I see a lot of people saying that Halo 4 and 5 have ugly skyboxes while 3 has better ones. This isn’t me trying to say: “Ha! You’re wrong!” I just want to post some pics and then let you decide what you think looks better.
Halo 3’s skyboxes look simple, they have some stars, clouds, or pieces of the ark in the background.
On the other hand, it looks like 343 tried to give Halo 4’s skyboxes a little more ‘omph’ to them by adding larger, more noticeable objects in them like planets and spaceships.
I like them both, but there’s just more to look at in 343’s skyboxes.
I’m not saying that they are bad (obviously a lot of effort was put into them), but the skyboxes of Halo 4 and Halo 5 just don’t leave any real impression on me. For many of them the focus seems to be on impressing the user with quantity / presence of objects (“look at the gigantic robot, look at the ships that roll in and out every so often”, etc).
Ultimately it comes down to this for me. Sure, that Guardian skybox has a giant robot, but what is around the giant robot? A pretty uniform colored sky.
Compare that to the Ark in Halo 3. A bright, cloudy sky above rolling sand dunes, and you can see our galaxy as well as many other twinkling stars in the distance.
Both art styles are absolutely wonderful, and I wouldn’t dare pick one over the other.
Halo 3 focuses on light details, poetic stylising, and pastel colors; beauty in subtlety.
Halo 4 and 5 took a more rambunctious approach, filling the spaces with awesomely crafted set pieces, and an abundant amount of heavy detail, using more contrast and bright colors; beauty in detail.
Neither is better than the other, it all depends on how you subjectively feel about the styles, and how it makes you perceive emotion.
why choose nearly all campaign for halo 3? this this this this this this
represent halo 3, simple, does not compete with the playspace and further solidifies the theme of the map this this this this this this
many of the halo 4 maps are just blue skies or supernovas and because of the image based lighting it just creates glare this this this this
is still just following that same problem of too much glare, near-black shadows and washed out colours.
depends on what you’re into but it seems you’re more pointing towards the graphical fidelity of an 8 year difference rather than the style and implementation
> 2533274836395701;5:
> why choose nearly all campaign for halo 3?
> this
> this
> this
> this
> this
> this
> represent halo 3, simple, does not compete with the playspace and further solidifies the theme of the map
> this
> this
> this
> this
> this
> this
> many of the halo 4 maps are just blue skies or supernovas and because of the image based lighting it just creates glare
> this
> this
> this
> this
> is still just following that same problem of too much glare, near-black shadows and washed out colours.
>
> depends on what you’re into but it seems you’re more pointing towards the graphical fidelity of an 8 year difference rather than the style and implementation
I was trying to find more pictures to show off the skyboxes, not the maps themselves.
Deciding which skybox is “better” is essentially your opinion. People like different things and so, people will each have a different skybox they like. But from a technical standpoint, halo 4 has the better skyboxes. When you look at them, they look real (obviously you can zoom in and see the flaws). But with the older Halo’s, you can see how fake they look at a glance. You can see that its just a picture, or a painting most of the time.
Now obviously we’re not counting Halo 2 Anniversary multiplayer right? Because the skybox for Ascension is just beautiful and blows everything else out of the water
> 2764486378417919;9:
> Deciding which skybox is “better” is essentially your opinion. People like different things and so, people will each have a different skybox they like. But from a technical standpoint, halo 4 has the better skyboxes. When you look at them, they look real (obviously you can zoom in and see the flaws). But with the older Halo’s, you can see how fake they look at a glance. You can see that its just a picture, or a painting most of the time.
>
> Now obviously we’re not counting Halo 2 Anniversary multiplayer right? Because the skybox for Ascension is just beautiful and blows everything else out of the water
>
> http://teambeyond.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/e3-2014-halo-2-anniversary-ascension-establishing-air-time-f4b6088f5048485f90eb45b0b51f7d64.jpg
Thanks, I appreciate it. I’m used to associating lens flare with just the horizontal beams.
I guess I have to say I like that form of lens flare, but only in small doses.
> 2533274819302824;3:
> I’m not saying that they are bad (obviously a lot of effort was put into them), but the skyboxes of Halo 4 and Halo 5 just don’t leave any real impression on me. For many of them the focus seems to be on impressing the user with quantity / presence of objects (“look at the gigantic robot, look at the ships that roll in and out every so often”, etc).
