Forerunner styles Bungie vs 343

[SirFeedAlot]

So I recently saw a youtube video on how Bungie's art and 343 art for Forerunners was drastically different and how the video commentator really disliked the 343 art style. As much as I love the Halo Video Games I have to admit that I am woefully ignorant about the lore of Halo Universe. However looking at Halo CE and Halo 2 and to a lesser extent Halo 3 the Forerunner Architecture was more designed to look like abandoned yet functional structures. Moving to Halo 4 they looked still functional but I also see an intent to please the eye. This makes sense in way the Guardions on the shield world were once living things and although they lost their memory subconsiously pleasing architecture could actually help keep them sane? funtioning? pre rampancy? I'm not sure which if any of these words or terms apply. But overall I see there was a move from near ruinous like structures to more functional buildings. However I also see the need at the time Halo CE came out the Forerunners were just a dead alien civilization by Halo 4 we find out that there's at least one still alive. Thoughts? Holes in my observations? Please keep in mind I don't have a great background of Halo Lore.
EDIT: I will post a link to the video when I wake up.

[Delta]

There is no difference other than the advancement of video game graphics.

[SirFeedAlot]

The graphics are most certainly a part of it but art books have changed the style as well. There is never a limitation on paint and canvas except imagination and physics.

[Adonis]

I did some thinking about this a while back and I believe the biggest difference between bungie and 343 style is that Bungies metals are dirty, lights are dimmed and if 343s are was given that treatment, it would be much more in line.

As for the architecture, I heard an explanation that I really like and that being that requiem was MUCH older, built during the peak of the forerunner empire by a completely different forerunner, while the halo array was built at the tail end as tools by another dude. So if anything, both styles can coexist given certain context.

[The One True Git]

Originally posted by Rampant A.I.:

I did some thinking about this a while back and I believe the biggest difference between bungie and 343 style is that Bungies metals are dirty, lights are dimmed and if 343s are was given that treatment, it would be much more in line.

As for the architecture, I heard an explanation that I really like and that being that requiem was MUCH older, built during the peak of the forerunner empire by a completely different forerunner, while the halo array was built at the tail end as tools by another dude. So if anything, both styles can coexist given certain context.

This is the main thing I didnt like about the forerunners in Halo 4, everything felt way too pristine for a multiple millenia old, 'dead' civilization

[Falleax]

Originally posted by Delta:

There is no difference other than the advancement of video game graphics.

That is literally wrong. Bungie Forerunner technology is clearly visually distinct from 343's interpretation. Bungie's is old and worn but still in perfect working condition, it gives a sense of mystery and awe with the large imposing structures and dark corners. 343's style is overly clean and shiny. It looks brand new, like it just came out of the factory last week. The texturing is closer to plastic than metal and the coloring is a brighter silver than Bungie's.
Bungie's style was very solid and clearly strong while a lot of 343's stuff can just turn into orange light flakes at a whim, which means that a lot of it is made out of hard light for some reason.

Basically;
Bungie: Old and mysterious.
343: New and sterile.

[Falleax]

I also forgot to mention the random floating bits with 343's Forerunner technology. Bungie had a few floating pieces of machinery but they were uncommon and were usually part of a very large machine and presumably served a purpose. Practically anything 343 made just has a few bits of floating metal for no obvious reason probably to just look "high tech." This causes a lot of structures to have a more fragile, less solid appearance. 343 stuff looks like Tron, Bungie stuff looks unique.

[What The Sigmar?]

Personally, I never really noticed all that big of a difference between Bungie and 343’s visual design for the Forerunners outside of Bungie being all about blue and 343 being all about orange, for some reason.

I think my BIGGEST issue with 343’s vision is how they changed the forerunners into murderers. Bungie’s forerunners loved life so much that they literally turned their life-destroying Halo rings into worlds of their own. Meanwhile, 343’s forerunners literally killed their creators because they weren’t given the keys to all the cool ♥♥♥♥ that would be left behind.

[Delta]

Originally posted by Falleax:

Originally posted by Delta:

There is no difference other than the advancement of video game graphics.

That is literally wrong. Bungie Forerunner technology is clearly visually distinct from 343's interpretation. Bungie's is old and worn but still in perfect working condition, it gives a sense of mystery and awe with the large imposing structures and dark corners. 343's style is overly clean and shiny. It looks brand new, like it just came out of the factory last week. The texturing is closer to plastic than metal and the coloring is a brighter silver than Bungie's.
Bungie's style was very solid and clearly strong while a lot of 343's stuff can just turn into orange light flakes at a whim, which means that a lot of it is made out of hard light for some reason.

Basically;
Bungie: Old and mysterious.
343: New and sterile.

Wrong.

Proof that you're wrong below.

Literally everything in Halo looks old and abandoned near the start and gets more vibrant and less abandoned looking the furthur into the future the games were made in.

