Halo 3 Tv spot

[chedabob]

Anybody see it? I got it off XBLM this morning. BUZZZZZIN MAAATE. Its awesome.

http://www.xbox.com/NR/rdonlyres/2CC82B8F-4600-49B8-B2EF-1495EF289014/0/vidhalo3tvadhi.asx

Linky for those withouth XBox live.

[public_eyesore]

I highly doubt that the graphics are going to be that good. That just looks like pure cgi

[Zephik]

I highly doubt that the graphics are going to be that good. That just looks like pure cgi

Why don't we have video games that are like "pure cgi"? Would the consoles cost too much? I've never really thought about it but I have seen some really realistic yet artificially created media, but I've never seen a video game that can compete equally. Why is that?

-SnowFire

[onelegout]

I have seen some really realistic yet artificially created media, but I've never seen a video game that can compete equally. Why is that?

-SnowFire

Basicly it comes down to details and time.
The polycount of the models used in FMV sequences and CG stuff like that video is vastly larger than in-game models. The textures they use are also much much larger (ie, a gun texture in an fmv sequence could be anything up to 2048x2048 pixels whereas in-game it's usualy half that, or even less.
Then we've got the animations, they take time... lots of time.

They're also made in different ways by different people. The game developers don't usualy make the trailers/fmv sequences, as they are busy working on the game. Instead, an animation studio is commissioned for the job. This is why there's always a huge difference between trailer and game.

There are of course many other reasons.
But the way things are going with the introduction of DX10, and the game industry overtaking the film industry, I'd expect to see graphics like that in the next few years in-game.

H

[monoflap]

Another reason those trailers look so much better is because they are pre-rendered. In other words, thier computers only have to crunch the numbers once, then after that you can just watch it like a movie. The reason they can't make computer graphics look like that is because the hardware we use has to render everything in real-time. At this level, things would run too slow on too many computers to make a profit on the game.

[Mitternacht]

That game makes me want to buy the 360. But then again, I'm buying it anyways; my friend Jesse has one, and I couldn't believe how clear and smooth NFSU2 was on it.

[Maz]

agreed with that, from my N64 (old) the graphics are almost cinema quality for that game. (unlike using character models, which take a huge amount of power to render, cars are easy)

still wouldnt buy it though, rather spend it on my compy.

[Slug Toy]

the game IS rumored to look that good. there was talk quite a while ago about an in-engine walk through behind closed doors. the one thing that i still remember was talk about being able to clearly the the assault rifle's ammo counter in the chief's visor reflection. im not entirely sure what that all means for the end product... but if the rumors are true, then the game will look damn close to the previews.

[AJ@PR]

Wow!!
Thanks!

I'm a Halo2 freak.
I loved Halo, but Halo2 just kicks everything.

I like that demo.
Was that a 'temporary shield' that Master Chief dropped?
Kinda of like a plasma.
Wierd.

Anyways, regarding CGI and Trailers:::
C'mon guys! It's Bungie!
Halo trailers are always made with the game's engine.
All of them.

This is how I understand the situation, I'm not a Bungie insider or anything.
But from what I've always read, Microsoft and Bungie always do the Halo trailers (and PGR for that matter) with the game's engine, not fancy schmanzy CGI outside the console (a la Sony Playstation).

HAHA... sorry, I'm an xBox fanboy.
PlayStation sucks!
I think I'm going to buy a PS3, get on the Titanic 2, and drop it into the ocean. :D

Peace, and THANKS FOR THE LINK!!! (I'm watchin' it over and over)

AJ

[AJ@PR]

Hmmm...

Read a couple of things, and apparently, it's CGI... not 100% game engine.

I think. Not sure.

:(

[Mitternacht]

Source?

[AJ@PR]

Source?
Slashdot.

Again, it isn't real research, but from what I could appreciate, it's part game play, part CGI.

Trust me, I really want the entire trailer to be game engine.

Let's see what information pops up in the net.
If I find anything worthwhile, I'll post here. :)

[ESX]

I think I'm going to buy a PS3, get on the Titanic 2, and drop it into the ocean.
Pfff, better give it to me :P

[AJ@PR]

Pfff, better give it to me :P
K... let's do this...

I'll buy the PS3... give it to you, now...
Don't tell me, but, remove all the internals... place a brick inside, and give it back to me.

