let's wait for the game to judge halo 3

Games Halo: The Master Chief Collection
1

-343 could possibly be turning on all those extra textures that bungie turned off.

-they improved the lighting, it’s now at 1080p and 60fps

-the Xbox one should result in way less pop in.

-we don’t know how old that blurry, 720p 30fps washed out video footage was.

Halo 3 still looks really good, so with all the above it might now look amazing, so…

LET’S NOT ASK FOR A HALO 3A, and let’s just wait till we either get an uncompressed full quality, current footage video, or when we have the game. Why?

Because halo 2a looks like blurry, 30fps yoink on YouTube, but the downloadable videos are amazing buttery smooth.

2

I think people have too high of expectations regarding halo 3. The MCC never aimed to remaster Halo 3 at all, yet the version included will still be better looking than the original. Any upgrade is better than none, and nobody really has room to complain about the graphics so long as they are at least an upgrade in some way. We will have to wait 3 more years for a full remaster of Halo 3, but it will come.

3

I really doubt 343 will remaster halo 3.

4

we will get a halo 3a which includes getting laid and money, confirmed by exotic
jokes aside

i think the 60fps will make it such a different game! look at bf4 when i first played on xb1 i was confused as hell by 60 fps and still is. i preferred the 30 fps actually, might be different for h3 and will take a couple games to get used too

5

Halo CEA and Halo 2A are remade because of their unparalleled reputation in the series. Also Halo 3 isn’t as dated as the first two.

In fact I think 343 are done with remasters for quite some time.

6

No one ever asked for a Halo 3 remake, all we want is features already in the engine to be turned on. Sure, they might turn them on, but judging from the alpha footage it looks like they aren’t. Halo 3 is not an XB1 standard game by anyone’s standards. You say it looks good, great! Heaps of games look good, but that’s not the point. It doesn’t look good and won’t look good compared to the next gen titles. And in a few more years, Halo 3 will look ancient even with 1080p and 60fps, and it doesn’t even compare to most late gen 360 games like Crysis 3, so how could it be put onto the XB1 next to all the big next gen titles? No one is looking toward the future. Ask yourself, will this game look good in another 3 years? No, it won’t, it will be vastly out dated. So why don’t 343 take advantage of the technology they have with the XB1, and exploit the graphics that are already in the engine while they have the chance? No way 343 will be releasing a Halo 3 anniversary. This is the only chance they have, so they need to make it count by making it future proof.

You like how Halo 3 looks as it is? Great, would you like it even more if the graphics were improved?

> Halo CEA and Halo 2A are remade because of their unparalleled reputation in the series. Also Halo 3 isn’t as dated as the first two.
>
> In fact I think 343 are done with remasters for quite some time.

Then what happens 3 years down the track when people find that the graphics of Halo 3 are becoming extremely obsolete? Trudge all the way back to Halo 3, and remake it, when it is already on the XB1? No, they won’t. This is the only chance they have. So why not just improve it now while they have the chance?

7

Worst case scenario:
Halo 3 looks the exact same as it did in 2007.

Best case scenario:
Halo 3 looks much better.

There’s nothing to worry about, its a tie-win situation.

> Then what happens 3 years down the track when people find that the graphics of Halo 3 are becoming extremely obsolete?

Maybe people should just not obsess over graphics? Even by modern standards the graphics aren’t even close to being terrible.

By the time that happens I doubt there will be many people interested in an old game like Halo 3 regardless.

I was gonna say “even if they graphically updated Doom 3 I doubt anyone would play it”, but then I remembered they DID do that, and it wasn’t a giant success.

8

> No one ever asked for a Halo 3 remake, all we want is features already in the engine to be turned on. Sure, they might turn them on, but judging from the alpha footage it looks like they aren’t. Halo 3 is not an XB1 standard game by anyone’s standards. You say it looks good, great! Heaps of games look good, but that’s not the point. It doesn’t look good and won’t look good compared to the next gen titles. And in a few more years, Halo 3 will look ancient even with 1080p and 60fps, and it doesn’t even compare to most late gen 360 games like Crysis 3, so how could it be put onto the XB1 next to all the big next gen titles? No one is looking toward the future. Ask yourself, will this game look good in another 3 years? No, it won’t, it will be vastly out dated. So why don’t 343 take advantage of the technology they have with the XB1, and exploit the graphics that are already in the engine while they have the chance? No way 343 will be releasing a Halo 3 anniversary. This is the only chance they have, so they need to make it count by making it future proof.
>
> You like how Halo 3 looks as it is? Great, would you like it even more if the graphics were improved?
>
>
>
> > Halo CEA and Halo 2A are remade because of their unparalleled reputation in the series. Also Halo 3 isn’t as dated as the first two.
> >
> > In fact I think 343 are done with remasters for quite some time.
>
> Then what happens 3 years down the track when people find that the graphics of Halo 3 are becoming extremely obsolete? Trudge all the way back to Halo 3, and remake it, when it is already on the XB1? No, they won’t. This is the only chance they have. So why not just improve it now while they have the chance?

