So It Looks Like Call of Duty Is Copying Halo...

[KyoKusagani1999]

Graphics don't matter. Gameplay matters. Call of Duty Failed to impress me with it's completely broken Classes system. Some weapons are ALWAYS going to be better than others, deaths because you can't see what hit you, Unfair advantages to those that play longer, ECT ECT. This is why I like Halo more.

[Darklarik]

 

 

[DoctorB77]

No. They arnt plain out. They just ran out of freaking ideas.

[King of Winter]

You can't really argue CoD is horrible when mw3 sold more copies than pretty much anything, Ever. An example? Halo Reach sold around 4 million copies in the first week, while Mw3 sold more than 9 million in the first day alone.

So please people. Just because you don't like a game doesn't mean it sucks. At the end of the day, Activision could afford to buy the Halo rights an burn them with all the money CoD made them.

 

http://www.pcworld.c...n_universe.html

 

Are the 9 million for the xbox alone? or xbox & PS3?

[VivaLebowski]

The graphics are far superior. Halo 4 is using an engine with a graphical layer that was already set in stone the moment they compiled the final product engine to begin Alpha and pre Alpha stage testing. You can argue it all you want, but the simple fact is, Halo has always been poor in the particle effect and physics end of the gaming spectrum. The graphical layer of the new CoD will allow.and always will offer more.range and depth of important graphics backend processessing.

 

1) Particle effects and "Physics" are far from being all that goes into "graphics". In fact, they are hardly the primary thing.

2) I really am wondering what you mean by CoD having superior "physics" considering it does not have any where near the number of moving non-character objects that Halo or BF have.

3) Compare the textures in the latest Black Ops II trailer with released Halo 4 gameplay. We can't judge the final product BOII based on this, needless to say, but you cannot see that the textures look a bit dated?

4) CoD unquestionably has had superior character models. Halo 4 seems to have caught up with them in that respect, though CoD has excellent facial rendering and character movement, so we have yet to see examples of those things in Halo (no video of non spartan characters with actual visible faces IE Cortana, and no examples of special animations other than standard movement).

 

And I'm saying this as a big fan of Black Ops. I will definitely buy the sequel. And CoD has had superior graphics to its competitors for some time now. But the texture's...the complexity of the surfaces, probably the most easy part of graphics to analyze, seem to be falling behind in Black Ops II, based on what we saw in the trailer.

[Lord Takaa]

Are the 9 million for the xbox alone? or xbox & PS3?

Both consoles.

[36-2071 Pragmatic Avarice]

That soldier reminds me of the Marathon Security Officer.....

[cA_Sil3nt]

Copying Halo? The goal of this COD game is to represent future warfare, and to be completely honest, none of these ideas seem too far-fetched for the next 25-50 years. That being said, I don't see how this is copying a game that is based 500+ years into the future.

[VivaLebowski]

If CoD really wanted to copy Halo, it would set itself 500 years in the future and have humans using projectile weapons which would not be out of place in World War 2. Just saying...

[Twinreaper]

Particle effects are tied directly to the graphical layer of code. The Particel effects objects uses streaming graphic processes that interpret and display the emmitions that are defined in the called functions of the tag work. The physics end, dictates how and when the particles skew along a path defined in the root placement and node definition. I know my stuff, please don't try to argue it, unless you have some decompiled data of your own that suggests otherwise.

 

Halo 4 has never had as many on-screen LOD rendered objects as the competition, but that is an engine setback. If they wanted to, they could have easily used a from scratch engine that redefined the formats and layouts. Why they still do not choose to do so is beyond me.

 

The textures for CoD and competator titles have always used a lower byte and better compressed schema that Halo, and because of that, they are able to to include more textures and at higher resolutions. CoD MW3 alone uses over 18,000 individual textures. Where as Halo Reach utilized only about 10,000 to 11,000. Surfice to say, Halo is focusing more on the shader use end and the abilities DX11 presents and in-house first party developer of it, opens more doors. CoD is relying on lighting to bring out vibrant and rich textures, something Halo has always sucked at. Lighting makes more of a difference in terms of rendering thatn any amount of shader usage. I know this from map making thru the HEK's of Halo 1 and Halo 2. I've used similar setting shaders for Cryengine as Halo Reach, and Cryengine with lighting blows away Reach by a crap ton.

 

Look, I'm not saying Halo 4 isn't going to look awesome, because I know the team is working hard and finding new techniques to bring it to life. All I am saying is, that after 3 years of development, this title should look better than any other in the coming year and a half. If it doesn't, then something along the development of it went horribly wrong. BOII will likely have 1/2 the production time of Halo 4, and already in terms of lighting and on-screen effects, BOII looks to be winning.

[RoosterTeethFan]

The graphics are far superior. Halo 4 is using an engine with a graphical layer that was already set in stone the moment they compiled the final product engine to begin Alpha and pre Alpha stage testing. You can argue it all you want, but the simple fact is, Halo has always been poor in the particle effect and physics end of the gaming spectrum. The graphical layer of the new CoD will allow.and always will offer more.range and depth of important graphics backend processessing.

