Memorable Changes in Our Games
Ten years ago the Xbox 360 came out, and before that the OG Xbox came out in 2001. A beloved series through Xbox is Halo and with the new release of the Xbox One and Halo 5 we are able to truly compare.
1. Does the graphics of a game truly change the remembrance you have? Explain
2. Which halo had the biggest jump in the aesthetics from its form release?
3. Since we keep progressing in technology why are Halo Reach and Halo 3 ranked higher
then Halo 4?
Helpful Links:
Halo 5 graphics analysis
Halo Wikia
List of Halo games in order by vote
1. Memory of a game is completely based on your experience so yes graphics could influence the way you saw the game because graphics are how the creator shows you their world. what if halo was a RTS or a 3rd person shooter your opinion would be different you could think that it sucks now because of the graphics.
ReplyDelete2. Halo 3 had the best in the whole series it felt like it could be earth with aliens at the time it still holds up especially from Halo 2.
3. because 4 isn't what a halo should be its not about graphics because it did a good job of showing the world in detail but the story didn't feel Halo, Halo 3 master chief finished the fight and it was great in Reach we got to see the fall of the Spartans from the initial invasion to the glassing of the planet. Halo 4 is not a bad game its just not a Halo game, Everything feels pushed some less then others we got to see the main character show a more human side even though he is a super soldier and cortana deals with her own mortality. It could have been great but it wasn't bungie so it did worse and 3 and reach are held in higher praise not because of graphics but because it didn't leave as lasting of an impact.
1. Graphics don't exactly change the memories of a game; they can certainly help form or bolster an opinion of a game, but memories of a game are formed more by the experiences that a player has. Whether they played it with their friends or waited outside of a game retailer on release day, whether they found new friends in a guild from searching, whether they were able to rise to the top of the leaderboards based on their talent for the game, that is what forms memories.
ReplyDelete2. From a purely technical standpoint, 5 and the Master Chief Collection would have the best graphics since they're on the latest consoles, but I'm not much of a Halo player, so I'm not really able to comment.
3. Many people consider Halo 4 and games in the series since to have lost the vision of what a Halo game should be. Again, I haven't exactly followed the development cycle of Halo, Generic Military FPS 17, or Ubisoft Open World: The Game - 29, but from what I've heard about each of those sorts of games, they sacrificed the quality of the game to make it prettier and push it out faster, thereby becoming formulaic, dull, buggy, and (unfortunately) relying on name alone to sell. A word of advice to any other aspiring video game producers reading this: focusing almost purely on graphics is like putting cosmetics on a corpse--no matter how pretty you make it, it'll still stink to high heaven.
1.) Graphics aren't what make a game memorable, because when the PS3 and Xbox 360 we didn't worry about graphics, we wanted games to satisfy us story-wise, because there was a plot we had to see the end to. Graphics change depending on what you've experienced.
ReplyDelete2.) I personally have never played Halo myself to experience it because I'm a Playstation person, but I think Halo 5 changed it all, because all of the games were rated M, but Halo 5 was rated T.
3.) Probably better story because games focus more on graphics than the story and graphics is not what a game is all about.
1) The graphics of games aren't exactly the selling point of games, however the change of graphics shows a point of evolution in gaming and design technology. Games are also meant to be story based and engaging, that's why people play games; for story or competitive entertainment.
ReplyDelete2) My vote is for Halo 3 because that was the midpoint in the series as a whole and as such if the two games Halo 2 and Halo 3 were to be compared side by side, you could easily see the large difference compared to Halo 4 and Halo 5.
3) In my personal opinion, the reason why Halo 3 and Reach are above Halo 4 is because Halo 4 seemed forced out just to have another release for sales and such. Halo 3 had an intense ending which to this day I would still replay, whereas Halo 4 feels like a one time story that just doesn't capture the story quite as well as the previous.
1. When I was younger I thought that Minecraft was the greatest game in all creation, even though its graphics are less to none. I believe as long as the game has a story, and signs on creativity, it can create an amazing game.
ReplyDelete2. Halo 3 was probably the largest aesthetic expansion from that of previous games, as it was a transition phase form the original Xbox and the Xbox 360. However,it could be the Master Chief collection as well, as all the games had been remastered and put on one disc for the current Xbox One console.