[Falleax]

Originally posted by Delta:

Originally posted by Falleax:

That is literally wrong. Bungie Forerunner technology is clearly visually distinct from 343's interpretation. Bungie's is old and worn but still in perfect working condition, it gives a sense of mystery and awe with the large imposing structures and dark corners. 343's style is overly clean and shiny. It looks brand new, like it just came out of the factory last week. The texturing is closer to plastic than metal and the coloring is a brighter silver than Bungie's.
Bungie's style was very solid and clearly strong while a lot of 343's stuff can just turn into orange light flakes at a whim, which means that a lot of it is made out of hard light for some reason.

Basically;
Bungie: Old and mysterious.
343: New and sterile.

Wrong.

Proof that you're wrong below.

Literally everything in Halo looks old and abandoned near the start and gets more vibrant and less abandoned looking the furthur into the future the games were made in.

That's not true at all. The Ark in Halo 3 has the same old ancient lived in appearance as Halo 1. It evens has a bunch of weird dried up stains on the ground in places. The metal still has a worn texture to it. The only thing that changes is the variety in visuals, Halo 1 is mostly silver and grey with a tiny bit of yellow and brown. Halo 3 adds in more shades of silver and grey while increasing the amount of fancy little holograms and tiling. The further you get into Bungie's games, the amount of DETAIL is increased but the core style of old monolithic structures remains the same.

[Delta]

Originally posted by Falleax:

Originally posted by Delta:

Wrong.

Proof that you're wrong below.

Literally everything in Halo looks old and abandoned near the start and gets more vibrant and less abandoned looking the furthur into the future the games were made in.

That's not true at all. The Ark in Halo 3 has the same old ancient lived in appearance as Halo 1. It evens has a bunch of weird dried up stains on the ground in places. The metal still has a worn texture to it. The only thing that changes is the variety in visuals, Halo 1 is mostly silver and grey with a tiny bit of yellow and brown. Halo 3 adds in more shades of silver and grey while increasing the amount of fancy little holograms and tiling. The further you get into Bungie's games, the amount of DETAIL is increased but the core style of old monolithic structures remains the same.

Wrong again bucko.

Got two words for you.

Halo Wars.

[Magicktech]

Originally posted by Delta:

There is no difference other than the advancement of video game graphics.

Incorrect. One company is great at art design (Bungie)... the other is mediocre/generic/common/nothing special (Microsoft/343).

[What The Sigmar?]

Originally posted by Delta:

Originally posted by Falleax:

That's not true at all. The Ark in Halo 3 has the same old ancient lived in appearance as Halo 1. It evens has a bunch of weird dried up stains on the ground in places. The metal still has a worn texture to it. The only thing that changes is the variety in visuals, Halo 1 is mostly silver and grey with a tiny bit of yellow and brown. Halo 3 adds in more shades of silver and grey while increasing the amount of fancy little holograms and tiling. The further you get into Bungie's games, the amount of DETAIL is increased but the core style of old monolithic structures remains the same.

Wrong again bucko.

Got two words for you.

Halo Wars.

Halo Wars was by Ensemble, who was under 343. Bungie had no involvement.

[Falleax]

Originally posted by Delta:

Originally posted by Falleax:

That's not true at all. The Ark in Halo 3 has the same old ancient lived in appearance as Halo 1. It evens has a bunch of weird dried up stains on the ground in places. The metal still has a worn texture to it. The only thing that changes is the variety in visuals, Halo 1 is mostly silver and grey with a tiny bit of yellow and brown. Halo 3 adds in more shades of silver and grey while increasing the amount of fancy little holograms and tiling. The further you get into Bungie's games, the amount of DETAIL is increased but the core style of old monolithic structures remains the same.

Wrong again bucko.

Got two words for you.

Halo Wars.

Halo Wars 1 has a very faithful art direction to the original trilogy. It has its own visual style that serves the top down RTS camera very well by making things larger and more detailed because you wouldn't be able to make out the smaller details otherwise. In the cutscenes they add even more detail, perhaps a bit too many extra bits and bobs but it's ultimately very well done and consistent with Bungie's style.
If anything using Halo Wars as an example is poor because you can directly compare the visuals of Wars 1 with 2 and see a very obvious change in the art style. Heck, compare the architecture of Halo Wars 2's Ark to Halo 3's Ark and you'll see a difference.

[Delta]

Originally posted by Falleax:

Originally posted by Delta:

Wrong again bucko.

Got two words for you.

Halo Wars.

Halo Wars 1 has a very faithful art direction to the original trilogy. It has its own visual style that serves the top down RTS camera very well by making things larger and more detailed because you wouldn't be able to make out the smaller details otherwise. In the cutscenes they add even more detail, perhaps a bit too many extra bits and bobs but it's ultimately very well done and consistent with Bungie's style.
If anything using Halo Wars as an example is poor because you can directly compare the visuals of Wars 1 with 2 and see a very obvious change in the art style. Heck, compare the architecture of Halo Wars 2's Ark to Halo 3's Ark and you'll see a difference.

Yeah, no. A bunch of forerunner structures in Halo Wars look way more like structures from 4 and 5 than anything in 1 - 3

[SirFeedAlot]

OK I did not mean to turn this into a flame war I really was just interested in peoples thoughts about Bungie vs 343 styles not "Your wrong and this is why..."