TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- Halo 3 looks wow!

Halo 3 looks wow!

if this belongs somewhere else then sorry but check this vid out.

I uploaded it to yousendit.com

LINK

comments?

*snore*

Don't feel like downloading.

Is it the announcement trailer from E3?

i've never liked halo

Wrong forum.

my thoughts about halo:
Halo 1: multiplayer was so much fun; lots of late nights with friends..
single player waaaaaay too repetitive
Halo 2: never played it
Halo 3: preview makes it look amazing, until you realize that its a cutscene...and its halo


look at the preview for half life 2 episode two, and you'll realize that the graphics are better than those in the halo 3 cutscene, and thats regular gameplay...

it must be tough for the xbox...

quote:

Originally posted by Sunflower i've never liked halo

That's a shame. It's one of the more solid FPS titles to grace a game console.

quote:

Originally posted by JBDreamerie my thoughts about halo: Halo 1: multiplayer was so much fun; lots of late nights with friends.. single player waaaaaay too repetitive Halo 2: never played it Halo 3: preview makes it look amazing, until you realize that its a cutscene...and its halo look at the preview for half life 2 episode two, and you'll realize that the graphics are better than those in the halo 3 cutscene, and thats regular gameplay... it must be tough for the xbox...

A few things:

- You should play Halo 2. It's a huge improvement in both single player and multiplayer. The addition of the LIVE service is tremendous in and of itself.

- There's a video on Bungie's website that shows that the trailer was processed in realtime. They move about the environment and show the viewer shots that weren't seen in the trailer.

- Last I checked, the XBOX was obsolete. The 360 has been on the market for some time now and that's what Halo 3 will be released on.

- We haven't seen the full power of the 360 yet. Don't expect to see its innards proper utilization till a few years down the line.

quote:

Originally posted by Yan That's a shame. It's one of the more solid FPS titles to grace a game console.

i will agree with this. i think it did a lot better on console than PC

quote:

A few things: - You should play Halo 2. It's a huge improvement in both single player and multiplayer. The addition of the LIVE service is tremendous in and of itself.

don't have xbox...and too many things stacked up to do; i'll wait for 3

quote:

- There's a video on Bungie's website that shows that the trailer was processed in realtime. They move about the environment and show the viewer shots that weren't seen in the trailer.

i'll check it out

quote:

- Last I checked, the XBOX was obsolete. The 360 has been on the market for some time now and that's what Halo 3 will be released on.

i know 3 will be on 360, but an xbox is an xbox for me.

VERY obsolete. 360...no games...not worth it. microsoft, however big they are, are stupid for trying to step into the gaming industry imo.

quote:

- We haven't seen the full power of the 360 yet. Don't expect to see its innards proper utilization till a few years down the line.

a few years down the line means obsolete for a system. especially in this time. by that time i'm sure microsoft will attempt to release a 720...

quote:

Originally posted by Yan That's a shame. It's one of the more solid FPS titles to grace a game console.

yea, I just could never get into it. had a very generic feeling to me.

quote:

Originally posted by JBDreamerie i know 3 will be on 360, but an xbox is an xbox for me.

If you come at the next generation of consoles with a bias like that, you're going to miss out on a lot of great games and possibly even a new gaming experience.

quote:

Originally posted by JBDreamerie VERY obsolete. 360...no games...not worth it. microsoft, however big they are, are stupid for trying to step into the gaming industry imo.

Last I checked, the device was the most powerful on the market. In terms of processing power, it'll be sandwiched between the Nintendo and the PS3 so by those standards, it's far from being "obsolete", let alone very. The original PlayStation is "very obsolete" compared to the current generation of consoles.

While the console might not have an all-star lineup of games, there are quite a few gems on shelves that many people overlook. Plus, don't forget that the device is backwards compatible (for the most part), so that tacks on at least 20 to 30 more must-play titles (and 100-150 that are just meh ).

Why would you say Microsoft was stupid for entering the market? With them they bring a slew of developers (as well as intriguing others to join the industry), a good unified online service which built upon the success of Sega's and a worthy group of surveyists that helped and will continue helping the console to be fine-tuned to the consumer and gamer, respectively (as was seen with the current controller - one of the best I've ever had the chance to play with).

That's not to mention their attracting non-gamers to the video game world. More players = More fun = The industry grows! It's all good.

quote:

a few years down the line means obsolete for a system. especially in this time. by that time i'm sure microsoft will attempt to release a 720...

5 years was the going rate for a while but Sony and Nintendo are releasing their consoles on the 6th (for this generation) and Sony is even promising that their PS3 will have a 10 year shelf life!

