> 2533274844984484;3:
> “I don’t like all these colours, make everything dark, brown and unimaginative.”
>
> The halo 5 armour does have light scuffs and scratches on it. it doesn’t have any major damage because only an idiot would go into battle with broken gear. And I like the colour the original trilogy was plenty colourful.
That is going in my sig. You pretty much just straight up demolished all these worn armor arguments.
<mark>This post has been edited by a moderator. Please do not post about forum moderation decisions. If you have a question or concern about a forum moderation decision, please private message the applicable moderator.</mark>
*Original post. Click at your own discretion.
I agree with this uploaders post. Totally. Can’t believe ppl are being muzzled for having an opinion that the under 18 year old admins of this page disagree with. Makes u wonder weather 343 got any REAL feedback at all from this page
> 2535411327295626;30:
>
How many accounts does this one make?
<mark>This post has been edited by a moderator. Please do not create alternate accounts to bypass forum bans. Alternate accounts will be permanently banned, and offending users will be subject to both temporary and permanent bans.</mark>
*Original post. Click at your own discretion.
Can’t agree more with this post,
while halo reach was a bit too dull too often. IF you took reaches realism and combined it with what halo 5 have already done that would be amazing.
> 2535411327295626;32:
>
You should get a life instead of flooding every thread with your incredibly ignorant posts. I never understood why someone would waste their time to come onto a video game forum, to do nothing but bash it for something like colors and armor design. IMO H4 had superior art to any of the other Halo games. Now good day, sir. I’m done feeding the troll.
> 2533274819302824;29:
> > 2533274844984484;3:
> > “I don’t like all these colours, make everything dark, brown and unimaginative.”
> >
> > The halo 5 armour does have light scuffs and scratches on it. it doesn’t have any major damage because only an idiot would go into battle with broken gear. And I like the colour the original trilogy was plenty colourful.
>
>
> That is going in my sig. You pretty much just straight up demolished all these worn armor arguments.
Could you include my name e.g.
“The halo 5 armour does have light scuffs and scratches on it. it doesn’t have any major damage because only an idiot would go into battle with broken gear.” - JOLTLORD
Represent JOLTLORD!
I’m not even being sarcastic. Halo bro’s (girls can be bros too) gotta stick together.
On topic: I like the new art direction, mind you, the colours on the Spartan armour was a bit washed out in Halo 4 especially.
I have a theory that the way Spartan models were receiving shadows from environments(or not, to be precise) further impacted the colour sceme but that’s just that; a theory. This could be a design choice to make it easier to spot your opponents in low-light conditions.
I felt that the Halo 5 beta did a much better job of mixing the Spartans into the scene, but it made it hard to spot Blue Team at times.
343 have stated that they are working on improving visibility so I expect that this will no longer be an issue.
As long as the pastel colours go, I don’t care.
> 2533274819302824;29:
> > 2533274844984484;3:
> > “I don’t like all these colours, make everything dark, brown and unimaginative.”
> >
> > The halo 5 armour does have light scuffs and scratches on it. it doesn’t have any major damage because only an idiot would go into battle with broken gear. And I like the colour the original trilogy was plenty colourful.
>
>
> That is going in my sig. You pretty much just straight up demolished all these worn armor arguments.
Going in with broken armor would be so stupid, could you COUGH imagine it?
I’m still trying to figure out the two more serious Halo games are more “cartoony”
than the originals.
The covenant is described as the Grunts and Jackals eating humans. In game, Grunts run away crying for help and Jackals run away with their hands covering their head. Grunts are described as communicating somewhat like dogs. In game, they sound like Verne Troyer. Brutes are supposed to be ferocious and brutal but you never see that in game. In Halo 3, if you pop off their armor, they run straight at you just yelling.
The Prometheans never had those kiddy reactions. Instead of letting you get close to melee, they basically -Yoink- slapped the hell out you. Their attack patterns had more variety than the same enemies you fought for over a decade.