Um im no expert but the cod graphics havent changed at all since cod4 just a new coat of paint on a old engine. it looks like an oil painting to me thats not a good thing. but really we cant jump on graphics of eather of these games until theres some real game play out.

[The Director]

The graphics are far superior. Halo 4 is using an engine with a graphical layer that was already set in stone the moment they compiled the final product engine to begin Alpha and pre Alpha stage testing. You can argue it all you want, but the simple fact is, Halo has always been poor in the particle effect and physics end of the gaming spectrum. The graphical layer of the new CoD will allow.and always will offer more.range and depth of important graphics backend processessing.

Great tech doesn't a good game make. COD has the money to get the best there is because they are a cross platform seller. Halo, being X-Box exclusive, sometimes has to cut corners to be sure of a profit. This is an example of a corner cut. No one can be sure that Halo 4 is going to be a best seller since it's the first of a new trilogy, so the decision was made to cut some corners to make things as profitable as possible. This, of course, is only one reason of many for 343i using Reach's engine in Halo 4, but I don't have the energy to make an 8000 word essay right now. lol

 

Also, on a side-note, COD has copied many things from Halo in the past. Don't believe me? Play any game they released prior to Halo's release, then play the newer games. See how many you can spot. lol

[Adam91]

Particle effects are tied directly to the graphical layer of code. The Particel effects objects uses streaming graphic processes that interpret and display the emmitions that are defined in the called functions of the tag work. The physics end, dictates how and when the particles skew along a path defined in the root placement and node definition. I know my stuff, please don't try to argue it, unless you have some decompiled data of your own that suggests otherwise.

 

Halo 4 has never had as many on-screen LOD rendered objects as the competition, but that is an engine setback. If they wanted to, they could have easily used a from scratch engine that redefined the formats and layouts. Why they still do not choose to do so is beyond me.

 

The textures for CoD and competator titles have always used a lower byte and better compressed schema that Halo, and because of that, they are able to to include more textures and at higher resolutions. CoD MW3 alone uses over 18,000 individual textures. Where as Halo Reach utilized only about 10,000 to 11,000. Surfice to say, Halo is focusing more on the shader use end and the abilities DX11 presents and in-house first party developer of it, opens more doors. CoD is relying on lighting to bring out vibrant and rich textures, something Halo has always sucked at. Lighting makes more of a difference in terms of rendering thatn any amount of shader usage. I know this from map making thru the HEK's of Halo 1 and Halo 2. I've used similar setting shaders for Cryengine as Halo Reach, and Cryengine with lighting blows away Reach by a crap ton.

 

Look, I'm not saying Halo 4 isn't going to look awesome, because I know the team is working hard and finding new techniques to bring it to life. All I am saying is, that after 3 years of development, this title should look better than any other in the coming year and a half. If it doesn't, then something along the development of it went horribly wrong. BOII will likely have 1/2 the production time of Halo 4, and already in terms of lighting and on-screen effects, BOII looks to be winning.

do you study or work with video games because you really seem to know your stuff.

[Undead]

Guys I was joking as I said before, stop getting so bent out of shape. I was just mocking the people that said Halo was like Call of Duty. haha

[VivaLebowski]

@ Twinreaper

 

"I know my stuff, please don't try to argue it"

 

All I'm gonna say is the texture quality in the BOII trailer actively looked worse than previous iterations of CoD. Thats it. This might be a design decision to move more resources to other stuff.

Of course, I big part of Halo is that it has always had more interestng, vibrant character models and designs, which is hardly surprising when you have Sci Fi versus a present or near-present setting.

[Twinreaper]

Thats true. The models and variations of them are quite impressive in the Halo franchise. The only thing i would like to see improved in terms of models, is how they animate. CoD does have a great kismatic setup and the animations are very fluid and realistic. Halo at times seems a little slow or clunky, but arguably is better looking though. Just wish the devs would have decided to use a new engine so they could properly bring the franchise up to speed with everyone else. And don't even get me started on the level mesh formats....yikes!

[Victory Element]

COD screwed themselves by going into the fututre. They also copied infection from halo in MW3........

but in a way halo is becoming more like COD(in a good way) custom loadouts, unlockable weapons, etc.

[Killer K34]

You can't really argue CoD is horrible when mw3 sold more copies than pretty much anything, Ever. An example? Halo Reach sold around 4 million copies in the first week, while Mw3 sold more than 9 million in the first day alone.

So please people. Just because you don't like a game doesn't mean it sucks. At the end of the day, Activision could afford to buy the Halo rights an burn them with all the money CoD made them.

 

http://www.pcworld.c...n_universe.html

im sure activition wouldnt be able to overcome microsoft...........

[Killer K34]

I dont think that this future warefare stuff will copy halo much at all. all of the things ive seen in it so fa a concepts close in todays world or prototypes are alerady out. and i think halo 4 will still look better in the graphics overall...........geeze my comment looks unintelligent compare to some of these lol