Halo or Metroid?

Megaman

Man my vote is so lonely.

Well well, aren't these results suprising.

well samus was trained at like age 3, and she can shoot ice and turn into a ball!!!

I voted Halo because of online =/

This topic is stupid.

Just play the games.

C. Vigilante 8

You honestly voted for Halo?


Oh that's right, you said you never played Super Metroid.

I played Super Metroid. My vote still goes to Halo though =/

and i'm not an Xbox fanboy

I voted for Halo as well since it's a blast to play and had a decent story, as well as great graphics and excellent multiplayer. The Metroid games were fun, but they got boring for me fast, and I didn't even want to play Prime anymore after the first ten minutes.

This post has been edited by Admiral Delmore on Mar 23 2006, 12:46 AM

How about Metlo? The best of both worlds!

The only transport are things with "metro" in the name, except the "metro" is now "metlo".

I just want to point out, that the graphics on Halo are bottom of the barrel. Excluding the CG rendered cutscenes, which of course, we've been seeing since the Sega Saturn days. Halo 2 was a blast, but the graphics weren't impressive. At all. However, the graphics in Metroid Prime aren't much better.

If you're looking for a frontman to pull the Xbox when it comes to technical power, I pray of you: do not choose Halo 2. It only makes you look like a bumbling Halo jockey.

The first few ten minutes?

How many tens minutes was this, exactly?

...no, they really weren't. If you paused or something, or if there were too many onscreen objects, then yes, some things would have their detail lowered, but other than that, it was the best looking console game you were going to find at that point.

You realise those aren't CG rendered but the actual models? I'd know this after all the disc problems I've been having since I had a scratched one and I saw some of the scenery vanish.

You've said this about everything besides that one Revolution golf game that looks very low detailed.

Or I just like the game and you're trying to convince me to turn to Nintendo on this one. :(

... then how come the out-of-gameplay graphics are a different quality than the ingame ones

Word up!

They're only a little better looking than the gameplay graphics since there isn't a ton of things going on during most of the cinematics, and if there is, they lower the quality of some of the things.

...Of course CGI scenes use 'real-models'. Jesus Christ, was I supposed to think they used sprites? Why are the graphics so damn beautiful during the cutscenes, yet look like a pimply ass when it comes to the in-game experience? Bungie didn't bring anything impressive into Halo 2. There were recycled textures throughout the whole game; and trust me, there's a reason there can only be a small amount of enemies on screen as once.

Do you know anything about game development?! Halo 2 was a FOURTH GENERATION console game. And it looked liked ****. Given the amount of resources, and tools, and proper standard training, I could make a working graphical engine that's on par with Halo 2's. Of course, then I would have to pull some story out of my ass, and have a multi-billion dollar ad campaign.

Do you want to know real impressive? The amount of on screen enemies in Kameo. The bouncing white on blue text in Mario Sunshine. The lighting in Doom 3. The tiniest ******* things that nobody ever notices. They're too engulfed in how everything in Halo looks unrealistically shiny, or how every rock 'looks' like a rock because of agressive texture-mapping.

I'm not trying to turn you against Halo. Yes it's a good game. But it's graphics aren't anything new.

Yeah, I really don't agree with you and you're not changing my mind on this at all.

Fair enough.