Is Halo 3 too jaggy? Need feedback

R

rbanzai

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jan 12, 2007
Messages
446
I've been looking at the Halo 3 screenshots and they are really, really nice. I read that the game itself is not antialiased and saw some screenshots that reflected that.

They appeared to be almost as low res as Halo 2 played on the 360 and that got me concerned. When I try to play Halo 2 I actually start getting a headache from squinting to make out details that aren't really there and in the end I just have to give up playing. I don't have this problem on regular 360 games which I guess are at a higher res.

Does anyone have any feedback on how this affects gameplay? I know alot of people are enjoying it but does anyone have any comparisons between the "Halo 2 on 360" experience and Halo 3? If Halo 3 is also fuzzy I don't want to buy it because it might give me the same ill feeling Halo 2 did.

Thanks

P.S. I have some of those Halo 3 screenies as my desktop and people at work are just agog at how nice they look.
 
I haven't really noticed jaggies. but then again. I don't look for them.

I'm just loving 4 player online coop fun
 
I played quite a bit of Halo 2 on the 360 and this blows it away. Anyone that thinks that Halo 3 is just Halo 2.5 or Halo 2 on the 360 is dumb. I've played it on a 22" lcd and a 51" hdtv and I love watching it/playing. The thing with screen shots is that they are still frames which tend to make things look either better or worse. To me this in motion is just beautiful, the colors, the models, etc.
 
rbanzai said:
I've been looking at the Halo 3 screenshots and they are really, really nice. I read that the game itself is not antialiased and saw some screenshots that reflected that.

They appeared to be almost as low res as Halo 2 played on the 360 and that got me concerned. When I try to play Halo 2 I actually start getting a headache from squinting to make out details that aren't really there and in the end I just have to give up playing. I don't have this problem on regular 360 games which I guess are at a higher res.

Does anyone have any feedback on how this affects gameplay? I know alot of people are enjoying it but does anyone have any comparisons between the "Halo 2 on 360" experience and Halo 3? If Halo 3 is also fuzzy I don't want to buy it because it might give me the same ill feeling Halo 2 did.

Thanks

P.S. I have some of those Halo 3 screenies as my desktop and people at work are just agog at how nice they look.
Click to expand...


Playing Halo 2 on the 360 made my eyes hurt as well. It's blurry due to the lower res and all that. Halo 3 is beautiful. It's not up with say, Gears of War but it's a very nice-looking game. It's not free of jaggies but they're not very noticeable in gameplay.
 
WOW, who cares? Its a great game. why waste time looking for little faults with it? What's the point? Do you really have that much of a lack of a life to actually devote this kind of time to jaggies?
 
To answer your question: yes, there are jaggies. The game isn't antialiased at all, and it's definitely noticeable.

That said, antialiasing has never ever bothered me, so it's no big deal to me, but I know it is for a lot of Xbox fanboys who always jump on PS3 games being jaggy and the like (except, now that it's on Halo 3, they seem to have forgotten about that... hmmm).
 
Halo 2 was dark and blurry on my Xbox360 as well. Halo 3 has nothing I'd complain about in terms of graphics.
 
IMO, Halo 3 is a jagged mess. This is playing on a 40" Samsung 1080p. There are parts in the game where it wants to show off expansive vistas, and for me it was impossible to not notice the insane stair-casing of distant sand dunes, bridges, etc. Overall, for me it detracted a lot from the game, but I'm a graphics whore... so take that for what it's worth.
 
I agree with the above post, in a lot of the far away scenes or when their trying to show character silhouettes it becomes painfully obvious how much there is a lack of AA. That isn't to say I didn't enjoy the game, the campaign was great and I'm loving the multiplayer just like in Halo and Halo 2.

Since we're discussing graphics though I have to agree with what has been said, it does not look as good as the screen shots and honestly is a letdown graphics wise compared to what iv'e seen the 360 is capable of. I see no reason AA could not have been used.

