| Mail |
You might also like: WoW Insider, Massively, and more

Reader Comments (146)

Posted: Oct 1st 2007 2:57PM heypaul said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
We sure love our HDR lighting this generation.
Reply

Posted: Oct 1st 2007 3:06PM Zertoss said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
Well, it is awfully pretty. It's much more pleasing to the eyes than the obsession with lens flare a couple of generations back.
Reply

Posted: Oct 1st 2007 3:22PM KiraXD said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
except that its almost always overused in a very "N33DZ MOAR HDR LITEINGZ!!" Im not saying its not cool, and it is indeed better (in most cases) than a simple "Lens-Flare" but when your screen is constantly changing lighting conditions so much you think its your HDTV is about to 'splode... it gets quite annoying.

(my biggest complaint with it is when it darkens the screen, but brightens the light source... [GRAW does this alot) makes it hard to see sometimes.

And the fact that i havent seen a Single person in Real-Life who's face "Glows" brightly when i look at them kinda makes me wonder why they do in all these games.
Reply

Posted: Oct 1st 2007 3:26PM Zertoss said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
HDR must be some form of radiation, because too much of it makes things glow that really shouldn't be glowing.

I think Halo 3 found a good balance.
Reply

Posted: Oct 1st 2007 3:28PM FredFredrickson said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
That's the whole point of HDR... to simulate how your eyes would react to the lighting in a scene.
Reply

Posted: Oct 1st 2007 3:29PM KiraXD said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@zertos iono is that screenshot from H3? that guy on the end on the right looks pretty radioactive to me... must be the D.U. Bullets they use?

^_~
Reply

Posted: Oct 1st 2007 3:38PM Zertoss said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Haha I haven't seen anything that bad in-game during my time with Halo 3, but I also haven't made it to that particular scene yet.

It almost looks like the guy on the right is reacting to another light source, like "DAMN! We have enough to worry about with all this HDR abuse! Now you're using flares on your camera to take screenshots?!"
Reply

Posted: Oct 1st 2007 3:41PM KiraXD said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
yeah i know HDR is supposed to simulate that... but the problem is that naturally our eyes adjust... HDR lighting cant compensate for that... so mostly it gets annoying... mostly its used incorrectly anyways.
Reply

Posted: Oct 1st 2007 3:45PM KiraXD said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
doh.. that was for Marty. :/
Reply

Posted: Oct 1st 2007 2:58PM SoulBlade said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
using two frame buffers does not mean 2x vertical resolution... if Bungie brought that argument up to anybody technical, they'd admit it's a bit of a stretch.

i'd pick lighting, but i think the real reason they did this was so they wouldn't overload the 360 GPU and cause some badness.

i think it's good that they responded to it though.
Reply

Posted: Oct 1st 2007 3:30PM FredFredrickson said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
The only "badness" that would result is a lower framerate. You can't break the internals of the 360 (or PS3, or any computer) by simply adding more complexity to the scene to be rendered. You just push the framerate down as it takes longer to render each frame.
Reply

Posted: Oct 1st 2007 10:04PM SoulBlade said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
The badness I was referring to was overheating and RRoD ;)
Reply

Posted: Oct 1st 2007 2:58PM (Unverified) said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
I couldn't agree more, even though it isn't a power house in the graphical department, it is an above average looking game and the best looking in the Halo series.

I think people are just trying to find things wrong with Halo 3. Of course, if you think about it, haters and/or the antagonists having to resort to no female leads and 80 pixels is not too bad for fans.
Reply

Posted: Oct 1st 2007 3:27PM KiraXD said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
its probably the children who have to counter react to people who look for bad things with anything PS3 related... both sides need to stop nitpicking things just for arguments sake.
Reply

Posted: Oct 1st 2007 3:00PM vidguy said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
It's not a big deal to me, I'm still enjoying the hell out of it. But I'm also thoroughly enjoying the fact that the biggest game on the 360 (probably for its whole life) isn't pushing true HD resolution.
Reply

Posted: Oct 1st 2007 3:32PM FredFredrickson said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Er... why? What difference does it make if the biggest game on a console is 1080p or running in a 320x240 box on the screen, so long as it's a fun game and sells well?
Reply

Posted: Oct 1st 2007 5:38PM vidguy said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I agree with that sentiment, it's just funny to me that MS's game-of-the-console doesn't run in HD when they've been saying HD is a must for this generation for years now.
Reply

Posted: Oct 2nd 2007 9:15AM Slaziman said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
If you go by set standards, Halo 3 isn't HD, but if you go by common sense, 640p is already pretty much HD
Reply

Posted: Oct 1st 2007 3:04PM tchuks said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
So if Xbox360 can't do a game in full resolution due to lighting, it's OK because it's only 80p difference. When Sony can only run a game at 30FPS it's OK because developers are having a hard time understanding the hardware. When Nintendo can't do a game in HD because of the hardware, it's killing hardcore gaming and transforming videogames to casualness (or whatever the latest buzzword is).

