Jump to content


Photo

Halo 3 Leaks

Halo 3

  • Please log in to reply
318 replies to this topic

#1 vociferous

vociferous
  • Veteran
  • 3,639 posts

Posted 15 January 2007 - 05:20 PM

Really crappy ones of Snowbound:

Here, here, and here.

They show of the sniper rifle and what appears to be a very kick ass version of the shotgun. I've got some screencaps up at h3da.

Maybe this thread should be for all of the videos we're going to get once the friends and family program kicks off...

#2 Syracuse022

Syracuse022

    Build My Gallows High, Baby

  • Veteran
  • 4,164 posts

Posted 15 January 2007 - 06:36 PM

The reticule is WAY TOO LOW on the screen. WTF? Can you imagine playing on Damnation with the reticule like that? You'd have to look straight down to know when to jump or you'd fall all the damn time. Do not want. In addition, we've discussed it before, but lunge melees are back with a vengeance. Fuck me.

#3 Kinetic

Kinetic

    is Algebraic.

  • Veteran
  • 3,709 posts
  • PSN:DocKinetic
  • Steam:dockinetic

Posted 15 January 2007 - 07:36 PM

The reticule is WAY TOO LOW on the screen. WTF? Can you imagine playing on Damnation with the reticule like that? You'd have to look straight down to know when to jump or you'd fall all the damn time. Do not want. In addition, we've discussed it before, but lunge melees are back with a vengeance. Fuck me.

Yeah, the reticle is pretty low. Maybe it's an alpha thang, along with the lunge melees. I'm hoping that if the lunges are in the beta and Bungie gets enough negative feedback about them they'll be taken out completely. Or maybe it's just blind optimism.

Another thing to note is that the HUD for the alpha is really cluttered. Scoreboard in the bottom right, motion sensor in the bottom left, grenades and secondary weapon in the top left, primary weapon + ammo in the top right, the giant shield bar taking up the whole top center, and finally the reticle. No doubt it'll change by the game's release, but I just hope Bungie finds a way to manage it properly.

#4 Syracuse022

Syracuse022

    Build My Gallows High, Baby

  • Veteran
  • 4,164 posts

Posted 15 January 2007 - 08:41 PM

Posted Image
Posted Image
Posted Image

The mysterious creeping reticule... Why?

#5 MoNuckah

MoNuckah

    Has a wide stance.

  • Veteran
  • 1,395 posts

Posted 15 January 2007 - 10:33 PM

Ya know, I'd never noticed how much the lower reticule is in H2, but it doesn't even line up with the gun barrel in that screencap for H3. Even in that grainy fourth rate video, I kept feeling like he was going to trip, since the focus is pulled downward it has a kind of disorienting effect, and the weapon (especially the sniper) itself blocks the FOV as to what all is directly right of the reticule. WTF indeed. Alot will change between now and release, but I'm glad there a lot of other quality titles to look forward to. I read about this study today that concluded people tend to make better decisions when its a snap judgement. They had tons of symbols on a computer screen, with only a couple being slightly different. When people had lots of time to sit there and consider the symbols, they didn't do so hot. When they had very little time, they made the right decision much much more often. That doesn't prove anything as far as video game development goes, or really any other decison process more complicated than picking out differences on a screen. But it reminds me of this certain developer... It seems like the more time Bungie has, the more they over analyze what they're doing, making the deceptively simple, elegant and flexible beauty of H:CE's gameplay into some kind of super complex formula that they just can't duplicate for some reason. Maybe they would fair better if they stopped contemplating thier navel and did some basic math. What was great about H:CE? What was bad? What was great about H2? What was bad? Retain the good, dispose of the bad. But then I guess you get into opinions there. Damn opinions. Pehaps we just tell them they have 5 months to finish it. Pressure makes diamonds, after all.

#6 Supa Ben

Supa Ben
  • Veteran
  • 374 posts

Posted 16 January 2007 - 05:10 AM

Damn, I missed them. :sad:

#7 vociferous

vociferous
  • Veteran
  • 3,639 posts

Posted 16 January 2007 - 05:20 AM

The "correct" location of the reticule is disputed by several opposing arguments when it comes to shooters. I can adapt to a low reticule and being able to easily lob grenades further with less movement than a high one that forces me to look into the sky and away from my opponents before tossing one. It looks as though with Halo 3 a player will be able to flick the analog stick up just slightly to get some good range on a grenade. I'd say it's inappropriate to pass judgement on an element like a low reticule before actually playing the game. There are huge differences between Halo 3 and the other two games that are clearly illustrated (16:9 a/r, FOV, controls, weapons, etc). Technically speaking, when you fire a real gun, the "invisible reticule" would appear lower than the center of the person firing the weapon's field of view. It would definitely not appear above the center of the field of view. Technically in the images Cuse provided, the only one which does line up is the Halo 2 reticule. The Halo 1 and Halo 3 reticule are both off in different directions. Whether this is final, no one knows. Whether this will hurt gameplay, no one can say (unless you've played the alpha, anyone here play the alpha?). It didn't seem like the guy was having a tough time executing kills.