It's really disappointing when you realize that the game really is amazing and if they could apply the same AA they do when you take the screen shots the game would really be near perfect. Just hate to see all that hard work and then get so many negative comments on their engine due to one small thing.
 
Interesting feedback and I'm glad I wasn't the only one that had trouble with Halo 2 on the 360.

Like I said in my OP my concern about jaggies and resolution was not about aesthetics but about getting sick for some reason playing Halo 2 on the 360, an experience I didn't want to repeat with Halo 3.

This is encouraging. I'm going to head over to Best Buy this weekend and see if they have it on display.
 
I'm betting if they had live AA the frame rate would take too much of a hit or just be less stable.

Man.. I hope they bring this halo to PC faster than the did with the original.. It looks like it would be hella fun with a mouse :D
 
Timbowens said:
WOW, who cares? Its a great game. why waste time looking for little faults with it? What's the point? Do you really have that much of a lack of a life to actually devote this kind of time to jaggies?
Click to expand...

Why waste time posting in this thread? What's the point? Do YOU really have that much of a lack of a life to devote this kind of time to threadcrapping?

renixinq said:
I played quite a bit of Halo 2 on the 360 and this blows it away. Anyone that thinks that Halo 3 is just Halo 2.5 or Halo 2 on the 360 is dumb. I've played it on a 22" lcd and a 51" hdtv and I love watching it/playing. The thing with screen shots is that they are still frames which tend to make things look either better or worse. To me this in motion is just beautiful, the colors, the models, etc.
Click to expand...

QFT. Halo 3 looks so much better than Halo 2 (when both played on 360 with same equipment.) After having played GOW and other great-looking games on the 360, Halo 2 just looked old.

rbanzai said:
Interesting feedback and I'm glad I wasn't the only one that had trouble with Halo 2 on the 360.

Like I said in my OP my concern about jaggies and resolution was not about aesthetics but about getting sick for some reason playing Halo 2 on the 360, an experience I didn't want to repeat with Halo 3.

This is encouraging. I'm going to head over to Best Buy this weekend and see if they have it on display.
Click to expand...

No complaints here.;)
 
i actually play it on a 42 1080p tv at my local game shop and tought the exact same thing... i felt i could shave master chief face on those jaggies

game was fun for 20 minutes , i didnt play more
 
Never noticed them enough to affect my enjoyment of the game. I'm surprised that there's no AA... there seems to be some, if not major amounts.
 
The game's resolution is 640. Bungie confirmed this on their website. Jaggies are very appearant in almost every scene, every level, especially one's with large horizontal vista's. How could one not notice! They are HUGE in some levels.
 
Timbowens said:
WOW, who cares? Its a great game. why waste time looking for little faults with it? What's the point? Do you really have that much of a lack of a life to actually devote this kind of time to jaggies?
Click to expand...

Because beleive it or not, some people do like a game for game play, but also like decent graphics, YES a person can like both and not just one or the other, do you really lack that much of a life you need to go into threads and comment on other peoples lives, why not worry about your own life and not what others do with their time.

Considering the hype of the game and how power the 360 is and they cant even get ride of jaggies in this day in age.....
 
If it looks better than Halo 2, I would say it is an improvement. They obviously couldn't keep a high resolution or do AA simultaneously with the new lighting effects, so in order to keep the framerate higher they dumped some of the resolution. Arguing that it looks bad is pretty lame assuming it looks better overall than its predecessor.
 
How is argueing that it looks bad lame? that comment is lame.

making a game run @ 640 res if true is ridiculous in this day in age with the power these consoles have and for the money we spend to play these games that we are supposed to immerse ourselves into, sure game play is great, but if it was all about game play we would still be playing final fantasy III on SNES cause of all the people who say graphics dont matter at all, and those are the same people who buy 8800GTX and GTS for their rigs.. becuase you know, graphics dont matter and all after all.... :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

is the same as people who say looks dont matter in a person, is all BS, graphics DO matter to "some degree" and for some, having jaggies on an apparently revolutionary game for consoles kind of takes away from that feeling of greatest the game is supposed to provide you with.
 