I think this is applies to everyone of us who are criticizing the art of 343i. The skyboxes aren’t bad, but they’re not memorable either. And really, it’s not just about the skyboxes. Let’s be honest here, when we look at the pictures, our opinion is necessarily impacted by the rest of the scene, probably even the mood of the map/level. I certainly don’t think the skybox of Epitaph is an artistic master piece by itself. It’s just desert and brown clouds. However, if the skybox was changed to an empty Forerunner city, it would not have the same effect. The place wouldn’t feel quite so desolate.
> 2533274825830455;12:
> > 2533274819302824;3:
> > I’m not saying that they are bad (obviously a lot of effort was put into them), but the skyboxes of Halo 4 and Halo 5 just don’t leave any real impression on me. For many of them the focus seems to be on impressing the user with quantity / presence of objects (“look at the gigantic robot, look at the ships that roll in and out every so often”, etc).
>
>
> I think this is applies to everyone of us who are criticizing the art of 343i. The skyboxes aren’t bad, but they’re not memorable either. And really, it’s not just about the skyboxes. Let’s be honest here, when we look at the pictures, our opinion is necessarily impacted by the rest of the scene, probably even the mood of the map/level. I certainly don’t think the skybox of Epitaph is an artistic master piece by itself. It’s just desert and brown clouds. However, if the skybox was changed to an empty Forerunner city, it would not have the same effect. The place wouldn’t feel quite so desolate.
This is a good point. It’s so easy for people to look at each piece individually instead of looking at the whole picture.
I’ve gotta say, Reach killed it with the skyboxes. I think it kind of found the middle ground between the artistic simplicity of Halo 3 and the detailed spectrum of Halo 4 and 5.
I’d post a link if I could, but just a quick look at the skyboxes of campaign missions such as The Pillar of Autumn and The Package as well as the multiplayer maps Highlands and in particular, the absolute serenity of Tempest, will reveal how well Bungie and Certain Affinity (for the map packs) pulled off the art in the sky back in 2010.
This whole “Older Halos look better” bandwagon has to honestly be one of the dumber trends from what I hope to god are the trolls. I made an audible facepalm when I read that first guy’s post. I especially like that now there’s solid proof that 343’s Halos look better, the goal posts have conveniently been moved to “Oh, but Halo 3 has a more simplistic design; there’s just too much in Halo 4.”… Yes, I’m sooo sure that Bungie chose to go with that “simplistic” design, and weren’t limited by now-obsolete technology… Let’s be honest ― if Halo 3 could have looked like Halo 4, it would have, and you would all be praising it now.
I think they are both great! All of them suit their setting. I dont see elements missing from neither Bungie’s Halo nor 343’s Halo. Halo has always had beautiful skyboxes no matter the creator. It just makes Halo …“Halo”
Here’s a little test I’d like for you guys to perform on your memory. Seeing as how people say That 343’s skyboxes weren’t memorable. What was in the sky for each level? without looking at pictures. What time of day. Cloudy or No. anything specific in the sky? (no need for level names either)
Then tell me what the Halo 4 sky(boxes) had. what time of day, cloudy or no. etc. No need for level names again.
Halo 3 for me is a game I did play A LOT of. It was also the Xbox 360’s first Halo game. So it left its mark on a lot of us. But using words like “Memorable” is far from what I would use on Halo 3’s skyboxes. May I suggest a different term if you really cant remember? Fitting perhaps. Setting a mood. I personally prefer a lot of detail but Atmosphere is also not something you can overlook. (Like the Halo 3 multiplayer map with the Sattelite dishes. that is still one of my favourite maps for mood and atmosphere.
> 2533274833600810;1:
> I see a lot of people saying that Halo 4 and 5 have ugly skyboxes while 3 has better ones.
Where do people say that? (no offense, just wondering)
I never read that. All I read is that they like the general art style of H3 more then H4s/H5s.
i have to say that I also almost never look at the skyboxes to be honest after reading this thread.
> 2533274818521550;19:
> > 2533274833600810;1:
> > I see a lot of people saying that Halo 4 and 5 have ugly skyboxes while 3 has better ones.
>
>
> Where do people say that? (no offense, just wondering)
> I never read that. All I read is that they like the general art style of H3 more then H4s/H5s.
> i have to say that I also almost never look at the skyboxes to be honest after reading this thread.
I’ve been seeing it on here a lot lately. It’s not even just about the skyboxes.