Still don’t see how map design in multiplayer makes the whole game cartoony. That logic is escaping me.
> 2533274894863132;19:
> > I think reach was going for a simple functionality
> > over style, these are war machines not parade floats. Reach and odst had a great simple utilitarian feel that fits the halo universe very well, and the environments in reach I found to be the most naturalistic.
> > don’t get me wrong I think halo 4 had the best forrunner structures and lighting was the best but the external areas like the plants and rocks looked cartoonish and did not match the realism
> > of the other elements in the game.
> > reach had a great balance between these elements that showed a real eye for naturalistic design.
> > flamboyance is fine for the covenant since there philosophy is religious, much like the baroque designs found in medieval and renaissance churches but unsc designs should appear functional like modern military gear.
>
>
> A cylinder rather than a designed shape is not more functional. Adding giant attachments to a magnum is not more functional. Increasing protrusion of vents, thus increasing area to get hit without reflecting a bullet along with areas to pool heat is not more functional.
> Randomly adding lights was never how the covenant expressed their flamboyant designed, elites built stranger physical gear, addorned fabric, and had specially made weapons, as seen in halo 2 chancellors, halo wars’ arbiter cape and special energy sword handle, and now with the prophets bane and arbiters new armor. The arbiters armor in general shows that they used physical designs to show specialty. The brutes armor having lights made even smaller sense, the brutes armor was supposed to look simplistic and brutal, not with smooth curves, complex designs, and lights. Their champion vehicle was a big wheel with borrowed forerunner hover tech, this race would not have special lights on their armor. This was a lazy design idea.
> The environments in reach were not done well, it felt too convenient, far too many directly right upward angles, which should only be done in small amounts, but almost every natural section lead to an extreme angle at some point, which shows absolute complete lazyness. Look at the picture of powerhouse, it literally looks like they had a flat area and just dragged the land up. In this presumably excavated area, why was the floor so flat, and why was the area uptop also flat? surely this unattended section of land would be morphed by rain and wind to be patchy, to have crack, with plumets and rises of terrain? Nope, just flat. They probably thought “only people with jetpacks will see this anyway” these same people responsible for the best skyboxes and backgrounds in video games. Simply shameful.
> The city’s were bland, those buildings felt absolutely pointless, unlike odst. There was no sense of direction, what city is designed around the philosophy of sections that lead to balconies with nothing else? Where were the stores, the police stations, the buildings being raided, the areas meant for city personel. How did those people get around? surely they have personal ships, where were they? Window washing platforms? Were those buildings just citys without homes, police, or variation? Just door textures, an occasional food stand, an elevator to a ground floor that leads to an outside area with jetpacks inside a chain fence that leads to unfinished poles with platforms: whatthe -Yoink- was that even supposed to be? “Yeah go to the tenth floor Tom, no, not the one with a foodstand around no other businesses, the one with the balcony that leads to a chain fence and jetpacks, you know, incase you need to jet pack to the building over there. What? Just make a bridge?.. Shut the -Yoink- up Tom, jetpacks are better.” Reachs city design was embarrassing.
alot of this is pure opinion not fact, but I have to say that things like the flat platforms on the buildings were helipads. Helicopters seemed to be a pretty common mode of transport so they do make sense.
also judging by the giant sloped mountain in the background it is clear reach had some kind of violent geologic past so the strange hills and valleys make sense.
as for the lights on their uniforms this I agree makes no sense so I just assume they are infra red markers for unit Id that the Spartans can see with their visors’. All the games seem to want lights on their soldiers these days.
I need to say I am not a halo 4 or 343 hater, there were things in halo 4 that did look amazing but there was an uneven balance to the art design. The forerunner structures looked amazing, the space station looked amazing, the first view of requiem when you step out of the forward unto dawn wreckage was breathtaking( this was the most halo feeling moment in the game for me), the people were looked amazing the best of any halo yet.
what bothered me were the desert and jungle levels, they did not have visual consistency with the other elements in the game. They looked like they were from a different game and did not match the realism of the other designs.
reach and halo 1-3 may seem more cartoony now but that was due to hardware limitations.
those games did have design consistency where forest and forrunner structures seemed to co exist in the same world.