The reasoning behind their naming has to do with customer appeal. Many would think that the XBox 2 is inferior to the PlayStation 3. Otherwise, calling it the 360 is just plain cool.

quote:

Originally posted by Yan

Console Gaming 101

Good post

quote:

Originally posted by Yan If you come at the next generation of consoles with a bias like that, you're going to miss out on a lot of great games and possibly even a new gaming experience.

i don't think so. i'm pretty hardcore with my game selection, and so i think that games make or break a system. i feel there's no point to have a console unless you know a myriad number of good games will be released. i feel you shouldn't get a console and hope for a better gaming experience, because you're putting yourself at risk of spending a lot of money for a machine that you might just end up using to play dvds.

quote:

Last I checked, the device was the most powerful on the market. In terms of processing power, it'll be sandwiched between the Nintendo and the PS3 so by those standards, it's far from being "obsolete", let alone very. The original PlayStation is "very obsolete" compared to the current generation of consoles. While the console might not have an all-star lineup of games, there are quite a few gems on shelves that many people overlook. Plus, don't forget that the device is backwards compatible (for the most part), so that tacks on at least 20 to 30 more must-play titles (and 100-150 that are just meh ). Why would you say Microsoft was stupid for entering the market? With them they bring a slew of developers (as well as intriguing others to join the industry), a good unified online service which built upon the success of Sega's and a worthy group of surveyists that helped and will continue helping the console to be fine-tuned to the consumer and gamer, respectively (as was seen with the current controller - one of the best I've ever had the chance to play with).

as i said before, just because a console is powerful, doesn't make it the best. you bring up the playstation, and even though i agree its obsolete just because there are no more games being made for it, there are more better games on the PS than xbox. in addition these games are playable on PS2, and will be on PS3 as well.
and even though certain games depend on the opinion of the gamer, i still feel there are fewer of the "everyone loves this" games on the xbox.

i feel it wasn't a wise move on microsoft's part to enter the gaming market, because they just don't know it. that results in losing time figuring out the market, fine tuning for your customers, and developing business relationships that will inevitably allow you to overtake the market (game developing companies). xbox is behind in that sense...
you also have to think, microsoft really has NOTHING to do with hardware/gaming. they're a software company, that develops OS for 98% of the computer world. you kind of have to wonder, what the hell are you doing in games? what's next? furniture?! (also not mentioned the fact that microsoft was technically losing money for every xbox they sold)

quote:

That's not to mention their attracting non-gamers to the video game world. More players = More fun = The industry grows! It's all good.

all too true if you're looking at the big picture. i was just focusing on microsoft as an individual company and the goals involved.
as a capitalist though, i believe there's no bad involved with another company attempting to enter the market. competition means drive which means better products are released which means more fun for the eventual customer.

quote:

5 years was the going rate for a while but Sony and Nintendo are releasing their consoles on the 6th (for this generation) and Sony is even promising that their PS3 will have a 10 year shelf life! The reasoning behind their naming has to do with customer appeal. Many would think that the XBox 2 is inferior to the PlayStation 3. Otherwise, calling it the 360 is just plain cool.

that sounds about right. although for some consoles it has been considerably less, and some a little more. i still consider the PS2 to be still strong, even with the coming of PS3. major games are still be developed for it...proving its definitely still alive.

re: naming: yea, i agree. it's a weird marketing technique, but it's proven psycologically...

quote:

Originally posted by JBDreamerie i don't think so. i'm pretty hardcore with my game selection, and so i think that games make or break a system. i feel there's no point to have a console unless you know a myriad number of good games will be released. i feel you shouldn't get a console and hope for a better gaming experience, because you're putting yourself at risk of spending a lot of money for a machine that you might just end up using to play dvds.

Of course it's important to take into account whether the console has a number of good quality games, in your decision whether to purchase the console or not. My comment was directed towards your initial response of generalizing and tagging the XBOX's rep to its successor. While it might not seem like a worthwhile purchase to you now, we might see a lot of great games being released a year or two down the line. If you still hold that bias, you're definitely going to miss out.

quote:

Originally posted by JBDreamerie as i said before, just because a console is powerful, doesn't make it the best. you bring up the playstation, and even though i agree its obsolete just because there are no more games being made for it, there are more better games on the PS than xbox. in addition these games are playable on PS2, and will be on PS3 as well. and even though certain games depend on the opinion of the gamer, i still feel there are fewer of the "everyone loves this" games on the xbox.

ob�so�lete
adj.

1. No longer in use.
2. Outmoded in design, style, or construction.

That's what your initial post was trying to state.