I don't understand how XBox and PS3 can get away with not delivering what they promised to deliver (true high def gaming) while the Wii gets scolded for delivering what they can deliver with their hardware. (at best enhanced definition).

I hate to sound like a Wii fanboy, but I just find it funny that if the same thing were to happen on the Wii, it would be ridiculed. Anyone else notice this, or am I going crazy?
Reply

Posted: Oct 1st 2007 3:11PM Vidikron said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Your totally ignoring the gap though. Halo 3 may not be pushing a true HD resolution, but it's still far above what the Wii does. Halo 3 actually looks like a 360 game whereas most of the Wii games still look like Cube games. I'm not saying I agree with the sentiment that the Wii is ruining gaming or anything, but your argument is pretty weak.
Reply

Posted: Oct 1st 2007 3:15PM Vidikron said

  • 1 heart
  • Report
* "You're"

(before I'm corrected by mr nimblewick)
Reply

Posted: Oct 1st 2007 3:18PM heypaul said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
You don't read much Joystiq do you? (Probably a good thing.) We beat each other up for pretty much everything here. PS3 Madden at 30FPS is not okay, Halo 3 at sub-HD resolution is not okay. RRoD is not okay, reintroduced rumble is not okay. Take a look at the posts that generate 100+ comments. We don't let a thing slide. The fact that you think only the Wii gets ragged on shows that, yes, you probably are a Wii fanboy.
Reply

Posted: Oct 1st 2007 3:19PM Crono141 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Thats irrelevant to the argument, vid. What he's saying is that when the 360 underperforms relative to its hardware and the PS3 underperforms relative to its hardware, they don't get ragged on near as much as Wii does for doing exactly what they said it was going to do.
Reply

Posted: Oct 1st 2007 3:22PM Vidikron said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@ Crono

You would have a point if he hadn't included that last paragraph where he addressed the issue of people claiming the Wii is ruining hardcore gaming by making a severely underpowered system compared to the others. That's the point I was addressing. It's the huge graphical gap between the 360/PS3 games and the Wii that upsets a lot of gamers... the gap between Halo 3 and other 360/PS3 games is slight to none.
Reply

Posted: Oct 1st 2007 3:24PM Vidikron said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Ooops... I didn't mean "last paragraph", I meant "last part of the 1st paragraph".
Reply

Posted: Oct 1st 2007 3:34PM (Unverified) said

  • 1 heart
  • Report
30fps at HD resolution is still HD resolution.
640p is still hella better than 480p.

i dont want to play games where the characters are still spherical and polygonal in shape. even a graphically average game like skate looks miles better than mp3.

hey man, if you dont care about graphics, fine. be happy with the wii. i care about graphics so i'll stick to HD.

fanboy plug: i think warhawk looks crisper than halo3 (and multiplayer is never laggy 16v16 =P), and it might have something to do with the res difference, but both look awesome to me (halo3 has bad graphics? come on...)
Reply

Posted: Oct 1st 2007 4:31PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
This happens with the PS3 as well. For example, The Darkness runs at 960x540 and Tony Hawk's Proving Ground is only 600p.
Reply

Posted: Oct 2nd 2007 3:04AM squeevi said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@ upz
I don't think a truer statment has been said. LOL!
Reply

Posted: Oct 2nd 2007 9:24AM Slaziman said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
The bad graphics isn't the Wii's only fault, it's the imprecise accelerometers, the lack of good games, the lack of a good online system, the lack of a lot of modern features on the PS3 and 360.

Also the fact that Nintendo has changed focus and let the core gamers take the back seat. Seriously, graphics are just one of the many issues I have with the Wii.
Reply

Posted: Oct 1st 2007 3:04PM Buster Rod G said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
It would be splitting hairs if it was just slightly lower resolution and there were screens that could clearly display 640p. The reason this is a problem is you're forced to upscale and blur the game, which is annoyingly common on Xbox 360 and PS3.
Reply

Posted: Oct 1st 2007 3:13PM Vidikron said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Common? Maybe on the arcade ports in XBLA, but I don't have any blurring issues with my 360 or PS3 games running on a 1080p TV. The Wii OTOH...
Reply

Posted: Oct 1st 2007 3:26PM mr nimblewick said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I know what you mean. My Wii looks so bad, even on my SDtv, I've taken to taping a picture of Tammy Faye Messner on the screen while I play just to have something relatively pretty to look at.
Reply

Posted: Oct 1st 2007 3:05PM daveosaur said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Bah. The resolution looks fine, and the HDR looks *amazing*. Also love how they don't force it into letterbox on a 4:3 tv, unlike pretty much every other 360 game. Hooray!
Reply

Posted: Oct 1st 2007 3:07PM kornchild2002 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I could really care less, I doubt anyone would notice 80 pixels if they put two versions of the game right next to each other. The people who found this out literally had no time on their hands. Seriously, those people were so desperate to find something wrong with the game that they sat their and counted pixels. I am not saying Halo 3 is perfect but they seriously need to get laid instead of spending time counting pixels.