I consider myself an art guy so the best way to describe it is imagine a comic book drawn by a guy with a very distinctive art style, he draws the book from cover to cover. This book would have a sense of unity. This is how I see reach and halo 1-3.
now imagine a comic book that is done by a group of different art styles(like the halo graphic novel ironically) so every chapter is visually different, not bad just inconsistent. This is what halo 4 felt like to me. Interiors and structures felt realistic, natural formations and outdoor areas felt cartoony.
I hope this clarifies my stance on the subject .
> alot of this is pure opinion not fact, but I have to say that things like the flat platforms on the buildings were helipads. Helicopters seemed to be a pretty common mode of transport so they do make sense.
> also judging by the giant sloped mountain in the background it is clear reach had some kind of violent geologic past so the strange hills and valleys make sense.
> as for the lights on their uniforms this I agree makes no sense so I just assume they are infra red markers for unit Id that the Spartans can see with their visors’. All the games seem to want lights on their soldiers these days.
>
> I need to say I am not a halo 4 or 343 hater, there were things in halo 4 that did look amazing but there was an uneven balance to the art design. The forerunner structures looked amazing, the space station looked amazing, the first view of requiem when you step out of the forward unto dawn wreckage was breathtaking( this was the most halo feeling moment in the game for me), the people were looked amazing the best of any halo yet.
> what bothered me were the desert and jungle levels, they did not have visual consistency with the other elements in the game. They looked like they were from a different game and did not match the realism of the other designs.
>
> reach and halo 1-3 may seem more cartoony now but that was due to hardware limitations.
> those games did have design consistency where forest and forrunner structures seemed to co exist in the same world.
> I consider myself an art guy so the best way to describe it is imagine a comic book drawn by a guy with a very distinctive art style, he draws the book from cover to cover. This book would have a sense of unity. This is how I see reach and halo 1-3.
> now imagine a comic book that is done by a group of different art styles(like the halo graphic novel ironically) so every chapter is visually different, not bad just inconsistent. This is what halo 4 felt like to me. Interiors and structures felt realistic, natural formations and outdoor areas felt cartoony.
> I hope this clarifies my stance on the subject .
I don’t see how requiems forest wasn’t realistic, it was the most realistic forest in halo. I felt like there were animals in those bushes. The only thing I have against it was that it wasn’t visually clear, but neither are real forest. I believe the approaches are different, neither is necessarily more or less realistic in interpretation. Halo 3s forests felt like a bob ross painting, while halo 4 felt like a Vietnam documentary. I got the feeling with halo three that the artists wanted to make a mountain with a waterfall, a trail with a lake, a cave with cascading light, but halo 4 felt unlike a setpiece, it had a bunch of fallen trees and plants, grooms of mushrooms and muddy puddles, confusing amounts of leaves that lended to a grove of heavy plant growth that could not happen on earth, whereas on halo 1-3 it was that there’s either an -L- shape design or a -U- shape design; inwhich an L shape leads to a rock wall or built structure, with a path leading to a cliff or water, whereas the U shaped areas where eithet double rock walls or a combination of rock and built structure: practically every natural area reaches that design philosophy, but halo 4 used trees and heavy foliage as walls, with log paths to vertical areas, creating a new shape, the -=- or -_-, which were log paths that allowed for drop off or staying up high. Reqiuems forests felt like a natural progression and an alien forest, not earth, that is an important detail, it isn’t supposed to look like earth. I liked it, though the rocky areas were quite bland in my opinion. Also, halo ce has the most cartoony islands I’ve ever seen, and halo two was just bleugh with nature, though I highly appreciate the fact that the angles are not such that they appeared as walls, nor did they do so, allowing for climbing up to the top of the map, skipping areas if you could think out the box.