I agree ..I'm all for having my cake and eating it too so to speak

game looks is a big part of the experience ..for me anyways.. I guess I'm getting spoiled 'cause anymore , if a game looks like garbage , I won't invest enough time into it to delve into it's "game play".... :(

 
Someone posted a picture of the tanks in Halo 1, 2, and 3 in side-by-side comparisons and the graphic improvements were very noticeable.

Were there jaggies? Yes.
Were the graphics still a big improvement over Halo 2? Yes.
 
Look.

I am also someone who puts lots of stock into a game's graphics. Yes, I love gameplay, but I also love a good-looking game.

That said, graphics aren't everything, fellas, and Halo 3's graphics are far from crap. Lack of AA does not put a game in the sewer, it simply makes it a game without AA. Yes, it is noticeable, but it isn't horrible. Bioshock didn't have AA on the 360 version either, but it didn't ruin it. Bungie probably could have snuck it in like they did with Gears of War, but then it wouldn't be Halo - they would probably have had to limit the size of the single-player environments in order to make it to work. They might even have had to limit the player size down to 8 like Gears.

People need to remember that they are playing this on a $350 console. It's obviously not going to be able to stand toe to toe with an 8800GTX or even a X1900XT. But when you compare it to top-of-the-line graphics cards from late 2004 / early 2005, it's comparable. My X850XT probably couldn't handle a game like Halo 3 with AA either, and it's not the fault of the devs that this is the case. For Bungie, it was probably a lose-lose situation; either put in AA and have people whine about the low framerate or leave AA out and have people complain about that.
 
The18thLetter said:
To answer your question: yes, there are jaggies. The game isn't antialiased at all, and it's definitely noticeable.

That said, antialiasing has never ever bothered me, so it's no big deal to me, but I know it is for a lot of Xbox fanboys who always jump on PS3 games being jaggy and the like (except, now that it's on Halo 3, they seem to have forgotten about that... hmmm).
Click to expand...

To correct your answer, there is a bug in the spring update for the 360, causing Halo 3 to have no AA, an update or falls update is planning to fix this
 
Timbowens said:
WOW, who cares? Its a great game. why waste time looking for little faults with it? What's the point? Do you really have that much of a lack of a life to actually devote this kind of time to jaggies?
Click to expand...

You obviously didn't take the time to read his post. He stated that Halo 2 on his 360 looks really blurry and thus, he has a hard time playing it. He was asking if Halo 3 was going to do the same thing to him.

:rolleyes:

I think the screenshots taken should reflect what you see while you play.
 
Yes. Pretty jaggy. Surprisingly enough though (for me), this game's not bad when you're playing with someone co-op in the same room with you.
 
it's weird but when playing on a non-HD tv there are NO jaggies whatsoever. when i'm playing on the HD the jaggies are apparent but by no means a deterent......unless you are the maxxed out grfx whore.

beautiful game.
 
Thats actually pretty common. A SDTV isn't as sharp as a HDTV so you don't notice jaggies as much. This is especially true with rca cables which can be pretty blurry.
 
Rozal0 said:
To correct your answer, there is a bug in the spring update for the 360, causing Halo 3 to have no AA, an update or falls update is planning to fix this
Click to expand...

Is that true? I hope they do release a fix soon, its October now...surely this is "fall" ?
 
Rozal0 said:
To correct your answer, there is a bug in the spring update for the 360, causing Halo 3 to have no AA, an update or falls update is planning to fix this
Click to expand...

Do you have a link somewhere supporting this? Not that I don't believe you, but I haven't seen this statement anywhere...
 
Xrave said:
Someone posted a picture of the tanks in Halo 1, 2, and 3 in side-by-side comparisons and the graphic improvements were very noticeable.

Were there jaggies? Yes.
Were the graphics still a big improvement over Halo 2? Yes.
Click to expand...

That'd probably be the thread I made. For anybody who hasn't seen it click here. Does the game have jaggies? Yes, it does. Though I don't think they're that bad. I've seen worse on consoles games, on previous gen-systems. Is the game still fun? I think so. I think it's the best Halo game of the three.
 
So you can get crappy ports from consoles that look bad no matter what settings you use :);)
 
The crappy almost annoying thing about this game is right when you take a in-game pic the system apply's 8xAA to it, you can even see the system applying the AA. Thats why everyones pics online look how they do.

Everyone is right, its a jaggy mess, worse the bigger tv that you have. No AA at all in the game. However, otherwise the graphics are awsome as heck, and model's have insane poly counts.
 
Halo 3 has jaggies. Do they significantly impact the viewing experience? No. People like to compare H3 to GoW, but the two games use the graphical horsepower of the 360 in very different ways. In GoW, you have a couple characters on screen, and levels with a tiny viewing area. In H3, you have MASSIVE levels, tonnes of characters on screen, stuff going on in the background, etc. There are areas where you're fighting the Covenant on the ground, while massive battles occur above your head in the sky. In the outdoor areas, you can see for miles in every direction. They could have made the game look like GoW - but this is Halo, not GoW.
 
I played it and it wasn't too great in graphics. It was really jaggy compared to the rest of the games i have played. Even 2x antialiasing would have helped a lot. The levels and stuff were ok but it just didn't seem like it was that great like all the hype was saying about it.
 
Conker said:
I played it and it wasn't too great in graphics. It was really jaggy compared to the rest of the games i have played. Even 2x antialiasing would have helped a lot. The levels and stuff were ok but it just didn't seem like it was that great like all the hype was saying about it.
Click to expand...

Yes, and we all know that if it were for Wii you would think it's better than Jesus.

There are a lot of jaggies in this game, but it doesn't detract from the gameplay as far as I am concerned. If you look through the jaggies the models are well done It's still disappointing since this was supposed to be the graphical high watermark for this generation of 360 games.
 
Rozal0 said:
To correct your answer, there is a bug in the spring update for the 360, causing Halo 3 to have no AA, an update or falls update is planning to fix this
Click to expand...

Sounds like a strange "bug". Even still the game runs at 1138x640 or so, and AA won't help all that much, since you'll need 4x to clean up a low resolution like that.
 
I did split screen Co-Op on a 42" TV and basically we kept moving closer and closer to the TV because it's really hard to pick out any details. Basically it's pretty messy and everything in the distance bleeds together (read half the distance than you can throw a grenade without jumping or anything fancy). We got to the second to last level in 4 hours of play, and we pretty much have no intention of finishing or playing single player.
 
IcedEmotion said:
Yes, and we all know that if it were for Wii you would think it's better than Jesus.

There are a lot of jaggies in this game, but it doesn't detract from the gameplay as far as I am concerned. If you look through the jaggies the models are well done It's still disappointing since this was supposed to be the graphical high watermark for this generation of 360 games.
Click to expand...

lol i like the wii and 360 and pc. Wii doesn't compete really in graphics but in gameplay. Just comparing to pc games since its suppose to be in HD res. If the game was in a higher resolution i'm sure the jaggies wouldn't have happened so badly like everyone is making it out to be. The game wasn't that great in the graphical department but it has pretty good game play multiplayer. Other than that its just average.
 
Killdozer said:
I did split screen Co-Op on a 42" TV and basically we kept moving closer and closer to the TV because it's really hard to pick out any details. Basically it's pretty messy and everything in the distance bleeds together (read half the distance than you can throw a grenade without jumping or anything fancy). We got to the second to last level in 4 hours of play, and we pretty much have no intention of finishing or playing single player.
Click to expand...
I have to say that something's really wrong with your TV in that case... I've played it on SDTV, HDTV and a projector and I've never seen any issues with blurring / loss of detail.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top