Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Halo 3 Cinematics To Be Great Improvements on Halo 2's

Zonk posted more than 7 years ago | from the one-would-hope dept.

XBox (Games) 106

1up is reporting that Bungie has admitted to not having the time to do cinematics right for the best-selling Halo 2. Along with statements they made earlier this year about flaws in Halo 2's multiplayer, the folks at Bungie seem quite willing to own up to previous mistakes. Their call to arms this time: everything will be better. "With Halo 3, they have artists and designers who've worked on epic Hollywood projects like The Lord of the Rings and King Kong, not to mention a former Industrial Lights & Magic guy (read: Star Wars) working out the details on an 'amazing space battle ... there's a bigger team, a team that has had the final cinematic script for much longer, and now has access to vastly more tools, resources and technology than ever before. These range from new tools for rigging facial animation, to better lighting and camera controls. Most of the improvements are a solid blend of technology and manpower this time around, and we hope the fruits of that labor end up as succulent as they look now.'"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Hmmm... (1)

CdrGlork (1096607) | more than 7 years ago | (#19036877)

And here I thought they gave Master Chief the helmet so they wouldn't have to bother with pesky things like facial animation...

Re:Hmmm... (3, Interesting)

tlhIngan (30335) | more than 7 years ago | (#19037075)

And here I thought they gave Master Chief the helmet so they wouldn't have to bother with pesky things like facial animation...


They could also just do it Half-Life style, where all the cutscenes and stuff are rendered such that Gordon never talks nor appears (short of turning on third-person view on the original Half-Life). Heck, it leads to the great Half-Life mystery of the helmet...

Re:Hmmm... (2, Informative)

Xtravar (725372) | more than 7 years ago | (#19046297)

Like the GTA protagonist never had a name and never talked... until Vice City and San Andreas.

Re:Hmmm... (0, Offtopic)

runescapewin (1099655) | more than 7 years ago | (#19048375)

RS2 Runescape RS 1000K-10000K Mil Gold Million GP Money Runescapewin is an old runescape gold and items seller since?nearly one year ago. We used to have a lot of runescape items for sale. Now we stop items selling for some reason. But runescape money still available to every hungry runescape players to buy. runescapewin has good reputation in runescape money selling business. And all?runescape money of us?are made?without any bots or duping. http://www.runescapewin.com/ [runescapewin.com] runescape gold runescape money runescape coin runescape GP runescape mil rs2 gold cheap runescape gold runescape items for sale buy runescape items http://www.runescapewin.com/ [runescapewin.com]

Immersion (4, Interesting)

GodInHell (258915) | more than 7 years ago | (#19037579)

And here I thought they gave Master Chief the helmet so they wouldn't have to bother with pesky things like facial animation...
You might think that, but everybody else in Halo 1 had a face (seargent, cortana, etc). I think it serves as an immersion tool - because the avatar dosen't have a face you can identify with the avatar as self - or if your subconcious works differently - the avatar as your favorite kind of hero. It eliminates the desire in the player for an avatar that reflects their own identity without forcing them to build in custom avatars (which would have been a stretch back in H1).


-GiH

Re:Immersion (1)

macshome (818789) | more than 7 years ago | (#19046745)

This is the same reason that Link remains a mute hero in the Zelda games...

Not hard to do (1)

Harlockjds (463986) | more than 7 years ago | (#19036909)

considering you could watch the halo 2 cinematics be drawn while it was playing this shouldn't be hard to do. Or they might be smart enough to stick with pre rendered instead of doing them on the fly.

Re:Not hard to do (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 7 years ago | (#19036945)

If they're going to do a gigantic battle, then barring the use of multires, they'll have no choice but to prerender if they want it to look like anything other than pure crap.

Re:Not hard to do (3, Insightful)

Turn-X Alphonse (789240) | more than 7 years ago | (#19037107)

Incorrect, plenty of games do massive battles over huge land scapes, it's just a matter of carefully controling whats on screen at any one time.

Re:Not hard to do (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19037263)

There's rarely any reason to pre-render anymore, actually. When you don't have to be ticking most of the gameplay code, it's pretty simple.

Look at the trailers for Stranglehold: http://media.xbox360.ign.com/media/748/748381/vids _1.html [ign.com] . None of that is pre-rendered.

Re:Not hard to do (1)

T-Bone-T (1048702) | more than 7 years ago | (#19038265)

The new Halo engine is much more powerful than the old. That's why Halo 3 won't be on the Xbox. Obviously, you weren't paying attention when they said a long time ago that they wished they had better graphics and they would still be using the game engine to do the cutscenes. Have you seen the trailers(not the Superbowl ad) on the Bungie website? They are rendered with the game engine and they look incredible.

