CAA: Christian Anime Alliance

This started because in the modern gaming thread someone compared halo 2 graphics to MGS3 graphics.
They used this picture.


And this picture.

It's time to show 'em wrong.

Yes mgs3 is clearly superior.

So....what does this accomplish?

Um.... I'm really wondering what this accomplishes. I mean, xbox has better hardware than PS2, so why should thi suprise anyone, and why should anyone argue?

An d why are they even comparing MGS to Halo? They aren't even remotely similar except in the fact that both characters use guns.....

ikimasu wrote:Um.... I'm really wondering what this accomplishes. I mean, xbox has better hardware than PS2, so why should thi suprise anyone, and why should anyone argue?

An d why are they even comparing MGS to Halo? They aren't even remotely similar except in the fact that both characters use guns.....

Console fanboys going at it?

In the modern gaming forum this person said that mgs3 graphics where better than halo and he used a bad picture of halo and a normal picture of mgs3 to prove it. I'am just showing that he's wrong. I could of just compared the specs but I thought a picture says a thousand words.

the second halo picture isn't in-game shots... its like a picture of a cinematic or something...

and cinematics are usually always better than ingame shots...

Mr. SmartyPants wrote:the second halo picture isn't in-game shots... its like a picture of a cinematic or something...

and cinematics are usually always better than ingame shots...

Nope Ryan, thats ingame >.>

Yup all halo cinematics are in-game. Though that isn't a cinematic.

Uh, you just seem desperate to disprove everyone, don't you Truthgone12? O_o

And I agree with Ikimasu's statement.

No, I just think that he shouldn't have said that mgs3 had better graphics then halo.

No, I just think that he shouldn't have said that mgs3 had better graphics then halo.

And when exactly was that said? The pics were used to show that their wasn't that much difference between them (which, in all honesty, there's not), not that MGS3 had better graphics.

Locke wrote:Nope Ryan, thats ingame >.>

well yeah but not real-time playing....

it's a 3rd person view... that shot seems like its purposefully trying to show off its graphics, one of the "better looking moments" of the game

Let me show you a quote

Because the graphics are clearly inferior.


Because the graphics are clearly inferior.

If you are arguing specs, there is no argument. X-box is the best one. There is no argument there, because the specs are numbers and easily and objectively (for the most part) comparable...

If you're talking about skill in design, I think that the human characters in MGS3 look better than the ones in Halo. Master chief is a monumental achievement in underwhelming, and the other characters are just so-so.

Then there is the environments. Environments are generally easier to do than humans, so it does tend to have more to do with the power of the system in most cases. That being the case, MGS3 does suffer from a lower ability graphics card. Halo's environments are crisper.

Of course, at least part of the environment has to do with skill in design, but the Halo people were skilled at that. For its purpose, it was entirely appropriate (though I prefer organic environments to the spaceship thing that was in the first shot.) I also thought the environments in MGS3 was entirely appropriate.

What I found to be better in MGS3 was a visual relay of emotion. Of course, Halo made no play at being a cinematic game, despite the cut scenes. It is a shooter. That makes it forgiveable because they don't need that level of emotion to fulfill the purpose of that game.

Truthgone12, that was posted by someone making a point that there is not much difference in the graphics. Yes, as Bob said, the XBOX is graphically stronger, but the actual skill in design goes more to the other side.

Halo has skill in design too. Thought it does have the factor of being a pretty boring game. Except on multiplayer.

Boring game? Right well I guess Virtual Backgammon is more your idea of excitement then.

Sarcasm there just like whoever it was that made the original post with those shots was trying to say. It might of been blkmage, cbwing0, or maybe someone else can't remember. Xbox has more raw power than PS2 it's just a fact. But whoever it was that made that post was trying to say that there really isn't *that* much of a difference in quality to to warrant fanboys to say "omgoshorzz lookey at the l33t grafix of (PS2) (Xbox) and how they pwn everything else!!!" And I think there was a Twilight Princess shot in there too.

I'am happy with halo 2. I mean it gets repetitive sometimes in the single player.

I posted that, and

And when exactly was that said? The pics were used to show that their wasn't that much difference between them (which, in all honesty, there's not), not that MGS3 had better graphics.

that was what I was trying to say.

Now to show the real meaning of this thread. Far Cry and Half-Life 2 are coming to the xbox. I want to compare the graphics of the PC to the Xbox version.

truthgone12 wrote: Halo has skill in design too. Thought it does have the factor of being a pretty boring game. Except on multiplayer.

You know, a much less mature side of me wants to flame you for that. But I won't. Cuz I'm a good little boy scout.

MGS3's graphics are an achievement because they pull some of the best out of the PS2's limited hardware. I hadn't seen particle effects like that since Killzone(another game that made the most of the hardware given). But, in my opinion, Halo 2 blows MGS out of the water in two areas: one: Halo 2 is bump/normal mapped (I can't remember which), adding a lighting realism that MGS3 can't compare to. Two: whilst MGS3 has much better character design, most of the characters in it are basically emotionless, unless you have a gun going from head to crotch, but that's another story. In Halo 2, what most of the characters lack in individuality, they make up for in sheer expression, which adds to the immersino of the game.

But hey, this is just my opinion on two excellent games that I would play either way. They both rule. So there. No one can argue that...okay, so maybe they could...but, oh, well...

Play some half-life 2...

Out of curiosity, is there any reason you opted to post this on CAA and not on the forum in question? If you have something to contribute to the conversation, do it over there. No one here is going to argue with you about it.

Thought I'll admit I may just be anoyed that these graphics are taking up usable bandwidth and server space.

I say who the heck cares about graphics. Most insanely fun games dont have all that wonderful graphics (see katamari damacy)

truthgone12 wrote:Now to show the real meaning of this thread. Far Cry and Half-Life 2 are coming to the xbox. I want to compare the graphics of the PC to the Xbox version.

That depends entirely on what kind of PC you're running them on. If you're running those on say a GeForce 7800 GTX, with 2 Gigs of RAM, and a Athlon FX it's gonna blow it out of the water.

Sonic_13 wrote:I say who the heck cares about graphics. Most insanely fun games dont have all that wonderful graphics (see katamari damacy)

Here here

I am still playing Sim City 2000 and having much more fun time playing this then I ever did playing Halo or any of those new games coming out.

I propose Namco makes a super-realistic Katamari Damacy. That would be the greatest thing ever and at the same time instill in us a fear of katamaris and pray that they will never, ever be invented.

truthgone12 wrote:Now to show the real meaning of this thread. Far Cry and Half-Life 2 are coming to the xbox. I want to compare the graphics of the PC to the Xbox version.

"daytime ravenholm" is all that needs to be said about the Xbox version of HL2.

lol

Are we console-warring here?

Sync wrote:"daytime ravenholm" is all that needs to be said about the Xbox version of HL2.

no point of ravenholm when its all bright and shiny XD