#8 Gamble

Gamble
  • Veteran
  • 2,619 posts

Posted 16 January 2007 - 07:01 AM

Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image

Get the old videos at Team Xbox while you still can.

#9 MoNuckah

MoNuckah

    Has a wide stance.

  • Veteran
  • 1,395 posts

Posted 16 January 2007 - 07:09 AM

I totaly agree that its all just prognostication untill we play it ourselves. That was just my impression from the video. The H:CE reticule is higher than the barrel of the gun, but I think its nice because it gives you a more open FOV.

#10 Gamble

Gamble
  • Veteran
  • 2,619 posts

Posted 16 January 2007 - 07:50 AM

Three new videos found their way online today (01/16) which are different from the ones found online yesterday. They may soon be taken offline, so get a gander at them while you can. TeamXbox.com has the YouTube links up here.


They?re the same old videos that you posted. I just posted the link since Supa didn't see them.

#11 Supa Ben

Supa Ben
  • Veteran
  • 374 posts

Posted 16 January 2007 - 09:03 AM

They?re the same old videos that you posted. I just posted the link since Supa didn't see them.


Much appreciated.

#12 vociferous

vociferous
  • Veteran
  • 3,639 posts

Posted 16 January 2007 - 09:25 AM

They’re the same old videos that you posted. I just posted the link since Supa didn't see them.


Yeah, it sucks being at work and not having access to YouTube. I've fixed it.

#13 Syracuse022

Syracuse022

    Build My Gallows High, Baby

  • Veteran
  • 4,164 posts

Posted 16 January 2007 - 10:55 AM

While it is true that none of us can comment on gameplay without having played the thing, our experiences with the Halo series can certainly give us an idea how Bungie is building this game. First things first, I don't care about the "correct" placement of the reticule, just like I don't care that the "correct" medium range weapon wouldn't be a pistol. It's a video game. Decisions that hinder a fun gaming experience shouldn't be made simply because of a concern for realism. You might respond with something like, "Well, Cuse, then why do you make such a big deal about disappearing bullets?" The reason is: those things fly in the face of realism, but much more importantly, it's not fun to not be able to shoot and hit a person that I can see. Clearly the latter is my motivation then, not any basis in reality, just the desire to be able to hit someone who's halfway across the map with my medium range weapon, or all the way across the map with my long range weapon. Especially after my experiences with (the real) Halo. Which brings me back to my comments about the reticule itself. Let's take a look at the series so far. Halo: central reticule, allows for the viewing of what's below and what's above, with equal import. I used Damnation as the example. If I want to shoot a guy on the second floor, I look up slightly. If I need to make sure I'm going to make a jump, a slightly downward angle should give me enough info after I've played the map a few times. Halo 2 lowers the reticule, to a line which is "realistic". Very few of Halo 2's maps have the vertical nature of Damnation, so the added viewing area above the reticule is wasted. At the same time, a number of Halo 2's maps feature geometry that requires skillful jumping or good balance in order to stay on an upper level. If you need to get your bearings, you've got to look a lot further down to figure out what's going on. We'll ignore the FOV in the two games because I've already ragged on that one, suffice it to say I feel like a Clydesdale with blinders on in Halo 2, especially on split screen. Is it a more realistic viewing angle? Do I care? What I found interesting was Voc's comment about grenades. There is no direct causality here so far in the Halo series... in fact, far from it. Let me show you: The reticule doesn't suggest how far you need to move it to throw a grenade, or how far you can throw a grenade. Halo 1 grenades flew at a lower angle, and flew much farther. One need only move the reticule a few degrees (maybe 10 tops) to make most grenade throws in the game. In Halo 2, try to throw a medium to long range grenade, say across one of the smaller maps. Ha. You have to crank that thing way up there, and it's not even going that far. Somewhere, the real Master Chief's grenade arm is laughing. So where is the causality, if it's not the reticule? Here's my guess, and it suggests the opposite of Voc's statement: The Halo reticule suggests something separate from grenade range, namely the nature of intended combat. Halo 1 is built around medium range combat, Halo 2 is built around much closer ranged combat. It's why I can't hit people from halfway across Coag, it's why Hang Em High was cut from the game. The two games play fundamentally differently. The reticule in Halo 2 seems most intended to be aimed (at fairly close-range) for center of mass, preferably with a dual-wielded combo. You could try to argue with me, but you'd be silly, because we all saw how Halo 2 1.0 played out... a sort of Paper-Rock-Scissors of dual-wield combos. This reticule change makes sense considering the shift towards close range combat: if I'm aiming towards center of mass (instead of for the head the way most people would with Halo 1's key weapon), then I am automatically seeing more of the floor in front of me, bringing back the knowledge that is key to maneuverability. In addition, if I'm building my game around close range combat (and especially if I'm making bullets disappear on every gun), then I probably don't want my grenades to have the same range they did in Halo 1. There you go, the nature of intended combat controls reticule position at the same time that it controls the grenade range, but the reticule and grenade throws appear to be inversely related. Lower reticule = close range combat and close range grenades... Even lower reticule = Dear God, why? I am SO not amused by these videos of Halo 3. Not funny, Bungie.