3. In Halo 4 they focused on creation a beautifully generated world for the players to admire, instead of focusing on the main basis of a game: the story. It seemed as if that the fourth game was a release to gain money, rather than keeping the fan base happy. Hopefully they can restore the original halo-esc nature in the next few games.
1. As I grow older and newer, prettier games start rolling off of the shelves and into my systems, graphics just seem to be getting better and better. In my opinion, graphics do not make the game, but they can change your perspective of a game.
ReplyDelete2. In my opinion, Halo 3 had the biggest leap in terms of graphical quality.
3. Other than graphics, Halo 4 was actually pretty lackluster in terms of game play and overall story in comparison to its predecessors. The game felt like it was just more Halo, there was really nothing new except for how pretty they made the game look. It just ended up being more of the same, which in this case is a bad thing.
1. Graphics really don't affect my memory of games all too much. Sure, I do judge games by their graphics. I do look for games that look pretty good in general, but it's the play style of the game that really matters to me.
ReplyDelete2. I've never actually played Halo, but it seems like Halo 4 had a huge graphics improvement over Halo 3.
3. Again, while I've never actually played any Halo games, it seems that Halo 4 was more focused on its graphics than Halo 3 and Halo Reach. These two games were more about the actual story line and the experience that the player would have, and players did not become bored with it.
1. Graphics usually don’t change the way I feel about a game or how I play it. From Pokemon Yellow version, to the newest Alpha Ruby and Omega Sapphire, I have loved the pokemon series for what it is, regardless of what it looks like. It’s great to see a game undergo such drastic changes over the years, but it shouldn’t make or break the game for the player.
ReplyDelete2. The biggest jump in the aesthetics was from Halo 2 to Halo 3. In Halo 2, the models were very low poly, and some buildings were completely flat textures, left looking boring and bland, while in Halo 3, the models had more textures and looked like real buildings and characters.
3. Usually a game isn’t ranked because of it’s look or style, it’s ranked for gameplay and feel. Halo 4 is supposed to be the worst of the series gameplay wise, so I would assume that that would be a reason why Reach and 3 are ranked higher. If a stupid game like Undertale could win “best game of all time” and have the graphics it does, I don’t think graphics is what makes a game appear on a top 10 list.
1.The only time graphics would change how I remember a game is when you get to some amazing view or scene in the game that just makes you want to explore.
ReplyDelete2.The biggest jump was from Halo 2 to Halo 3 because every game after halo 3 always looked similar to halo 3 due to basically just using better texture. Halo 3 also is a big jump in graphics which makes it look great. Halo 2 and 1 look almost the same.
3.It ranked lower due to multiplayer features and even in my opinion the forge is not as good as the higher ranked games.
1. Well, if the graphics are way ahead of it's time, probably. But Halo 3's graphics are pretty bad, but that's still one of the most memorable games I've played because of the story mode and multiplayer.
ReplyDelete2. Probably the jump from Halo3: ODST to Halo: Reach.
3. Because Halo 3 and Halo: Reach actually had a decent story and multiplayer and had a lot of innovation from the previous games.
1. Graphics definitely add a whole lot of remembrance to the game but only as long as the other parts of the game are up to par. No matter how beautiful it is, if the story sucks and gameplay is poorly crafted, the game will be quickly forgotten.
ReplyDelete2. The biggest jump in graphics seemed to be between Halo 2 and Halo 3. I haven’t played the games so it’s hard to tell with only a little research but it seems like Halo 3 is the first game where it has some atmospheric lighting and some textures with any level of detail.
3. Halo 3 and Halo Reach are ranked higher than Halo 4 because of what I said in number 1. Graphics don’t mean squat when the story is unmemorable.
1. Graphics I would say adds a lot to what you are playing, but in my opinion I would say graphics doesn't really matter because if you play a game with really poopy graphics but it has a great story line the graphics wouldn't really matter at all. Most games now have intense graphics with nice gameplay because thats what all games are doing now a days.
ReplyDelete2. I would say Halo 2 - Halo 3 because it had a jump to the original Xbox to the 360. Plus it added a bigger vision of graphics wise and it just made peoples jaws drop because of how pretty all the explosions were. So in my eyes I would say Halo 2 - Halo 3 had a bigger impact.
