Nothing wrong with comparisons when they make sense. How do you know, that's the model that will end up being in the final game? Would it not make sense to drop in the Halo 2 model for use in play tests / balance tests whilst the artists worked on a shiny new model?

Is it logical, that they would build a completely new model for the chief (the single most important model in the game) but not touch one for a weapon the player will likely spend a fair bit of time looking at in game?

The footage is several months old at the point of making the videodoc. I.e. they did not whip this up from stuff recorded in December. According to Bungie, some of this stuff is was recorded nearer to E3 than December, when it was made.

Speaking of which, lets think about the development of Halo 3 for a second.

Bungie have created a new engine, from scratch. During this period of development, no artist apart from the concept artists can really do jack, especially anything with graphics/models/textures that will be in the game . This isn't like UE3 where they can be on board from day 1 getting assets ready.

Building an engine from scratch takes a LONG time. Especially on unfamiliar hardware.

Creating assets for next-gen games is the biggest challenge facing any developer this time around. Everybody is struggling with this. Not just because of the sheer amount of work required, but getting to grips with new tools/engines at the same time.

The E3 demo will have taken months of work to get up to that quality. Hence pretty much after getting an engine up and running, everybody is working on assets for E3. Nothing else. This is hard, as Silicon Knights will no doubt testify.

With engine up, gameplay elements such as level designs, physics, AI, encounters need to be fleshed out. What's better to use in this situation. NO textures until final ones are done? Or have some placeholder stuff in there to help everybody else do their job. Still yet more stuff to do before our plucky artists are working on final graphics.


Now, I'm making a lot of assumptions there about a lot of things, but that is no worse than looking at the SMG in that picture and assuming that will be how it looks when the game ships. To be surprised at just "how far behind the graphics are" is to not pay any attention to the reality of making games this generation, especially on a custom engine.

Forgive my exasperation, I am somewhat tired. Please continue to bash games in your customary fashion, I enjoy reading it and some people can do with a reality check but drawing any conclusions regarding specifics from this stuff doesn't say anything. I've seen games weeks from shipping with amounts of placeholder stuff you would be shocked at. It's called crunch for a reason ;)

Well, I think it's fair to say we haven't seen anything truely impressive in a technical sense out of Halo 3. And I think Lebato was talking about the SMG model..which does look almost identicle. I don't doubt Halo 3 will look better than Halo 2 PC, it better.

I know, that's my point! It is pretty much identical, so I feel I can make a reasonable case for it being placeholder considering the length of time Halo 3 has been in development, the likely course of that development and knowledge that the shot above was from a build "months" ago*.

Lebato is saying; "Wow, Halo 3 is teh suck, they didn't even make new models. The SMG in Halo 3 will be the same model as the one in Halo 2"

Like thats representative of a finished or near finished product, which I don't think is quite so reasonable given that it is likely that shot is from a build dated more than 12 months from release. If it was 12 - 18 weeks, it would be different.

* According to those Bungle guys anway :)

I'm sort of suprised we haven't seen more stuff by now, to be honest..and they have to show us something and soon because the beta is supposed to start this spring..and we'll have it in our hands to a certain extent..and while it may not be finished I think that what they show us then is going to be very important.

First impressions, valid or not, make a big difference.

Apologies if I am being thick (like I said, tired). I read "Wow, they haven't bothered to even improve the gun model.......nothing, it looks the same" as "they won't bother to improve the gun model.

Out of all the games you mention, none of them have decided to show stuff from early in development like Bungie did. Everything you've seen from Crysis to Bioshock to Mass Effect is either a polished tech demo, or footage shown specifically to demonstrate what the final game might look like.

The vidoc is neither of those things. It's a video aimed at Bungie/Halo fans to illustrate how they're developing the Brutes in Halo 3. Crytek will have builds of their game where they were running around with placeholder weapons and the like, they just didn't make a documentary out of it and show everyone.

Hence you are comparing two different things and/or not looking at stuff in the vidoc for what it is. Not liking that strategy or how Bungie develops/shows off their games is absolutely a fair comment, but a different point!That's probably not too far from the truth! (Final hardware August 05, Engine running ??? E3 demo May 06)

I agree. I think there should have been at least some SP screens by now from a part of the game that's good enough to show. They don't have to spoil anything, just show off some eye candy. The one SP screen we've had so far was AWFUL, in terms of choice. Like the Forza 2 fiasco all over again. It doesn't matter if it's running at 2fps, it's a bloody screen!

Same goes for the beta. That should give everyone an idea of what the quality will be like. They've 3 maps to tart up and light properly. Vehicles, weapons and effects. It's not the most important part of the beta (that's the netcode, lobby, matchmaking, weapon/map balancing) but an important part of things none the less. Placeholder stuff won't wash then. You can quote me on that if I change my tune nearer the time!

What bothers me in the Halo 3 shot are the 45 degree walls and all the crates. Those are soooo 1997.

What bloodforge said.

Plus, Forerunner architecture is very angular by design, it's been consistent throughout the previous 2. The Convenant and human environments/locales should be a different feel.