#14 vociferous

vociferous
  • Veteran
  • 3,639 posts

Posted 16 January 2007 - 12:42 PM

Wow. There's gotta be a ten step program for this somewhere.

#15 MoNuckah

MoNuckah

    Has a wide stance.

  • Veteran
  • 1,395 posts

Posted 16 January 2007 - 02:00 PM

Voc, I heart your avatar.

#16 UHYVE

UHYVE
  • Veteran
  • 1,692 posts

Posted 16 January 2007 - 02:48 PM

Just gonna throw this idea out there. Alot of games lately have been having alittle bit of trouble with GUIs on SDTVs. Now, as far as I know, you can't get 4:3 HDTVs, so the new videos will probably be from an SDTV. I can definitely see the recticals placement being one of the things to get messed up with HD to SD conversions of the UI (Bungie had problems with their GUI in Halo 2 aswell).

Then again, that's just wishful thinking but I'm just gonna give Bungie the benefit of the doubt until I can play the game myself.

Edited by UHYVE, 16 January 2007 - 02:51 PM.


#17 Blaze

Blaze
  • Veteran
  • 3,231 posts
  • Location:m cheif's house

Posted 16 January 2007 - 04:30 PM

In addition, if I'm building my game around close range combat (and especially if I'm making bullets disappear on every gun), then I probably don't want my grenades to have the same range they did in Halo 1. There you go, the nature of intended combat controls reticule position at the same time that it controls the grenade range, but the reticule and grenade throws appear to be inversely related. Lower reticule = close range combat and close range grenades... Even lower reticule = Dear God, why?

If you're building your game around close range combat, it might be important to make the sure that your ideal close range weapon doesn't suck balls...


Posted Image

#18 Syracuse022

Syracuse022

    Build My Gallows High, Baby

  • Veteran
  • 4,164 posts

Posted 16 January 2007 - 05:04 PM

I'd say it's inappropriate to pass judgement on an element like a low reticule before actually playing the game. There are huge differences between Halo 3 and the other two games that are clearly illustrated (16:9 a/r, FOV, controls, weapons, etc).

Some of us still have 4:3 TVs (including that guy, as UHYVE pointed out), and I don't know of any way that the magical X button or the move from X and Y to the bumper buttons could impact reticule placement, do you?

Technically speaking, when you fire a real gun, the "invisible reticule" would appear lower than the center of the person firing the weapon's field of view.

Technically speaking, when you fire a real gun, you wouldn't be jumping all over the place and strafing like mad either, you'd be aiming down the sights, and you'd be behind cover.

The Halo 1 and Halo 3 reticule are both off in different directions.

And I said which way I preferred.

It didn't seem like the guy was having a tough time executing kills.

I can kill people just fine in Halo 2. It doesn't mean that the FOV or HUD aren't fucked up.

What's the difference between looking at an HUD in motion, and looking at an HUD in motion with a controller in my hands? To me, very little. It's an HUD. A display. Not an in-game action or a new weapon. Odds of me checking in to ten step: 0. Odds of you convincing me that this is a change for the better: 0. You yourself aren't convinced. "Well, you don't know, they could have changed..." Whatever.

#19 Gamble

Gamble
  • Veteran
  • 2,619 posts

Posted 16 January 2007 - 05:17 PM

Posted Image

#20 Syracuse022

Syracuse022

    Build My Gallows High, Baby

  • Veteran
  • 4,164 posts

Posted 16 January 2007 - 07:07 PM

Is that the new level icon? Or is that the number of bullets in the guy's M6D clip? Just kidding, but seriously... new level icon?



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Halo 3

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

IPB Skin By Virteq