Re:Not hard to do (1)

Harlockjds (463986) | more than 7 years ago | (#19041141)

having a beefier engine doesn't automatically solve the problem because the art direction will always want more than it can provide. It's very possible that bungie will once again insist on sticking to in game rendering to the determent of the game because their art needs outstrip their engine capability (a la Halo 2)

Re:Not hard to do (2, Informative)

Darundal (891860) | more than 7 years ago | (#19043071)

They ARE sticking to in game rendering, just like they did in Halo 1. It's just that this time around, they actually have the horsepower to not have it look like crap like it did in Halo 2...

Re:Not hard to do (1)

Harlockjds (463986) | more than 7 years ago | (#19050725)

well they hope to remember artistic needs are infinite, an engine (no matter the horsepower) is finite so if they don't do a better job of balancing their art wants to the capability's of the engine they are going to have the same problem.

Garaunteed Failure (-1, Flamebait)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 7 years ago | (#19036937)

Garaunteed Failure. That's all I have to say. Maybe it's just me, but whenever I see too much money being pumped into cinematics, it actually makes the game less fun. I'd rather they just render the cutscenes with the game engine, make sure there's a good story, and let me play the game, without having to sit through hours of movies.

Re:Garaunteed Failure (1)

Morinaga (857587) | more than 7 years ago | (#19037025)

That's my same knee jerk reaction as well.

But then I remember the intro to Quake 2 and the Boss introductions for Ninja Gaiden and I realize that it can be done right and can add to the immersion of the game. However, that "done right" part seems exceedingly easy to "do wrong" as proven by so many other games.

Re:Garaunteed Failure (4, Funny)

GrayCalx (597428) | more than 7 years ago | (#19037063)

Garaunteed Failure. That's all I have to say.

Just to clarify, you're saying Halo 3 is going to be a guaranteed failure? Out loud, to other people, you're saying that? Alrighty then...

Re:Garaunteed Failure (1)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 7 years ago | (#19037359)

Maybe not the entire game, but I'm pretty sure that the money spent on making the cinematics will be a complete waste.

Re:Garaunteed Failure (1)

T-Bone-T (1048702) | more than 7 years ago | (#19038729)

Because every game should be mindlessly shooting anything that moves and nothing more, right?

Re:Garaunteed Failure (2, Funny)

FiloEleven (602040) | more than 7 years ago | (#19040441)

Because every game should be mindlessly shooting anything that moves and nothing more, right?
Certainly not nothing more! You're missing more than half the gameplay unless you shoot things that don't move, too.

How does it go? "If it moves, kill it. If it doesn't move, shoot it until it does, then kill it."

Re:Garaunteed Failure (1)

WilliamSChips (793741) | more than 7 years ago | (#19043799)

The Half-Life games had a storyline that goes just as deep as Halo's but they did it with much less "cinematics". They did it by putting the storyline all around you.

Re:Garaunteed Failure (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19037079)

Agreed, but I figure single player isn't a strong point for the series anyway. I didn't like the previous two campaigns, I'm just in it for the multiplay :)

Re:Garaunteed Failure (1)

Cathoderoytube (1088737) | more than 7 years ago | (#19037493)

For the most part pre rendered cinematics are subcontracted to other studios so none of the animators working on in-game content need to worry about cinematics. They also budget these things. I imagine Bungee has enough money to get some decent cutscenes put together.

Re:Garaunteed Failure (1)

T-Bone-T (1048702) | more than 7 years ago | (#19038347)

What is this talk of prerendered scenes? They've said numerous times they will not use prerendered scenes.

Re:Garaunteed Failure (2, Insightful)

Quiet_Desperation (858215) | more than 7 years ago | (#19037639)

Garaunteed Failure.

Yeah! I mean, look at how cut scenes brought down that nickel and dime Final Fantasy franchise.

Maybe it's just me

Wait, are you suggesting your opinion is not a universal absolute? The deuce you say!

Re:Garaunteed Failure (1)

Skidge (316075) | more than 7 years ago | (#19038617)

Yeah! I mean, look at how cut scenes brought down that nickel and dime Final Fantasy franchise.


Well, the cut scenes were one reason I never finished FF VIII and stopped playing the series after that. Generally, the best thing about cut scenes is that you can usually skip them.

Re:Garaunteed Failure (1)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 7 years ago | (#19039875)

Final Fantasy is terrible. I remember FF 7 and 8, where you had to sit through a 2 minute cutscene every time you attacked your opponent. Fun to watch the first 2 or 3 times, but after that it got pretty frustrating.

Re:Garaunteed Failure (1)

Quiet_Desperation (858215) | more than 7 years ago | (#19048441)

Final Fantasy is terrible.

Not the point. They were successful.

And summons were for pussies anyway. :)

Actually #12 was fun. The Gambit system was a hoot. All RPGs should let you program your other characters like robots. Eventually you could refine and optimize your gambit scripts until you barely had to take an active part anymore. As contradictory as this may sound, that was sort of cool.