Then, I'll just *believe* that I'm throwing a real PS3 overboard... :p heehehe

[ESX]

I'll make a custom case for it so you wont know its a PS3 anymore :D

[Zephik]

PS3's are ugly as heck if you ask me. But they are supposed to be really good game consoles right? Last I heard rumor wise, it surpassed Xbox360 by a pretty good leap.

[AJ@PR]

I'll make a custom case for it so you wont know its a PS3 anymore :D
Ok.
Just make it float.
Or look like a float.
:p
Ha!!!



PS3's are ugly as heck if you ask me. But they are supposed to be really good game consoles right? Last I heard rumor wise, it surpassed Xbox360 by a pretty good leap.
I'm totally biased for this following comment, PLUS this is all from the 'rumor mill'... nothing 'official'.

From what I understand, the PS3 uses 'Cell' processors.
And... Cell processors are, realatively old, now, in December 2006.
So, although the PS3 has three of them... they're old.

I don't know.
It's just that I read /. all the time, and they give the PS3 a very hard time.
And Sony, in general.

But, please nobody get mad about my comments... I'm just a xBox fan. :)

[d_stilgar]

I'm all for the Nintendo Wii! I got one and I love it. My whole family can play a game. It is so intuitive. Zelda is amazing.

Now as far as PS3 and XBox 360 are concerned, I think they will play out about the same. The problem is that game developers (usually) don't spend the time to tweak a game for the hardware it is going to be played on. A game for the PS3 that will also be for the Wii and 360 is going to look pretty much the same, except shinier. Games that are made only for one system are usually better, but that is no guarantee.

BTW, I also read that the trailer is part CGI and part engine.

[AJ@PR]

Games that are made only for one system are usually better, but that is no guarantee.
AMEN!!!

When I see a game that's milti-platform, I don't look at it twice.

I'm not a hardcore gamer, I just have my xBox (no 360 yet... Halo3 ain't out).
But, if I see a car game or something that's multiplatform, forget it.

I want something that was made for the xBox.
Not something that was made for the least common denominator (GameCube?!) then tweaked here and there in order to run on other consoles.

Just my 0.02. :)

[chedabob]

Wow, this thread is full of uninformed people.

From the top:

That trailer is in fact CGI. It was made to stir up a bit of buzz. If you wanna see ingame, look for the e3 trailer. Also, that little shield thing, its a shield grenade. Thats what the rumoured X function is.

The ingame, behind closed doors, walkthrough you guys are talking about was done back at e3, so look at the e3 trailer if you want to see what the game looks like, bearing in mind that the footage was recorded at least 12 months before halo 3 is due to come out, and Bungie said that it was not finished, it was pre-alpha, and a lot of effects will be added.


Games don't look as good as CGI, because there isn't enough processing power to do it, at the moment. Whereas CGI takes 60seconds per frame, for a game, that needs to be done 3600 (or 1800) times faster (to get 60 or 30 frames per second). Also, the devs have to write an engine, that looks that good. CGI software has been around for years, and there are 3 main pieces of software (Maya, 3DS Max, Lightwave), that have years of improvement behind them. With a game engine, theres thousands, and everytime a new game is released, chances are, a new game engine is written.

Ps3: Yeah, it looks horrible. Performance wise, its got 7 cores. Its the 360 that has 3. Now you are probably thinking "7 cores pwns 3". No in this case. 360, has 3 general cores (they can do anything) whereas ps3 has only 1 general processing core, the rest do more specific things (physics, sound etc). Also, the 360 can run 2 threads (two instructions AFAIK) on one core, thats 6 threads. The ps3 has 7, cos its cores can't multithread. Therefore, the ps3 has one more thread, but not as much general processing horsepower. Also, one thread is always for the guide thingy (on ps3), and one can be given up at will (for the guide), so if I was a dev, I wouldn't want to lose one core in the midst of a big game, so id use 5 cores. So in the end, the 360 has 6 threads, whereas the ps3 has only 5.

Thats my $0.02, but ive heard lots of reports that the ps3 has lackluster performance. Sony overhyped the specs. 2 Teraflops? No way. Sony are basically saying the ps3 is 2000 times more power than a pentium 4. NO WAY. IBM said a few months back that the ps3 has 136 gigaflops of power, and the 360 has 129 gigaflops (bear in mind the whole 6 threads versus 5, which makes the 360 have more gigaflops in total).

Ive also heard the ps3 devs saying that its horrible to code for, and the 360 is waaay better, and more powerful.


So there we go. Hope y'all are informed now :P