Also, speaking of inconsistency, my point on the reach environments is not that it was effected by the environment as the background had shown, it was that it didn’t. In this violently eroded area, there’s just randomly flat grass on top of an excavated area. That makes no sense whatsoever.
Also, putting helicopter landing pads at different heights and right next to eachother seems like horrible architecture, that seems like a helicopters thrust would push outward and brush other helicopters off of their platforms. Also, if they were landing pads, why didn’t they lead to the buildings? there was no connection. Do the pilots land and then jetpack to the building over the twenty foot gap? then why not make a landing pad on the buildings themselves? That’s not a good reason.
> 2535411327295626;32:
> This post has been edited by a moderator. Please do not create alternate accounts to bypass forum bans. Alternate accounts will be permanently banned, and offending users will be subject to both temporary and permanent bans.
>
> *Original post. Click at your own discretion.
> I agree with this uploaders post. Totally. Can’t believe ppl are being muzzled for having an opinion that the under 18 year old admins of this page disagree with. Makes u wonder weather 343 got any REAL feedback at all from this page
Holy crap man. Even when you come back with new accounts your comments are still completely asinine…
> 2533274894863132;40:
> > alot of this is pure opinion not fact, but I have to say that things like the flat platforms on the buildings were helipads. Helicopters seemed to be a pretty common mode of transport so they do make sense.
> > also judging by the giant sloped mountain in the background it is clear reach had some kind of violent geologic past so the strange hills and valleys make sense.
> > as for the lights on their uniforms this I agree makes no sense so I just assume they are infra red markers for unit Id that the Spartans can see with their visors’. All the games seem to want lights on their soldiers these days.
> >
> > I need to say I am not a halo 4 or 343 hater, there were things in halo 4 that did look amazing but there was an uneven balance to the art design. The forerunner structures looked amazing, the space station looked amazing, the first view of requiem when you step out of the forward unto dawn wreckage was breathtaking( this was the most halo feeling moment in the game for me), the people were looked amazing the best of any halo yet.
> > what bothered me were the desert and jungle levels, they did not have visual consistency with the other elements in the game. They looked like they were from a different game and did not match the realism of the other designs.
> >
> > reach and halo 1-3 may seem more cartoony now but that was due to hardware limitations.
> > those games did have design consistency where forest and forrunner structures seemed to co exist in the same world.
> > I consider myself an art guy so the best way to describe it is imagine a comic book drawn by a guy with a very distinctive art style, he draws the book from cover to cover. This book would have a sense of unity. This is how I see reach and halo 1-3.
> > now imagine a comic book that is done by a group of different art styles(like the halo graphic novel ironically) so every chapter is visually different, not bad just inconsistent. This is what halo 4 felt like to me. Interiors and structures felt realistic, natural formations and outdoor areas felt cartoony.
> > I hope this clarifies my stance on the subject .
>
>
> I don’t see how requiems forest wasn’t realistic, it was the most realistic forest in halo. I felt like there were animals in those bushes. The only thing I have against it was that it wasn’t visually clear, but neither are real forest. I believe the approaches are different, neither is necessarily more or less realistic in interpretation. Halo 3s forests felt like a bob ross painting, while halo 4 felt like a Vietnam documentary. I got the feeling with halo three that the artists wanted to make a mountain with a waterfall, a trail with a lake, a cave with cascading light, but halo 4 felt unlike a setpiece, it had a bunch of fallen trees and plants, grooms of mushrooms and muddy puddles, confusing amounts of leaves that lended to a grove of heavy plant growth that could not happen on earth, whereas on halo 1-3 it was that there’s either an -L- shape design or a -U- shape design; inwhich an L shape leads to a rock wall or built structure, with a path leading to a cliff or water, whereas the U shaped areas where eithet double rock walls or a combination of rock and built structure: practically every natural area reaches that design philosophy, but halo 4 used trees and heavy foliage as walls, with log paths to vertical areas, creating a new shape, the -=- or -_-, which were log paths that allowed for drop off or staying up high. Reqiuems forests felt like a natural progression and an alien forest, not earth, that is an important detail, it isn’t supposed to look like earth. I liked it, though the rocky areas were quite bland in my opinion. Also, halo ce has the most cartoony islands I’ve ever seen, and halo two was just bleugh with nature, though I highly appreciate the fact that the angles are not such that they appeared as walls, nor did they do so, allowing for climbing up to the top of the map, skipping areas if you could think out the box.