Re:Garaunteed Failure (3, Informative)

Tofystedeth (1076755) | more than 7 years ago | (#19037741)

If you were paying to the article at all (why would you? this is /. after all) you'd know that they said they were sticking with doing all the cinematics with in the game engine.

Re:Garaunteed Failure (1)

BenJeremy (181303) | more than 7 years ago | (#19038205)

Parent needs to be modded up.

To reiterate:

If you were paying to the article at all (why would you? this is /. after all) you'd know that they said they were sticking with doing all the cinematics with in the game engine.

It's using the IN-GAME ENGINE. No pre-rendered scenes.

This isn't the PS3 - no need to fill the useless space of a Blu-Ray disc to make Sony execs and fanboys feel good.

Re:Garaunteed Failure (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19038061)

Garaunteed Failure. That's all I have to say. Maybe it's just me, but whenever I see too much money being pumped into cinematics, it actually makes the game less fun. I'd rather they just render the cutscenes with the game engine, make sure there's a good story, and let me play the game, without having to sit through hours of movies.


Don't worry, they don't have enough disk space to put it all on one disk anyway, so the Cinematics will be on the "auxilary" disc. Just insert it every time it asks you to, that isn't too big a price to pay for an increased cinematic experience, now is it?

fun (4, Insightful)

John Nowak (872479) | more than 7 years ago | (#19037017)

Is there anyone here that would actually claim "improved cinematics" can make a game more fun? None of my favorite games (Fallout, STALKER, Civ) have anything approaching fantastic cinematics, yet they're still brilliant. This is an example of everything that's wrong with games nowadays.

Re:fun (2, Insightful)

Sciros (986030) | more than 7 years ago | (#19037345)

To claim that it's an "example of everything that's wrong with games nowadays" is a bit harsh and shortsighted IMO, no offense intended. It depends on what games one enjoys. One of my favorite games of the last generation, Ninja Gaiden for Xbox, had fantastic cinematics throughout the campaign and they most certainly didn't take away from the game. Rather, they were almost like a "reward" of sorts between chapters.

This year I played through Final Fantasy XII, and its biggest drawback (assuming one likes the game mechanics, etc. of course) is that it doesn't have a "Theater Mode" where you can re-watch its cutscenes (some of which are in-game graphics, others are gorgeous FMV).

The games you mention as your favorites are great, although I am more of a Baldur's Gate guy myself ~_^ Actually, Baldur's Gate had an opening cinematic featuring Sarevok, and interestingly enough that is the "image" of the character that stuck with you throughout the game.

That's actually an interesting phenomenon -- that even if you see a character's "cinematic" version for a few seconds in a game, that is the image of the character you remember best when looking back at the game.

As in-game graphics improve, pre-rendered cutscenes will be seen less and less, but for the time being, as long as they are well-done and well-integrated, they take nothing away from a game. Take, for instance, the ending of Shadow of the Collossus. In fact, if that were done with FFXII-style pre-rendered graphics, it would have been that much better IMO.

I can definitely think of some examples of poor integration/execution, though. Take Xenosaga, for instance. Hours upon hours of cutscenes to sit through, most of which are like a bad anime.

Re:fun (1)

bigman2003 (671309) | more than 7 years ago | (#19048939)

Oddworld: Stranger's Wrath- awesome cinematics. Looked incredible.

My wife would actually watch these cinematics! The game gave you the option to replaly them once they were unlocked. This was the first time she was even remotely interested in this sort of thing.

I loved it too.

Cutscenes should be used sparingly (1)

PIPBoy3000 (619296) | more than 7 years ago | (#19037347)

Fallout and Civ (I haven't played STALKER) had some great cinematics, but they were used very sparingly. For example, seeing the faux-news intro to Fallout was amazing, setting the feel for the entire game. With Civ, you saw your Wonders built and in the end the rocket launch, which was a tasty reward for your efforts.

What should be avoided is lots of cutscenes that take control away from the player. And yes, I learned that the hard way after being a bit too cutscene-happy with my own game development [adamandjamie.com] .

Re:Cutscenes should be used sparingly (1)

644bd346996 (1012333) | more than 7 years ago | (#19038207)

I actually found the civ4 cinematics to be lacking. I think Civ2 did a great, with much more in-depth wonder movies and a much longer winning movie.

Re:Cutscenes should be used sparingly (1)

great om (18682) | more than 7 years ago | (#19048169)

I really miss the filmed advisors that CIV2 had -it was clever, and by the time it got annoying, you could turn it off. That was the best use of filmed actors that I can recall in a game.

