-close texture work is in Halo CE compared to most modern games.
 
Falagard said:
Wut?

Halo 3's textures are many times better than Halo 1's textures, and yes they have added detail as you get closer. It's called detail normal mapping nowadays and done on most modern games from Gears of War to Halo 3. There'll be a normal map that is used to add "bumps" to an object, and then when you get close there'll be another normal map used to add finer detail. The detail normal map tiles across the geometry at a higher frequency than the ordinary normal map.
Indeed. Zoom in on the Spartan armor in MP for example, and there's detail right down to small scratches that otherwise can't be seen. Halo 1 had some great texture work in places, and those portions hold up quite well still, but let's not get carried away.
soldat7 said:
Go fire up Halo 1 and Halo 3 to see what I'm talking about. Zoom in on a basic rock in both games to see what I'm talking about. Halo 1 textures zoomed in are more realistic looking than Halo 3 textures. Not that it really counts for much since you rarely zoom in on a texture, but from a technical standpoint I have always been curious. I recall being dearly disappointed with Halo 2 because of this little detail (OK, 'dearly' is a bit of an overstatement). ;)
Hmm. I nearly used the rocks in Sierra 117 as an example. The detail in the surface texture and moss is remarkable. I don't recall anything near that in Halo 1.
 
I remember staring at the grass on Blood Gulch thinking how amazing it looked. The textures in CE are a very different style then those in 2 & 3, don't know what it is. The important thing is that they all look great.
 
soldat7 said:
From a distance yes. They are more elaborate and varied and realistic to be sure. But up close they are not. In fact to take it further, I have yet to play a game since Halo CE where I can ZOOM IN on a texture and have it actually look BETTER and MORE detailed. I'm guessing this is because of a texture trick that is no longer used due to the proliferation of other texture mapping techniques that look better in a general case and are cheaper to employ.

Go fire up Halo 1 and Halo 3 to see what I'm talking about. Zoom in on a basic rock in both games to see what I'm talking about. Halo 1 textures zoomed in are more realistic looking than Halo 3 textures zoomed in. Not that it really counts for much since you rarely zoom in on a texture, but from a technical standpoint I have always been curious. I recall being dearly disappointed with Halo 2 because of this little detail (OK, 'dearly' is a bit of an overstatement). ;)

Edit: Even better, zoom in on a Forerunner wall. It's remarkable how much better the up-close texture work is in Halo CE compared to most modern games.
Yea, I think your memory of it is a little clouded. I've fired up Halo PC recently and the textures are anything but sharp. They'd look fugly compared to Halo 3.
 
Botolf said:
Yea, I think your memory of it is a little clouded. I've fired up Halo PC recently and the textures are anything but sharp. They'd look fugly compared to Halo 3.

I can only speak for the Xbox version. From a distance the textures of Halo CE simply don't hold a candle to the textures of Halo 3. But zoomed in...strange things happen.

Reading through old Halo CE reviews, this was noted several times (up close textures specifically). Kinda cool.
 
soldat7 said:
I can only speak for the Xbox version. From a distance the textures of Halo CE simply don't hold a candle to the textures of Halo 3. But zoomed in...strange things happen.
Are you sure? You don't even have to zoom in to see the blades of grass on Blood Gulch start to pixelate horribly and blend together.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom