> Canon should never come before gameplay and aesthetic design, especially with such a trivial issue as weapon model designation. The MA5B remake right now is ripped straight from Halo 3 and as has been illustrated already, poorly so. The pistol is also identical to the Halo 3 model currently beyond new textures. Is this what you want to spend money on?
Thats the confusing part. Why cant they remodel the weapons for themselfs? No, they only ripping Halo3 models (the 3rd persion model AR lol) and putting them in CE. Thaats bad. And i hope its fixed in the next trailer from CEA (at Halofest)
> Do you know why this is? Because the one in the most recent trailer is from Halo 3, a game released years before Reach. There has been no change in the actual model from Halo 3 as of now. The Assault Rifle is an even more egregious fault, using the third person model in the first person view, leading to an appearance of less detail than even Halo 3.
>
> Lastly, saying that these less detailed models are staying true to the original is patently false. Do you not believe that the iterations Bungie did were conscious updates to the classic models? For better or worse, they are the creators of the series and by far the most “potent” authority on the issue. To accept a less detailed and visually impressive game in the name of a weapon designation, a few meaningless words, is nothing but slavish fanboyism.
Nice to find someone with knowlodge here too
Here is a screen for ur nice written part:
> and some people are talking how unuseful the halo 1 AR is… but in this video you will see it isn’t unuseful …
>
> - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eSnWZcPM2zE&feature=related
>
> i remember with a full magazine ma5c in halo 3 i cant kill a brute on legendary… o.O
> but with the ma5b i can red elites kill, like in the video… so…
>
> if youre not an assault rifle fanguy, then pls dont post here some bulls**t … sry
Nobody is talking about the magazine size. We are talking about the models. the 3d model that u see.
Hopefully the MA37 was just place-holder. They were using an older build at Comic-Con, so it’s not un-likely that it’ll be replaced with an updated MA5B. Maybe the same with the Army Troopers filling-in for the Marines as place-holders? I don’t know. Still, they have about 3 months to go, it’s not impossible to make it close to the original, but still look good.
Really, why do we have so many Assault Rifles in the Canon?
> The current models that replaced the Reach versions are still canonically incorrect. The Assault Rifle between Halo: CE and Halo 3 changed model designations which can be clearly seen based on differences between them (such as holding only 32 rounds instead of 60). The Pistol is actually the same, with the Magnum in Halo 3 having a different designation and different characteristics from the original Halo: CE Pistol. Yet here we are, with those defending the canonical explanation arguing those are the correct models for the weapons. They’re not. If they’re not placeholders, they’re just as wrong as the Reach versions are. Did you know that the Reach Pistol and the Pistol in the Grunt Funeral Skull trailer are actually the same designation, neither of which are the same as the original?
>
> As for canon being more important than aesthetics, how does that apply to a game which is made solely as a graphical update? Read the interviews, watch the videos they release. This game is being done to see what Halo: CE would look and play like in 2011 instead of 2001. To stay true to the original, they kept the underlying gameplay engine the same but added the new graphics layer. Because of this, the focus is now on the visual presentation. If the weapons function identically, what does it matter if they retcon the design?
>
> For example, the Halo: Reach model is much more detailed than the current Pistol, regardless of texturing. Do you know why this is? Because the one in the most recent trailer is from Halo 3, a game released years before Reach. There has been no change in the actual model from Halo 3 as of now. The Assault Rifle is an even more egregious fault, using the third person model in the first person view, leading to an appearance of less detail than even Halo 3.
>
> Lastly, saying that these less detailed models are staying true to the original is patently false. Do you not believe that the iterations Bungie did were conscious updates to the classic models? For better or worse, they are the creators of the series and by far the most “potent” authority on the issue. To accept a less detailed and visually impressive game in the name of a weapon designation, a few meaningless words, is nothing but slavish fanboyism.
Actually, the pistol from Reach is the same designation as the pistol from Halo 3. The grunt funeral skull is a completely different pistol, you can clearly tell the difference by the scope bit on the end of the barrel. The Halo 3 pistol has a larger shaped scope than the CE:A one, which is a thinner design. The pistol is accurate.
The AR could use some work, it looks fine apart from the cocking handle, which isn’t detailed enough. On what grounds are you making the claim that it’s ripped from the Halo 3 model? They both look the same, the only obvious difference is the length of the barrel, which we haven’t even seen yet.
if u guys want a PERFECT recreation of the EXACT AR model, play it in classic mode. the only way its gonna be the “correct” AR is if its the exact model as halo ce. with that said, the guns are going to look slightly different because 343 is re-imagining them. the halo reach AR was a placeholder. the 3rd person halo 3 AR is a placeholder. they did that to get a feel of how the CE AR will look in the final game. WE HAVE NOT SEEN THE FINAL GAME!
the final game will look like a 2011 version of the old game. they are constructing their own AR model with their own AR textures. its safe to say the same for the marines, pistol, etc. also safe to say that said models will all have a high polygon count. hence the word “modern”. they aren’t stupid. they know how to make games better than most, if not all, of us here. they aren’t going to botch up the original look or feel, and they most certainly won’t make the rookie mistake of allowing such a low polygon model into their version of this game.
as for canon, they won’t mess that up either. look at the graphic upgrades they have already done. they didn’t mess up canon there. the only thing people complain about is the weapons, marines, vehicles, etc. u don’t see complaints about the rocks, the trees, the water, or the skybox. thats because the weapons, marines etc. are among the last things for them to work on, and they haven’t finished them yet. i understand everyones concern, as i have a few of my own, but lets wait to see the final product before we complain about how much 343i screwed up halo ce.
I’m about to say something crazy here, but who knows, 343 might ACTUALLY get it right. we, as a united halo community, should give them the faith and trust they deserve (and need) to make this game right.
> > The current models that replaced the Reach versions are still canonically incorrect. The Assault Rifle between Halo: CE and Halo 3 changed model designations which can be clearly seen based on differences between them (such as holding only 32 rounds instead of 60). The Pistol is actually the same, with the Magnum in Halo 3 having a different designation and different characteristics from the original Halo: CE Pistol. Yet here we are, with those defending the canonical explanation arguing those are the correct models for the weapons. They’re not. If they’re not placeholders, they’re just as wrong as the Reach versions are. Did you know that the Reach Pistol and the Pistol in the Grunt Funeral Skull trailer are actually the same designation, neither of which are the same as the original?
> >
> > As for canon being more important than aesthetics, how does that apply to a game which is made solely as a graphical update? Read the interviews, watch the videos they release. This game is being done to see what Halo: CE would look and play like in 2011 instead of 2001. To stay true to the original, they kept the underlying gameplay engine the same but added the new graphics layer. Because of this, the focus is now on the visual presentation. If the weapons function identically, what does it matter if they retcon the design?
> >
> > For example, the Halo: Reach model is much more detailed than the current Pistol, regardless of texturing. Do you know why this is? Because the one in the most recent trailer is from Halo 3, a game released years before Reach. There has been no change in the actual model from Halo 3 as of now. The Assault Rifle is an even more egregious fault, using the third person model in the first person view, leading to an appearance of less detail than even Halo 3.
> >
> > Lastly, saying that these less detailed models are staying true to the original is patently false. Do you not believe that the iterations Bungie did were conscious updates to the classic models? For better or worse, they are the creators of the series and by far the most “potent” authority on the issue. To accept a less detailed and visually impressive game in the name of a weapon designation, a few meaningless words, is nothing but slavish fanboyism.
>
> Actually, the pistol from Reach is the same designation as the pistol from Halo 3. The grunt funeral skull is a completely different pistol, you can clearly tell the difference by the scope bit on the end of the barrel. The Halo 3 pistol has a larger shaped scope than the CE:A one, which is a thinner design. The pistol is accurate.
>
> The AR could use some work, it looks fine apart from the cocking handle, which isn’t detailed enough. On what grounds are you making the claim that it’s ripped from the Halo 3 model? They both look the same, the only obvious difference is the length of the barrel, which we haven’t even seen yet.
And if you compare the Halo 3 pistol and the Anniversary one with Halo CE, the Anniversary one has the same shape, just more polygons, only problem is that the detail on the back pops in and out but that will probably be fixed. Now why can’t they do the same thing with the AR, or at least use the first person Halo 3 model and not the third person one. If you look at it he is holding the AR in a different way than in the original, which he shouldn’t be and that probably also ads to the weirdness.
i think they should stay with the original CE cuz im not a fan of the reach version because its ugly as hell and it was a prototype and they werent prototypes in CE
Why is everyone here talking as if the game has already been released? Something I missed?
To those you are saying that a retcon of the model doesn’t matter, you should know those who care about canon take it extremely seriously, and if the MA5B was released looking like the MA37, these forums would be full of people calling 343 out on it. The Halo universe has experienced several retcons in recent months, and it sure as hell doesn’t need any more at this point.
The MA5B is simpler in design to the MA37. An AR doesn’t have to be all rough along the edges in order to match current generation graphics. The MA5B is sleek and smooth along the edges, yet bulky in respect to it’s core shape. Reach’s rifle has been described as slightly more of a skelenton version of the AR seen in Combat Evolved and Halo 3. That’s my take on it anyway.
I think the MA5B seen in the Grunt Funeral Skull pre-order video looked absolutely fine. I’m glad that 343i have made it look like a graphically updated version of the original MA5B. They’re doing exactly what I expect of them.
> > > Canon should never come before gameplay and aesthetic design, especially with such a trivial issue as weapon model designation. The MA5B remake right now is ripped straight from Halo 3 and as has been illustrated already, poorly so. The pistol is also identical to the Halo 3 model currently beyond new textures. Is this what you want to spend money on? Because those assets have currently undergone zero improvements since Halo 3, a game released in 2007. The more information that comes out concerning Anniversary, the more it appears to be a cheap cash-in.
> >
> > It’s a remake of Halo 1 with better graphics, it’s not a reimagination, they must stick to what they already have. If not, they’ll piss off people who like Combat Evolved as well.
> > And is an assault rifle’s design so important?
>
> Just to make sure you understand, the current models for the Assault Rifle and Pistol in the trailer are actually directly ripped from Halo 3. The Assault Rifle as was illustrated earlier has been ripped from the wrong person perspective (third person as compared to the first person), lending to its even less detailed than normal look. The Pistol is identical to the Halo 3 Magnum in its model and has only been retextured as of now. These are models that were made pre-2007 being inserted into a game scheduled for a 2011 release.
>
> To further drive home my point, the largest change for this release is that the game is being graphically redone and updated. How can you call this an update or blame the new graphics engine for using a model from Halo 3? If we want to be really technical, the model in Halo 3 is actually a different canonical designation than the one from Halo: CE; so is the Magnum model they’re using. But again, keep this in mind: They are using models directly ripped from Halo 3; models that are years old at this point and of the wrong designation (this eliminates canon being important) for a game that is focusing primarily on improving visuals.
>
> Does the cash-in value of this game strike you yet?
> After seeing the CEA Demo on YouTube, I can say that even though we’ve barely seen the Grunt Funeral’s AR in action, the Reach Assault Rifle looks FAR better, and FAR more fun to use. The same goes for the Pistol TIMES TEN.
That’s like saying if I have cooler looking armor I’ll have more fun. I disagree that if it looks better, its more fun to use. I prefer the old weapons as I went eww when I saw the Reach Ar in CEA as it looked out of place.
> > most of the gameplay that was shown in the e3 trailer and the comic con gameplay had weapon placeholders.
> > (and hopefully marine placeholders).
> >
> >
> > Source; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4REO4uKkYXY <<< Grunt Funeral Skull trailer
> > you can see the AR and pistol looks more like the ones in Halo ce.
>
> Are you sure you want the marines to change? If they’re changed to what they’re supposed to be, then we will get all kinds of stupid complaints about how they aren’t as detailed and they look boring.
the only think i don’t like about the marine that ive seen gameplay so far, is that one they’re army troops not marines.
the 2nd reason why i dont like them is that they all look the same, while there was a number of different models of the marines in Halo ce.