Because the game is Halo 2A. Not 3A. The purpose of the MCC is to bring all major installments on one system and have the story elements lead up to Halo 5. Get over Halo 3.

9

> Worst case scenario:
> Halo 3 looks the exact same as it did in 2007.
>
> Best case scenario:
> Halo 3 looks much better.
>
> There’s nothing to worry about, its a tie-win situation.
>
>
>
> > Then what happens 3 years down the track when people find that the graphics of Halo 3 are becoming extremely obsolete?
>
> Maybe people should just not obsess over graphics? Even by modern standards the graphics aren’t even close to being terrible.
>
> By the time that happens I doubt there will be many people interested in an old game like Halo 3 regardless.
>
> I was gonna say “even if they graphically updated Doom 3 I doubt anyone would play it”, but then I remembered they DID do that, and it wasn’t a giant success.

I’d hate to seem like a graphics -Yoink!-, but the opposite is true. In fact I think graphics are the least important aspect of the game. But the point is, like it or not, they do matter decent amount. It does contribute to the immersion of the world, it still matters. So, if they are going to port it to a new console without completely overhauling the whole game, why not improve whatever they can, like graphics? And the worst part is there are many things already in the engine which can be simply be turned on and off, so there is really no excuse why these features are not being used considering the jump in hardware. Halo 3 will stick out like a sore thumb compared to the other games if further action isn’t taken in improving it.

BTW, I did buy the Doom 3 remake, mostly because I didn’t own resurrection. Oh, and a relevant lesson from that: It failed largely because the graphical improvements weren’t even noticeable. So that draws a decent parallel. What is the point of making a port/upgrade for new hardware, if you barely improve the graphics? Doesn’t that defeat the whole purpose of doing so? I think 343 will know these features are there, and they can use them, so I’d be very surprised if they didn’t turn them on.

10

I would rather have halo 3 look the same, than have it look like every outside map is so bright that it is witnessing the supernova of a star, or having the inside areas so dark because “realism.”

11

> I would rather have halo 3 look the same, than have it look like every outside map is so bright that it is witnessing the supernova of a star, or having the inside areas so dark because “realism.”

Realism isn’t apart of the discussion, so that just isn’t relevant. We’re talking about graphical fidelity. You can improve the graphics without the map being extremely bright or the inside areas being extremely dark.

12

> BTW, I did buy the Doom 3 remake, mostly because I didn’t own resurrection. Oh, and a relevant lesson from that: It failed largely because the graphical improvements weren’t even noticeable. So that draws a decent parallel. What is the point of making a port/upgrade for new hardware, if you barely improve the graphics? Doesn’t that defeat the whole purpose of doing so? I think 343 will know these features are there, and they can use them, so I’d be very surprised if they didn’t turn them on.

Actually Doom 3 BFG Edition looked worse than original Doom 3 from 2004 (they ditched dynamic shadows from flashlight, and lower fidelity of some textures, so it runs on 60fps on 360 and PS3).

I don’t think that Halo 3 will stand out in any particular way. For sure it won’t look worse than Halo CEA. When it goes agaist Halo 4, difference will be similar to Prince of Persia: Sands of Time versus The Two Thrones - when you compare both HD remakes (on PS3), they both have 1080p/60fps vibe. Sure Sands of Time looks worse, but not THAT worse.

13

> Actually Doom 3 BFG Edition looked worse than original Doom 3 from 2004 (they ditched dynamic shadows from flashlight, and lower fidelity of some textures, so it runs on 60fps on 360 and PS3).
>
> I don’t think that Halo 3 will stand out in any particular way. For sure it won’t look worse than Halo CEA. When it goes agaist Halo 4, difference will be similar to Prince of Persia: Sands of Time versus The Two Thrones - when you compare both HD remakes (on PS3), they both have 1080p/60fps vibe. Sure Sands of Time looks worse, but not THAT worse.

BFG actually had improved shadows, and more refined textures. But you must be comparing the original PC version to the 360, which is quite naive considering PC’s generally have much better specs. Comparing original PC to BFG PC, BFG looks slightly better, it’s barely noticeable, but it’s there. That was BFG’s problem, not enough of a difference. I felt almost cheated when I bought it, but I was alright since I got resurrection with it.