Re:fun (1)

Mephistophocles (930357) | more than 7 years ago | (#19037519)

None of my favorite games (Fallout, STALKER, Civ) have anything approaching fantastic cinematics, yet they're still brilliant

Yeah, but don't you think it depends on the kind of game we're talking about? I mean, Civ, for example, doesn't need great cutscenes to be brilliant. However, in "story" based games it's possible (and perhaps even necessary) to use the cinematics to really enhance the storyline, which in my opinion is perhaps the #1 shortfall of 99% percent of games made in the past few years (there are notable exceptions, Halo being one of them IMHO). I've often wondered why (unless it's just that the financial demands are higher) studios don't simply film the cutscenes and not worry about rendering them. Of course it is possible to produce some fantastic cutscenes using only the game engine, and one doesn't have to worry about the slightly different look between the film footage and the rendered character/set. Still, my point is that when the "story" is the basis of the game (as I've always thought it should be in Halo, multi-player not withstanding), extra special care should be given by the studio to insure that the story is as gripping, well written, and intricate as it can be. Add that to well thought-out interface and brilliant cinematics, and you're looking at a brilliant game. So I think these guys may just be looking at a winner here, assuming the story is brilliant...

Re:fun (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19038197)

Of course cinematics can make a game more fun. Remember Ninja Gaiden? I vividly remember wanting to beat the next level just to watch the movie at the end.

Re:fun (2, Insightful)

nomadic (141991) | more than 7 years ago | (#19038499)

Is there anyone here that would actually claim "improved cinematics" can make a game more fun?

Ico.

Re:fun (1)

John Nowak (872479) | more than 7 years ago | (#19045865)

Good point.

Re:fun (1)

linzeal (197905) | more than 7 years ago | (#19038783)

I remember when each generation of games cinematics would be a preview of the gaming graphics of the next few generations of games. At some point when ray tracing and 3 month compiles on render farms were required to get 30 minutes of cinematics I sort of missed the point. It is not like we are going to get real time ray tracing soon.

Re:fun (1)

Endo13 (1000782) | more than 7 years ago | (#19040533)

Most of my favorite games don't have cinematics, but one of them had the best cinematics for the day, and I really liked them. I guess I even played the whole way through the game an extra time or two because of them (to get them back after a Windows reinstall). That was Red Alert 2.

Re:fun (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19040639)

This is an example of everything that's wrong with games nowadays.

Or to be less dramatic, this is an example of one thing that wrong with games nowadays.

Re:fun (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19044249)

You aren't seeing it right - if they are going to make the rest of the game as great as possible, why not make the cinematics great too?

And yes, good cinematics really can improve the feel and quality of a game.

Re:fun (1)

Kardall (886095) | more than 7 years ago | (#19046767)

Amongst all of the replies... I would like to post my response to this comment and post.

I don't buy a game for the movies. It's the reason i stopped playing Final Fantasy after 8. 8 Had enough cinematics to make me want to only pay $13 for it, cause that's how much I could have seen the goddamn movie for in the theatre.
Maybe someone will spare the rest of the world with cutscenes, and put some "game" into videogames. You know... good things, like storyline while giving purpose to killing those aliens, or even *gulp* themes.
IMO the worst thing you could do is do "cinematics to explain why you are playing the game, or the next leg of the game."

Re:fun (1)

Sibko (1036168) | more than 7 years ago | (#19047411)

Your point would make sense if Bungie was expending massive resources to create beautifully rendered CGI videos that don't add much to the game for their cost in time, and money. But that's not at all what's going on here. The cinematics in Halo have always been rendered in-engine, Bungie is just saying that with the extra time they have with Halo 3, they're going to improve the sound, dialogue, animation, and so on, over what they had in Halo 1 and 2.

This is hardly indicative of what's wrong with games nowadays.

And hey, if anyone's interested, you can view Halo's cutscenes here:
http://nikon.bungie.org/misc/cutscenes/halo.html [bungie.org]
http://nikon.bungie.org/misc/cutscenes/halo2.html [bungie.org]

Re:fun (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19048413)

When your game is a FPS, it is up to the cinematics to convey important plot points. For example, in Halo 1, it was crucial to see the beginning cinematic. It would have been impossible to do that through play, as it is a FPS.

I also liked the games you mentioned, and agree too much time is spent on making things look "pretty" and not enough time spent making sure they are fun and work right. But, Halo 2 really did drop the ball on the cinematics and story, imho.

Re:fun (1)

grumbel (592662) | more than 7 years ago | (#19049007)

Depends on how they are improved, decent facial animation can enhance the experience quite a lot (Half Life 2), while bad ones can ruin things quite a bit (Zelda:TP). Good voice acting is also extremely important, actually the most important part, static images and good voice acting are still far superior to the newest animation tech with bad actors. When it however comes to pure 'fluff', like more explosions, more slow motion effects, motion blur, bloom and such I pass, they can be sometimes fun to watch, but don't exactly make a game more believable (MetalGear:Twin Snakes), especially not when all those cool effects and actions violate the rules of the gameplay.