3. They are said that those are higher ranked because of the change in Halo 4 with its fancy graphics. The older games had a much better storyline than Halo 4 so the fan base ranked it higher than the others. :^)
1. Graphics in games are pretty subjective, and they don’t make much of a difference for me. Sometimes this can get confused with art style, due to the similarities. Some games such as Golden Eye 007
ReplyDelete(http://images.mentalfloss.com/sites/default/files/styles/article_640x430/public/goldeneye.png)
have low quality graphics compared to today's standards not by choice, but because of the limitations at that time. Comparatively, more recent games will try to mimic or recreate an older style or certain time period such as with Shovel Knight.
(http://yachtclubgames.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Capture14.png)
2. The largest jump in graphics would be the move from the 3rd title to Halo 4, which is the 5th title(not including the strategy or mobile game). This is just a natural progression of things as graphics in new titles tend to get better over time.
3. I think it has more to do with the writing and execution of the new game. Bungie, the original developers for the series and every game up until that point had a lot of experience and personal investment in this world they’ve created. When 343 Industries took over the project, fans feared that future titles would lose whatever charm they had. Whether or not it was true, the stigma carried over and hurt the reception of the new title.
1) Personally, graphics don't have a big influence on how I remember a game. I remember playing Star Wars: Battlefront when I was young, and I remember loving that game despite its lack of graphical prowess. I go back and play it now and I still love that game. A more recent example would be Terraria, where the graphics weren't beautiful, but it was still a fun game.
ReplyDelete2) I have never payed Halo nor do I intend to, but I would say the biggest jump in graphics was from 3 to 4.
3) The lack of success of Halo 4 can be easily attributed to the fact that big gaming companies are becoming less and less reliable and liked. Big gaming companies are disconnected from what the user really wants, and think that they can do the same old thing with updated graphics over and over and people would enjoy it.
1. When it comes to, immersion in video games, there are many elements. Typically people think graphics is the strongest element, this is incorrect. I believe that all the elements are equally relevant. When all elements but one are perfect, it's obvious and when you notice this-your immersion is broken. Similarly, when there is only one good element it's even less immersive. I think that ALL elements deserve the same amount of attention, nothing needs to be realistic. It needs to seem realistic in relation to the universe being portrayed.
ReplyDelete2. I was too young to remember when Halo:Combat Evolved was released, but my father wasn't. For my dad Halo:Combat Evolved was
the first video game that made him think, "Video game graphics cannot get ANYMORE real than this!" For me it was Halo 3, I remember having the same thought as my dad when I loaded the game up.
3. "Halo: Reach represents the pinnacle of Bungie's tinkering with the Halo formula. The graphics still hold up thanks to strong art direction" I have been following the Halo franchise since Halo 3 and of all the Halo games I have played Reach was easily my favorite, and it certainly should be. As the quote says, the developers of Halo had perfected their craft. By the time Reach was being made both Bungie and the fans knew what they wanted and Bungie sowed those ideas together wonderfully.
1. Graphics don't really matter, it's the game play behind it and how the graphics are used. If there is a First Person Shooter game, but it's so pixelated you can't tell what's going on, then it can be considered bad. If you compare the original Halo to Halo 5, obviously the graphics in Halo 5 are better. Does it make it a better game though? Not really. They are both different acts of the same story, and do their job incredibly well.
ReplyDelete2. The first game to the third one was the biggest jump. In the first game, you were just discovering the world and what it had to offer. In the third one, you were introduced to so much more. From different species, different weapons, to different vehicles, you were able to do so much more. All the while keeping the same general game-play.
3. The reason these were ranked higher than 4 was because of the game-play and story. Halo 4 felt like it was heading in a different direction, while Reach and 3 were the peaks of the Halo franchise. In Halo Reach, personally, it moved me to tears. Throughout the game you grow to attach and love these characters all around you, just to have them torn away to serve a higher cause. This is something 4 lacked, and in my opinion, is the reason it is better.
1. The graphics don't change how I remember a game. The game play and the general feel the game produces is what I remember most. I remember plenty of games from my gameboy which had horrible graphics.
ReplyDelete2. The biggest jump in graphics quality was from halo 3 to 4.
3. Technology and graphics is not what makes a game good or bad. There are so many more factors. Microsoft is a large company and seems to not paying close attention to their actual game. The general feel and attention to detail of the game is what makes or breaks it. For example, GTA V is one of the highest rated games of all time and it is hugely detailed and took years to produce. Halo 5 was rushed and not much attention to detail was payed.