As for prince of Persia, I never played either of those HD remakes, but I bet it’s a false comparison, since Halo 4 and Halo 3 have drastic differences in their engines. Those two were originally PS2 games, and they run on the same engine.

A better comparison would be if the devs created a prince of persia pack for the PS4, containing remakes of say four of the games. Lets say they give a full HD remake to the first two games on the PS2, and there are two more games on the PS3 which need remaking. So they port them over. Now, they just recently made the 4th one on the end of the PS4’s lifecycle, so they shouldn’t need to improve that. But what about the 3rd? Lets say the 4th and 3rd have drastic differences in their engines, and the 3rd is 7 years old. What would they do? Just leave the 3rd game while the 1st, 2nd, and 4th look brand spanking new? You’d think that they’d at least try to bring the 3rd up to the 4th’s standard, but all they do is tweak the 3rd just as much as they have the 4th. Don’t you think that’s a bad decision? I do.

14

> > I would rather have halo 3 look the same, than have it look like every outside map is so bright that it is witnessing the supernova of a star, or having the inside areas so dark because “realism.”
>
> Realism isn’t apart of the discussion, so that just isn’t relevant. We’re talking about graphical fidelity. You can improve the graphics without the map being extremely bright or the inside areas being extremely dark.

Im hinting at 343’s love of making everything blindingly bright and making shadows so dark as to appear real. And then calling it an HD remake. We dont need that in halo 3, or any game really.

15

> BFG actually had improved shadows, and more refined textures. But you must be comparing the original PC version to the 360, which is quite naive considering PC’s generally have much better specs. Comparing original PC to BFG PC, BFG looks slightly better, it’s barely noticeable, but it’s there. That was BFG’s problem, not enough of a difference. I felt almost cheated when I bought it, but I was alright since I got resurrection with it.

Even PC version was in some points downgraded: http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-whats-new-for-pc-doom-3-bfg-edition

> Now the torch is now firmly affixed to the player’s shoulder and accessible at will. Weirdly though, it doesn’t seem to cast shadows.

It was different engine (Id Tech 5), but BFG was conversion for consoles. Upon that they’ve made improved version for PC.

> As for prince of Persia, I never played either of those HD remakes, but I bet it’s a false comparison, since Halo 4 and Halo 3 have drastic differences in their engines. Those two were originally PS2 games, and they run on the same engine.

If you compare Sand of Times to The Two Thrones you see same kind of progress as between Halo 3 and 4 (especially when they’ve used PC assets for remaking PoP HD trilogy).

So what’s wrong with Halo 3? Sub-720p resolution and lack of any AA makes it look embarrassing not only compared to Halo 4, but even Halo CEA. However this will be solved as all games will be 1080p.

Why was Halo 3 sub-720p? Because it used very complex hdr lighting, one that’s absent in Halo 4. Sure Halo 4 had more detailed models (along with their animation), but both games will just look too different to make direct comparison (and there will be CEA too). It’ll be like comparing this busty, freckled redhead and that lovely ebony lady.

To be honest I don’t think that even Halo 2 Anniversary will stand out in comparison to HD remakes of 360 games. For something really standing out, we must wait for Halo 5:

  1. It will be made by 343i themselves (not outsorced to third party studio).
  2. It will make use of entire XBone’s hardware (not running 2 games at once).
  3. XBone itself will have actually bigger capabilities: http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2014-metro-redux-what-its-really-like-to-make-a-multi-platform-game

> But Microsoft is not sleeping, really. Each XDK that has been released both before and after the Xbox One launch has brought faster and faster draw-calls to the table. They added tons of features just to work around limitations of the DX11 API model. They even made a DX12/GNM style do-it-yourself API available - although we didn’t ship with it on Redux due to time constraints.

16

> Then what happens 3 years down the track when people find that the graphics of Halo 3 are becoming extremely obsolete? Trudge all the way back to Halo 3, and remake it, when it is already on the XB1? No, they won’t. This is the only chance they have. So why not just improve it now while they have the chance?

…Because all they are doing is giving it 1080p/60FPS?

I’m sorry that isn’t enough, but from what I can gather, this collection isn’t for you.

17

Let us just wait for actually recent good footage

18

I don’t know why people think the game looks bad. All I wanted was the 60fps, dedicated servers, and 1080p.

Anything else is a bonus to an already awesome package.

19

It doesn’t really matter how much nicer it looks. It won’t fix the gameplay problems Halo 3 has.

20

I wouldn’t mind a H3A AND and Halo spin-off games anniversary of some sort. Or bundle.

Brack Friday Bunduru!