Overall I prefer when things stay simple, give me good voice actors, make decent use of the in-game engine (Operation Flashpoint, Dreamfall) and stay away from all the fancy over the top CG stuff, that just distracts and doesn't enhance. A well done cutscene can enhance the storytelling quite a bit, a bad one or an annoying one just makes me press the skip button really fast.

Finally.. (1)

nlitement (1098451) | more than 7 years ago | (#19037115)

Finally, a press statement where they don't use the word next-gen as a lame excuse for not doing something "astonishing" before. Hurray for Bungie!

Cinematics (4, Informative)

MeanderingMind (884641) | more than 7 years ago | (#19037149)

Cinematics =/= Prerendered.

They aren't talking about extended CGI sequences we all know and hate, they're discussing the in-game cutscenes Halo and Halo 2 were riddled with. Supposedly Halo 3's will be better.

Re:Cinematics (3, Interesting)

kestasjk (933987) | more than 7 years ago | (#19037457)

Halo was great because it was so simple; it set up a simple world where you could run from cool looking scene to cool looking scene and kill some aliens.

Halo 2 sucked because it tried to have a rich storyline and character development that I don't think anyone cared about. One minute I'm killing some alien spider on earth, next minute I'm on some second halo or something, next minute I'm in a floating temple and there's some infighting amongst aliens for some reason.

In Halo 1 it's just "regroup, find the control center, go to the control center, save the captain, get the index, destroy Halo", none of this "prophesy" bullshit. K.I.S.S!

Re:Cinematics (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19038437)

So basically Halo 2's story was bad for people with no attention span.

Re:Cinematics (1)

kestasjk (933987) | more than 7 years ago | (#19039469)

I had the attention span to play through the entire game. I completed it and quite enjoyed it, but I couldn't even give you a gist of what the storyline was. In Halo 1 you storyline simply framed the game, but in Halo 2 you felt like they were trying to make you "play the movie".

Re:Cinematics (1)

Paradise Pete (33184) | more than 7 years ago | (#19040833)

I had the attention span to play through the entire game. I completed it

Hahaha sure you did. You mean you kept playing until the game stopped. Does anybody replaying it now even bother with the "final" battle? There's nothing interesting about it. You just keep running in circles around that wall until you can get in enough shots to kill the abominable snow man and make the credits start rolling. And the guy's too stupid to even know what's happening. He just stands there out in the open while Sarge weakens his shields. You'd think at least by the eight or ninth time it happened that it would occur to him to move out of the line of fire.

Re:Cinematics (1)

WilliamSChips (793741) | more than 7 years ago | (#19043871)

It was also all ripped off of Stargate, but that's a different story.

Re:Cinematics (1)

Paul Pierce (739303) | more than 7 years ago | (#19044945)

Wait...
There is a single player in Halo 2?

If they kept track, I would bet that I've played about 500 hours of Halo 2, that of which probably 10 were spent on Single player.

Am I the only one?


I am still impressed with the graphics in both of the Halo's. They seem flawless in some weird way. It's like I know that Splinter Cell and Ninja Gaiden look better, but they don't seem as flawless.

Re:Cinematics (1)

grumbel (592662) | more than 7 years ago | (#19049095)

For me its the other way around, Halo1 sucked a lot in terms of story, while Halo2 was very enjoyable. The reason for this is that the story of Halo1 went in circles forever without ever letting the player accomplish anything, its like "to this", next mission is "undo this" because it was the wrong thing to do, then you have those "rescue that person", only to find that he is already dead/dieing, it comes down to the point where you are exactly where you started in the end and have to blow up your own ship, having accomplished basically nothing, with everybody of your comrades dead. Not exactly what I call a satisfying story.

Halo2 on the other side actually moved forward, let the player accomplish some things, let him switch to the alien side and play there a while (thus giving them much more depth) and do things that actually mattered. It wasn't perfect since it lacked proper closure, but even with that fault I liked it much more then Halo1. After Halo1 I felt cheated, after Halo2 entertained.

In Other Progressive News! (2, Insightful)

GodInHell (258915) | more than 7 years ago | (#19037173)

Next generation of technology said to be more advanced than last! (Who knew?)

Shouldn't this article be met with a resounding "DUH!" ?

-GiH

Bad Idea (2, Insightful)

Cap'nPedro (987782) | more than 7 years ago | (#19037221)

They should have talked to the guys behind the Command & Conquer cut-scenes. They were (and still are in C&C3) absolutely amazing.

Although, I don't think the whole live action thing would work too well with Halo.

Sounds good to me (1)

Mortanius (225192) | more than 7 years ago | (#19037233)

I, for one, enjoyed the Halo 2 cutscenes, I didn't feel they were too obtrusive and the extra detail they were able to pump in was certainly a nice touch. Given the additional power of the 360, I look forward to seeing what they can pull off.

On an unrelated note, am I the only one who had a problem with apparently the texture detail jumping during the cutscenes in Halo 2? As soon as someone or something appeared on-screen it'd have a relatively low-res texture applied to it for as long as a second or so, then bump up to the full quality. I've never figured out if it's a problem with my xbox or just a fact of life in the game.