If your argument solely has to do with sheer amount of good games available, then hands-down Sony wins. Wait... No... I'm afraid Nintendo has that honor. With the upcoming Wii virtual console, there'll be many, MANY classics and all will be within reach. Does that instantly make it better than Microsoft who have only been in the game for less than a decade? Not at all. Both companies (Nintendo and Sony) have had their share of flops and shortages along the way but gamers never lost faith. Look at them now! Still on top of their game (arguable).

quote:

Originally posted by JBDreamerie i feel it wasn't a wise move on microsoft's part to enter the gaming market, because they just don't know it. that results in losing time figuring out the market, fine tuning for your customers, and developing business relationships that will inevitably allow you to overtake the market (game developing companies). xbox is behind in that sense... you also have to think, microsoft really has NOTHING to do with hardware/gaming. they're a software company, that develops OS for 98% of the computer world. you kind of have to wonder, what the hell are you doing in games? what's next? furniture?! (also not mentioned the fact that microsoft was technically losing money for every xbox they sold)

Straight from Peter Moore, the XBOX was released so as to test the 'waters' of the gaming industry. As can be seen with the 360, there have been a lot of improvements (after listening to the audience) and the gaming populous is more than less impressed and happy with the results. The LIVE service itself is a monument that shows that Microsoft has the smarts and money to back it so as to reach every household in the world. You might have not heard but the XBOX sold fairly well in the US, during its few year life span. Outside the country is another story, though...

Microsoft as plenty to do with gaming. After all, they had to work their OS years ago so as to make it accessible to programmers who would later make games which Microsoft would help better with their hardware. It's a cycle that they're all too familiar with. The XBOX division was made especially for gaming and a lot of figureheads who have been in the industry for quite some time have been recruited. Look it up.

Every of the next-gen consoles will be losing money per unit sold (a first for Nintendo, actually). So it has been over the past 4 decades and so it shall be as long as the industry is around.

quote:

Originally posted by JBDreamerie all too true if you're looking at the big picture. i was just focusing on microsoft as an individual company and the goals involved. as a capitalist though, i believe there's no bad involved with another company attempting to enter the market. competition means drive which means better products are released which means more fun for the eventual customer.

Exactly! It's all good.

You don't have to worry about Microsoft, though. I'm sure they'll find the funding to stay alive, somewhere...

quote:

Originally posted by JBDreamerie that sounds about right. although for some consoles it has been considerably less, and some a little more. i still consider the PS2 to be still strong, even with the coming of PS3. major games are still be developed for it...proving its definitely still alive.

As 2007 will be coming to a close you'll be seeing rather few releases for the PlayStation 2.

Here's a bit of trivia for you. The Dreamcast has been brought back to life since it's 09/09/1999 release date and new games are being produced for it. How's that for zombie consoles?

What I would say (I have a 360) is that microsoft have restrained it to keep the PC gaming market seperate.

I.e. how come you can connect a keyboard for text entry and not for playing games? Why can't you connect a mouse? Why can't you browse the net? Market preservation.... and thats gay.

when i received my Halo 2 Collector's edition at exactly 12:45 am on that Tuesday i think it was, I was super hyped. But the main story sucked so much ass it wasn't even funny. They tried to make it so grandiose that it all felt like too much. And I'll stay mum as far as the ending goes. Multiplayer was where it's at. But, then all those fucking assholes started glitching the game and cheating. It was crazy what some where doing lol. Whatever, I'll still get Halo 3.Can't wait for that.

quote:

Originally posted by josh4 thats a movie, it doesn't mean the game will be like that ingame graphics or stfu

As was stated in one of my previous posts, if you head over to Bungie's website, you can see that the teaser video was running in realtime off the 360 hardware.

I too just never got into Halo, even though I have both versions.

quote:

Originally posted by josh4 So?

In other words, it's not simply a movie. It's the equivalent of a demo of the game.

Now I'm not saying the entire game will look like that FMV but people should seriously stop doubting the power of the 360.

too much nerd talk for me

Jackson

looks ok, but im i know im gonna get bored with it in a month.

the only reason halo did so well as a game was coz it was released to a largely inexperienced console market, and was one of the first FPS games that didnt utterly suck on the console.

having played 1 & 2 on xbox & 1 on PC, id have to say i was totally underwhelmed by all of them *yawns*

i have never played an FPS multiplayer title that was anywhere near as slow and snore-worthy. if halo had been a PC game it wouldve sunk as we\'ve seen most of it before and done in a better way.

im sure halo 3 will be more of the same.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.