I've watched the in-game demo quite a few times, now.. and, well, UT2003? Capable of better. And no worse-than-anime jerky mouth movements when it came to speech.
The only things that really impressed me was the Master Chief himself and a few of the more grand explosions such as when the Marine fighters took out that.. big..covenant..blaster..thingy. And speaking of that, was that really logical, even? I mean, that must have taken some time/effort to set up, and they were just lobbing these huge projectiles ACROSS THE STREET to hammer the building.. it looked like it was an anti-air tower but why was it smacking the building across the street from it then?
The alien design..... ..eh. Halo's aliens weren't bad, really. And the elites that crashed down around the Master Chief on that bridge? Nice.
I'm expecting this to be a solid FPS.. but nothing groundbreaking or all-too-outstanding. Hopefully there will be enough level headed critics out there not creaming their jeans over the "graphics" that this one won't waste Game of the Year spots like it's predecessor (which, though it's a great game, wasn't GOTY materiel IMO).
Quote:
|
I'm positive it's going to blow anything PS2 (no offense)
|
I think everybody's gotten past the point of having offense taken. The ps2's hardware is YEARS older than the Xbox's. It's not a matter of what is better/what each is capable of, but what games and what kind of graphical power can be wrung out of each.
Short? Xbox=graphics-centric console. If something looks bad on Microsoft's badboy, then it's a failure on the developer's part.
On the PS2 games that look as good as Xbox titles are great triumphs on the developer's part, but if the gameplay is bad then it's an even bigger failure.
Then again that's just my opinion.