Re:Sounds good to me (1)

GodInHell (258915) | more than 7 years ago | (#19037513)

It's not you, it's the game.
-GiH

Re:Sounds good to me (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19037529)

I'm still waiting for a Wii. So is most of the world. Most of us don't give a ^@$%@ about the XBox

Re:Sounds good to me (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19040713)

Yeah, looks like both of us stumbled into the wrong thread. Oh well..

Re:Sounds good to me (1)

Mephistophocles (930357) | more than 7 years ago | (#19037555)

Nah, happens on mine and a couple others I've seen. It's the game.

Re:Sounds good to me (1)

Osty (16825) | more than 7 years ago | (#19040219)

On an unrelated note, am I the only one who had a problem with apparently the texture detail jumping during the cutscenes in Halo 2? As soon as someone or something appeared on-screen it'd have a relatively low-res texture applied to it for as long as a second or so, then bump up to the full quality. I've never figured out if it's a problem with my xbox or just a fact of life in the game.

That was by design, and Bungie has commented on it several times. Essentially, it's a compromise between load times and graphical quality. I don't know if you noticed, but after the intial load Halo 2 had absolutely no load screens at all, including for cutscenes. To pull that off, they had to compromise on loading the textures for cut scenes, which meant you could either have a completely seamless game but with 1-2 seconds of low-res textures at the beginning of each cut scene, or you could have cutscenes with their full textures from the very start but have to look at a loading screen for 1-2 seconds every time a cutscene kicked off.

Given that everyone here obviously believes gameplay is more important than cutscenes, I think Bungie made the right choice -- sacrifice some small amount of cutscene quality in order to have a completely seamless, load-free game.

No shit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19037367)

Of course there's going to be a huge imrprovement for Halo 3 (Xbox 360) over Halo (Xbox).

!

To those saying in-game cinematics are a waste... (4, Insightful)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 7 years ago | (#19037695)

...have you so easily forgotten the cinematics to Diablo II? Easily the best collection of cutscenes in any game EVER.

Re:To those saying in-game cinematics are a waste. (1)

AnswerIs42 (622520) | more than 7 years ago | (#19038241)

2-5 minute cut scenes are one thing... having to wait 30 to 40 minutes till I can play again are another.

Xenosaga has amazing cut scenes... but I would have to watch for almost 40 minutes till I could play again.. that is not a game, that is an Anime episode where you get to move a charcter once and a while.

Re:To those saying in-game cinematics are a waste. (1)

tcc3 (958644) | more than 7 years ago | (#19045971)

"East...always east"

Some times I watch my collectors edition cutscene dvd just for fun. And its still looks pretty good even by todays standards. I just wish it had the Lord of Destruction cut scenes too.

Re:To those saying in-game cinematics are a waste. (1)

DoktorSeven (628331) | more than 7 years ago | (#19046063)

Diablo II had cutscenes? Really? I don't remember any, I must have skipped them to get to the GAMEPLAY.

Really, who the FUCK cares about a noninteractive story in a videogame? Videogames are supposed to be about having the player create actions and events by himself; anything that gets in the way of that is absolutely useless. Maybe give a small explanation about what's going on at the beginning via text, but get it out of the way quickly and let me PLAY THE GODDAMN GAME.

Most of modern "gaming", if you can even call it that, sickens me. We didn't get 30 hours of non-interactive "storyline" back in the old days, and the games were better because of it. (No, not ALL old games, but the best old games beat the best new games any day of the week, and that's not just rose-tinted nostalgia talking, despite what you think.)

Re:To those saying in-game cinematics are a waste. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19049375)

You should to back and watch the cut scenes. When I first played Diablo2 my computer couldn't handle the cut scenes so I skipped them. However, when I played the game again this past year on a newer machine I decided to see what I missed. They're excellent pieces of computer animation.

Think of Starcraft's cutscene animation and then go one better.

Re:To those saying in-game cinematics are a waste. (1)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 7 years ago | (#19050503)

We didn't get 30 hours of non-interactive storyline time back in the day because the technology didn't exist to tell the story how the creators wanted to tell it...or do you forget that your main char in a game used to be 6 pixels?

Games were simple. Games were fun.

Games now are complicated. Games now are still fun.

See the connection? Games = fun. The era shouldn't matter, the capacity in the storytelling shouldn't matter; what should matter to you is that you are holding a controller and are living through an EXPERIENCE, one pixel at a time.

cutscenes are bad? (1)

ObjetDart (700355) | more than 7 years ago | (#19037731)

Why is everyone dissing cutscenes? I'm not a huge gamer but I remember with the old Blizzard RTS games like Warcraft and Starcraft, I thought the pre-rendered CGI cut scenes were rippin' good fun, made for a nice break between the action and a cool "reward" for finishing a level. Didn't detract from the game play at all, at least not for me.