> Also, speaking of inconsistency, my point on the reach environments is not that it was effected by the environment as the background had shown, it was that it didn’t. In this violently eroded area, there’s just randomly flat grass on top of an excavated area. That makes no sense whatsoever.
> Also, putting helicopter landing pads at different heights and right next to eachother seems like horrible architecture, that seems like a helicopters thrust would push outward and brush other helicopters off of their platforms. Also, if they were landing pads, why didn’t they lead to the buildings? there was no connection. Do the pilots land and then jetpack to the building over the twenty foot gap? then why not make a landing pad on the buildings themselves? That’s not a good reason.
I think we may be thinking of different parts of reach, if you mean the pads in the building under construction I kind of see your point except the building is not finished yet so I just assumed they were unfinished supports.
as for the rest we just have to agree to disagree
there is just something about those outdoor areas that does not mesh with the rest to my personal aesthetic.
the uncanny valley if you will.
I agree the halo 3 world was very perfect in a bob Ross way but it is an artificial world so that is why I understand the things you bring up.
however the African jungle had a more natural feel down to the way the sun broke through the leaves.
requiem is an artificial world too so that is how I reconcile the visual disparity but it seems too artificial in tone to the rest of the game.
I guess it bugs me because the outdoor maps are my favorite part of halo in general.
> 2533274883669557;43:
> Why can’t it be all serious like it used to be …LIKE THIS or LIKE THIS … instead of like a cartoon?
I never knew hunters could laugh ‘.’
> 2533274798011936;28:
> > 2533274886246836;27:
> > > 2533274798011936;21:
> > > I swear it’s like people forget Halo 3 exists. How is Halo 4-5 more cartoony than that?
> >
> >
> > Halo has always been cartoony. Just never as much as 4/5
>
>
> http://static2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20131222173041/halo/images/7/7c/Lordhoodhalo.JPG
>
> http://www.electricblueskies.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Halo-3-Crows-Nest-22-SGT.-AVERY-JUNIOR-JOHNSON.jpg
>
> http://www.halopedia.org/images/6/6a/MJOLNIR_Mark_VI.png
>
> http://www.halopedia.org/images/f/f1/Chiefarbiter.jpg
>
> http://www.halopedia.org/images/5/55/Cortana-fullbody-scantransparent.png
>
> http://www.halopedia.org/images/4/4f/CortanaHalo4.jpg
>
> http://www.halopedia.org/images/1/1f/Thomas_Lasky%2C_2557.png
>
> http://www.halopedia.org/images/8/8f/Halo4_Master-Chief-05.png
>
> You sure about that? The characters in Halo 4 are better detailed, butter designed, and look like human beings above all else; even Cortana looks more human, and the armor doesn’t look like plastic. And come on, look at the Arbiter in that image, he looks like a cartoon character modeled in 3D animation.
>
> The only thing that I thought looked too over the top was some of the SIV armor, but Halo 4/5 looks like a far more believable, vibrant and alive than the past games did. Halo 3 was filled with color as well, and while Halo 4 takes it further that doesn’t make it cartoony because everything looks real. Cartoony is that image of the Arbiter back to back with Chief, realistic is this
>
> http://www.halopedia.org/images/9/91/H4-Daybreak-1.jpg
>
> http://www.halopedia.org/images/b/bb/H4_Skyline.png
>
> Halo 4/5 may look stylized, but their worlds and characters are far more real than Halo 3’s was. Part of that is due to the graphics, but part of that is just the art style getting better and more fleshed out.