I do feel a little cheated though as the back of the box states 720p and 1080p. I thought the game was mastered in 1080p, isn't that the point of putting those resolutions on the back of the box? Otherwise all Xbox 360 games could put 1080p as the Xbox 360 has the ability to upscale everything to 1080p. Not that I would notice a difference but it seems like false advertisement to list a resolution that the game was supposedly mastered in then come out and say that they used a smaller resolution.

At least Bungie came out and told the truth, I wonder when they were going to tell us though if those nerds hadn't counted their pixels. Either way it is not going to stop me from enjoying the game.
Reply

Posted: Oct 1st 2007 3:11PM mr nimblewick said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
"couldn't care less" and "too much time on their hands."

Sorry, had to fix that.
Reply

Posted: Oct 1st 2007 3:26PM heypaul said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Technically, "could care less" is the correct colloquial expression. Whether "could" or "couldn't" is the proper usage depends on whether you're more concerned with making literal sense or colloquial sense.

I'm so smart.
Reply

Posted: Oct 1st 2007 3:30PM mr nimblewick said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
If by "colloquial" you mean lazy and nonsensical American version, you're correct.
Reply

Posted: Oct 1st 2007 3:32PM Vidikron said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
@upz

Actually, mr nimblewick is correct. The correct saying is "couldn't".
Reply

Posted: Oct 1st 2007 3:33PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Anyone find it ironic some grammar nazi fixes "too much time on their hands"?

Reply

Posted: Oct 1st 2007 3:38PM mr nimblewick said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
"Anyone find it ironic some grammar nazi fixes "too much time on their hands"?"

What can I say? I literally have no time on my hands.
Reply

Posted: Oct 1st 2007 4:16PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Actually, either is correct usage. It depends on if you want your statement to be serious (couldn't) or sarcastic (could).
Reply

Posted: Oct 1st 2007 4:22PM mr nimblewick said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Actually, the sarcasm explanation was added after the term was coined. It came about through the simple process of dropping complication from language. People don't like that as a justification, though (since it makes no sense), so it suddenly became "sarcasm."
Reply

Posted: Oct 1st 2007 4:57PM heypaul said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
What about when people use "literally" when they mean "figuratively?" That one gets to me. That's what nimblewick was referencing in his "literally no time" comment, right? Or am I reading too much into grammar police subtext?

"I was so excited when I opened Halo 3, I literally had a heart attack!"
Reply

Posted: Oct 1st 2007 3:11PM Crono141 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Not a big deal. If the lower resolution is impacting your enjoyment of the game, don't buy it or return it if you already have bought it, or sell it on schme-bay.
Reply

Posted: Oct 1st 2007 3:17PM (Unverified) said

  • 1 heart
  • Report
Its not a big deal because this board is populated with xBots.. if KillZone2 did this, you can bet your life that the xbots would be out in droves declaring Sony lairs, etc...

Anyways, HDR + 720p = RRoD .. simple as that.
Reply

Posted: Oct 1st 2007 3:26PM FredFredrickson said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
It's not really "simple as that," but I doubt you'd understand or appreciate the complexities.
Reply

Posted: Oct 1st 2007 4:02PM Crono141 said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
Can I assume "declaring Sony lairs" is a freudian slip? Because its really damn funny.
Reply

Posted: Oct 1st 2007 4:12PM sand0789 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
The Darkness ran at 1024x576 on PS3 and runs at 720p on the 360. I don't recall as big of a deal being made of it by xbots. Post #454 of the following link contains a list of other shockingly horrific ass rapings(sarcasm) that devs have laid on us gamers this gen.

http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=43330&page=19

This just isn't a big deal at all. Bungie made a design decision and we can only speculate whether or not the game would have looked better at 720p without dual HDR buffering.
Reply

Posted: Oct 1st 2007 3:18PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
people need to stop trying to poke holes into stuff....
Bungie did an incredible job...
i mean, cmon...how often does a WHOLE universe of fiction get created? (that's actually worth readin)
and how often does a worldwide phenomenon happen?
Reply

Posted: Oct 1st 2007 3:18PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I think the game looks pretty slick. Oh well.
Reply
Sorry, you must be logged in to leave a comment.

Featured Stories

Rhythm Heaven Fever review: Crazy into you

Posted on Feb 9th 2012 12:00PM

Remedy not done with Alan Wake

Posted on Feb 9th 2012 10:30AM

Engadget

TUAW

Massively

WoW