Re:cutscenes are bad? (1)

j00r0m4nc3r (959816) | more than 7 years ago | (#19038187)

I don't think it's so much that people are dissing cutscenes, per se. It's the fact that they are using cutscenes as like a selling point for the game. Like they have nothing else to tout except for their new more-awesome-er cutscenes which has absolutely no bearing on whether the game is fun.

Re:cutscenes are bad? (1)

exp(pi*sqrt(163)) (613870) | more than 7 years ago | (#19039407)

Eh? Warcraft and Starcraft were great games. Why would I want to take a break by watching some cheesy cut scene? If I wanted to stop playing I'd just get up and do something else. Thankfully I just pressed the Esc key every time yet another cheesy render appeared on my screen.

Re:cutscenes are bad? (1)

ricree (969643) | more than 7 years ago | (#19043817)

Honestly, I think that you missed out on a lot then. Starcraft, especially, had some good cutscenes, in my opinion. I've always felt that they added a lot to the story, and were in general a great example of how to get it right.

"they added a lot to the story" (1)

exp(pi*sqrt(163)) (613870) | more than 7 years ago | (#19045569)

Story? There was a story? If I wanted stories I'd learn ro read. I just wanted to beat the s**t out of ogres, wizards, dragons, Zergs and Protoss.

Cutscenes are *not* bad (1)

PatientZero (25929) | more than 7 years ago | (#19042485)

I for one welcome our new cutscene overlords.

A trip back to 1987 (1)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 7 years ago | (#19037983)

All this "We know we screwed it up last time...but this time it will be AMAZING" crap reminds of the promotion for the movie "Superman IV." I can still vividly remember interviews with Christopher Reeve, Margot Kidder, et. al. where they talked about how badly they had screwed up "Superman III" and how IV was an apology for that mistake, how amazing the new movie looked, etc.

Of course, the insight here is not lost on anyone who had the misfortune of seeing the abysmal abortion that was "Superman IV" (by all accounts, it made III look like "The Godfather").

The new game is *ALWAYS* "Much better," "Amazing," "The best work we've ever done," "A game that will BLOW YOU AWAY," etc. Well, at least it is until years later when they're apologizing for it and are offering up a NEW game as their ACTUAL masterpiece.

Why bother? (1)

bhunachchicken (834243) | more than 7 years ago | (#19038047)

The question is - Why are they bothering?

Unless I've been reading all the wrong message boards it appears that most Halo players are by far more interested in the multiplayer deathmatches than the story. The backlash over the "story" in Halo 2 was all over Halo 2 boards for months following the game's release.

I wouldn't put too much stock in the story neither since I doubt they'll be lifting ideas from an Iain M Banks novel [bungie.org] this time...

Re:Why bother? (1)

GodInHell (258915) | more than 7 years ago | (#19039307)

Unless I've been reading all the wrong message boards it appears that most Halo players are by far more interested in the multiplayer deathmatches than the story. The backlash over the "story" in Halo 2 was all over Halo 2 boards for months following the game's release.
Halo 1 had a decent story that was COMPLETE on release.


Halo 2 had a deeper story that was more involving.. and then stopped suddenly half way through.


The story is important to me, and most of my friends - but anecdotes aren't evidence. I don't know if anyone is bothering to survey gamers to find out either.

-GiH

Re:Why bother? (1)

ravyne (858869) | more than 7 years ago | (#19039453)

While the multiplayer aspects are certainly Halo's holding point over the long term, the single-player campaigns are fun as well. The arguements against the Halo 2 plot was not that it was bad, or lacking, but because the story arch fell apart at the very end -- The plot was never concluded, it simply stopped. Basically, they botched an attempt at a cliff-hanger ending.

Re:Why bother? (1)

enochweedy (1081949) | more than 7 years ago | (#19043511)

I happen to enjoy the story. And I have been reading scifi for the better part of 20 years or so. It's not Frank Herbert, but it's not L. Ron Hubbard either.

Instead of cinematics... (1)

DogDude (805747) | more than 7 years ago | (#19038147)

Instead of cinematics, how about they spend some time on the actual gameplay, graphics, and sound, all of which seem like they come out of 1996? I don't understand the obsession with Halo. I got Halo 2 for the XBox, played it for a few hours, and returned it to the store. Halo has got to be one of the worst FPS's I've ever played. I don't think that improved cinematics is going to help at all.

Re:Instead of cinematics... (1)

T-Bone-T (1048702) | more than 7 years ago | (#19038689)

You mean to say that if they work on a cutscene at all they are spending too much time on it? I've been reading the updates on the Bungie website and they spend most of the time talking about everything but cinematics. You must have been really young in 1996, I would have been blown away by Halo: CE's graphics in 1996.