Yeah, I’m pretty sure. What I’m not sure about is why you’re showing me all those pictures. Let’s not confuse old graphics with cartoony graphics. Textures in those pictures you showed me are far superior to those in Halo 4. The armor doesn’t look plastic in Halo 4? Who are you kidding? Really. Look at Valhalla in Halo 3 and then Halo 4 and tell me Halo 4’s doesn’t look plastic. Well, you probably would. The amount of fanboyism is astounding. Halo 4 looks real? Give me a break. Halo 3 and Reach looked more real than that
> 2533274886246836;45:
> > 2533274798011936;28:
> > > 2533274886246836;27:
> > > > 2533274798011936;21:
> > > > I swear it’s like people forget Halo 3 exists. How is Halo 4-5 more cartoony than that?
> > >
> > >
> > > Halo has always been cartoony. Just never as much as 4/5
> >
> >
> > http://static2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20131222173041/halo/images/7/7c/Lordhoodhalo.JPG
> >
> > http://www.electricblueskies.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Halo-3-Crows-Nest-22-SGT.-AVERY-JUNIOR-JOHNSON.jpg
> >
> > http://www.halopedia.org/images/6/6a/MJOLNIR_Mark_VI.png
> >
> > http://www.halopedia.org/images/f/f1/Chiefarbiter.jpg
> >
> > http://www.halopedia.org/images/5/55/Cortana-fullbody-scantransparent.png
> >
> > http://www.halopedia.org/images/4/4f/CortanaHalo4.jpg
> >
> > http://www.halopedia.org/images/1/1f/Thomas_Lasky%2C_2557.png
> >
> > http://www.halopedia.org/images/8/8f/Halo4_Master-Chief-05.png
> >
> > You sure about that? The characters in Halo 4 are better detailed, butter designed, and look like human beings above all else; even Cortana looks more human, and the armor doesn’t look like plastic. And come on, look at the Arbiter in that image, he looks like a cartoon character modeled in 3D animation.
> >
> > The only thing that I thought looked too over the top was some of the SIV armor, but Halo 4/5 looks like a far more believable, vibrant and alive than the past games did. Halo 3 was filled with color as well, and while Halo 4 takes it further that doesn’t make it cartoony because everything looks real. Cartoony is that image of the Arbiter back to back with Chief, realistic is this
> >
> > http://www.halopedia.org/images/9/91/H4-Daybreak-1.jpg
> >
> > http://www.halopedia.org/images/b/bb/H4_Skyline.png
> >
> > Halo 4/5 may look stylized, but their worlds and characters are far more real than Halo 3’s was. Part of that is due to the graphics, but part of that is just the art style getting better and more fleshed out.
>
>
> Yeah, I’m pretty sure. What I’m not sure about is why you’re showing me all those pictures. Let’s not confuse old graphics with cartoony graphics. Textures in those pictures you showed me are far superior to those in Halo 4. The armor doesn’t look plastic in Halo 4? Who are you kidding? Really. Look at Valhalla in Halo 3 and then Halo 4 and tell me Halo 4’s doesn’t look plastic. Well, you probably would. The amount of fanboyism is astounding. Halo 4 looks real? Give me a break. Halo 3 and Reach looked more real than that
3 looked better than 4? That’s debatable. Reach had good art design but New Alexandria’s buildings and such were confusing. Like for example, the pelican/phantom Easter egg building. I know it was made to look cool but what kind of architect in their right mind would make a building like that. 4 had some weird textures no doubting that. But can we stop using the plastic comparison too? Plastic is more shiny and the colors are usually saturated on stuff, say toys for example. I’d say the colors just aren’t saturated. 5 looks like it’s fixed this.
Not as cartoony as your brain…
jk
Personally I hated the lack of color and the design in Halo: 4. The real world is not that dull.