Re:Instead of cinematics... (1)

Tofystedeth (1076755) | more than 7 years ago | (#19039519)

In what way does the sound sound like it is from 1996? If I recall, in '96 a lot of stuff was still crappy MIDI and poorly compressed recordings. If actual instruments and recordings of voices that sound like recordings of voices is 1996esque, what do we sound like now? Futuristic robots? Reverberating disembodied voices of transcended beings?

Re:Instead of cinematics... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19043501)

Sound out of 1996? Really?

Yeah, the gameplay is obviously crappy... there's only been, what, 4 BILLION games of Halo2 multiplayer on Xbox Live. Yeah, Halo2 totally sucked =/

Homeworld (1)

freefrag (728150) | more than 7 years ago | (#19038909)

Of all the games I have played, Homeworld's cinematics have had the most emotional impact on me. The black and white sketches, combined with some scenes scripted using the game engine, were very powerful.

Sigh (1)

hlomas (1010351) | more than 7 years ago | (#19039877)

Does a story whose only existence is to hype Halo 3 really need to be posted?

I mean just look at the title of the linked webpage. "Halo 3's Cinematics > Halo 2".

Wow, who would have thought. Please, tell us more about how great Halo 3 is.

If they produce some awe-inspiring cinematics that raise the bar for games everywhere, then post about their accomplishments, but leave the commercial pandering out.

Too bad I'll never play Halo3 (1)

senahj (461846) | more than 7 years ago | (#19039913)


"Requires" DX10 => requires Vista
As I will not ever purchase Vista (DRM-ridden bloatware)
I will unfortunately not get a chance to play Halo3.

On the Xbox 360? Nein, meinherr. I have one,
but FPS with thumbstix suxxors.

Re:Too bad I'll never play Halo3 (1)

tcc3 (958644) | more than 7 years ago | (#19046081)

"I suxxors at FPS with thumbsticks"

I corrected that for you.

Im used to playing FPS with a controller; Cut my teeth on Goldeneye in college. I recently started playing computer FPSs because I finally found a controller for my left hand that let me move better than a crippled 3 legged half wit.

Sure its easier to aim with a mouse. So easy there's very little aiming skill involved. It doest feel like aiming a weapon, it feels like a souped up version of those old "click on the fast moving objects for points" twitch games. That doesnt make them bad though.

I dont know why people insist on comparing console and PC FPSs - its apples and oranges. Both can provide a satisfying experience.

Re:Too bad I'll never play Halo3 (1)

MadUndergrad (950779) | more than 7 years ago | (#19049601)

"So easy there's very little aiming skill involved. It doest feel like aiming a weapon"

Please, and the thumbstick does? Not sure what sort of weapons you're used to. I mean really, if you want to go that route lets all control games by strapping Wii-like remotes to our cocks. Now _that_ takes skill!

Inferior controls do nothing but piss people off.

Re:Too bad I'll never play Halo3 (1)

tcc3 (958644) | more than 7 years ago | (#19052313)

You feel better now that you brought your dick into the discussion?

My whole point was that the two control schemes are different. You say mouse & KB has better aim? I saw it has lousy movement controls.

To each his own. Each control scheme is so different its silly to compare them like they are equivalent. What ever floats your boat.

heck with the cinematics (1)

Vanye1 (448817) | more than 7 years ago | (#19039965)

I want the sound to work better. I am tired of the soundtrack swelling at *just* the right time to make the actual dialogue impossible to hear. Difficult as it may be to believe, some of us do play the games for the plot, as much as the "come in peace, shoot to kill" game play.

I miss something for halo 1 (1)

GregPK (991973) | more than 7 years ago | (#19040011)

I liked the effect in Halo 1 where you would wake up talking to a guy and start following him. Perhaps a mission where you need to keep a guy alive is in order while he talks to you. This effect is much of what made me enjoy playing games like halo, Half life, etc.

I know this is a bit late, but.. (1)

Slow Smurf (839532) | more than 7 years ago | (#19041473)

No, they don't get my respect for owning up to this mistake/failure.

They'd get my respect if they'd owned up to it when/as it happened. Not more than a year after the fact when they aren't concerned in the slightest about selling copies of the game. It's just hype for the next one at this point.

Yeah, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19043199)

... will it have an ending [penny-arcade.com] ?

Never gets old... ok I'm sure it gets old, but I live in the past.

Headline sounds stupid (1)

jibjibjib (889679) | more than 7 years ago | (#19048019)

"Halo 3 cinematics to be great improvements on Halo 2's"

It's a game, not a movie. I find it strange that people would be interested in improvements to the cinematics, which have no impact on gameplay. To me, the headline of this article just sounds weird. Next thing you know, we'll be having articles about how the menus look better in halo 3 than halo 2, or something.

gameplay is boring (1)

Smight (1099639) | more than 7 years ago | (#19048349)

I just hope they give my party members enough phoenix downs so I can get woken up for the next cutscene.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?