Halo 3 Forum
This topic has moved here: Subject: Does it feel like 3 has better graphics then Reach?
  • Subject: Does it feel like 3 has better graphics then Reach?
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • of 4
Subject: Does it feel like 3 has better graphics then Reach?

http://www.maa.org/devlin/LockhartsLament.pdf

man you know me

I know it's probably not true, but it really feels like it sometimes. Reach tends to be a darker, muddier looking game, and when I played Halo 3 after playing Reach everything felt so much brighter and clearer.

That and that awful blurring thing that happens in Reach for some reason. You must have seen it too.

  • 12.01.2011 4:55 AM PDT

"What are we holding on to, Sam?"
"That there's some good in this world, and it's worth fighting for."

I think Halo 3 has a better overall look. Halo has never needed the dark look Reach selected, but I don't think it was necessarily bad. However, the bright look of Halo 3 was perfect in my opinion, particularly for multiplayer. Reach does have overall better graphics though.

  • 12.01.2011 5:10 AM PDT

I agree that 3 has better graphics. Although i do not have reach, i played it at my freinds house. Reach is far more better, but the graphics in halo 3 are much better.

<D

[Edited on 12.01.2011 5:26 AM PST]

  • 12.01.2011 5:26 AM PDT
  • gamertag: giafra
  • user homepage:

ABSOLUTING YES! Maybe that's because I love games with hyper-coloured graphic...but I totally agree with you!

  • 12.01.2011 6:11 AM PDT

In memory of those fallen in the defense of Earth and her colonies.

March 3, 2553

Reach has terrible lighting effects and the character models seriously look cartoonist and "drawn"

Halo 3 lighting is somewhat better is areas and the models don't look like cartoons.

  • 12.01.2011 8:34 PM PDT


Posted by: cameo_cream
Reach has terrible lighting effects and the character models seriously look cartoonist and "drawn"

Halo 3 lighting is somewhat better is areas and the models don't look like cartoons.

What? Were you in the midst of suffering a stroke when you wrote this?

  • 12.02.2011 5:36 AM PDT

I prefer the cartoony look of H3. But Reach has the better graphics.

  • 12.02.2011 5:42 AM PDT

"What are we holding on to, Sam?"
"That there's some good in this world, and it's worth fighting for."


Posted by: BTCruiser261
Reach is far more better...


Objection.

  • 12.02.2011 8:54 AM PDT

I changed usernames to match my gamertag. My original account, wambo114, was created when I got xbox live. I'm a 2007 kid really!

wambo114: Member Since: 11.09.2007

youtube.com/user/wambo114


Posted by: swvjdirector

Posted by: BTCruiser261
Reach is far more better...


Objection.


Sustained

  • 12.02.2011 9:40 AM PDT

"What are we holding on to, Sam?"
"That there's some good in this world, and it's worth fighting for."


Posted by: Colossal Dave

Posted by: swvjdirector

Posted by: BTCruiser261
Reach is far more better...


Objection.


Sustained


Thank you, Your Honor.

  • 12.02.2011 11:26 AM PDT

98% of the people who play this game are garbage. If you're one of the 2% who isn't, copy & paste this into your signature.

Thug Life
----------------------------------
What is true skill? A weapon is only as good as the person using it and the map to his/her advantage.

REPRESENTIN THUG LIFE.

Reach GRAPHICS ARE CARTOON SH1T.

  • 12.02.2011 1:40 PM PDT

H3 is -blam!-

  • 12.02.2011 2:03 PM PDT

http://bungie.me/sig/noble/Stealth+Fox74.png

I like the Halo 3 models better than the Reach ones but the Reach models have more detail.

  • 12.02.2011 2:29 PM PDT

No. Halo: Reach has better graphics. That is an absolutely undeniable fact. There is no opinion in there whatsoever.

What you like better is the ART STYLE of Halo 3. Which I would agree with.

  • 12.02.2011 3:04 PM PDT

Yes, I'm pro at Action Sack.

Halo 3 Beta > Halo 3 retail > Reach

  • 12.02.2011 3:33 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:


Posted by: burritosenior
No. Halo: Reach has better graphics. That is an absolutely undeniable fact. There is no opinion in there whatsoever.

What you like better is the ART STYLE of Halo 3. Which I would agree with.


ROFL you fat burrito. Resolution isn't the only thing that effects graphics.

-There is resolution of rendering.
-The distance engine that determines how geometry/textures are rendered based on distance.

-There is the geometry itself.
-There are the textures themselves.
-There are lighting effects and reflection maps.
-There is color depth etc.
-Active filtering like motion blur and those forge filters


Whether or not something has better graphics is dependent on all of these things and is very subjective, and subject to personal interpretation and perception.



[Edited on 12.03.2011 8:44 PM PST]

  • 12.03.2011 8:41 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Lol.

Reach has better graphics.

  • 12.03.2011 9:43 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:


Posted by: TheHaloBR
Derp derp. Derp derp derp?


Lol, okay.

  • 12.03.2011 10:04 PM PDT

When he was younger, he was the one who always had the jokes and riddles that would keep the spirits of the Spartans high. Over the years however, his lifetime of combat had hardened him, as it had all of the Spartans. Within Will, John thought, something special had been lost.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It's all about where and how the system resources are being spent.

I felt the same way about the textures in Dead Space 2 compared to the first they seemed higher resolution/more defined. They gave up some of the sharpness and gained a whole lot more, but resolution isn't everything. Realistic animation and better physics for one not to mention the rendering in Reach is capable of up to 4 times as many polygons in any given model. If anything, everything in Reach has that much more detail crammed into it. Aliasing becomes more apparent. The only thing you can really do about that is having a higher definition display that can effectively cram all of that stuff in better.

If you don't believe me here is a very good vidoc where they go into depth about the development process. They get to these points about half-way in. Do watch

  • 12.03.2011 10:20 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:


Posted by: Will 043
It's all about where and how the system resources are being spent.

I felt the same way about the textures in Dead Space 2 compared to the first they seemed higher resolution/more defined. They gave up some of the sharpness and gained a whole lot more, but resolution isn't everything. Realistic animation and better physics for one not to mention the rendering in Reach is capable of up to 4 times as many polygons in any given model. If anything, everything in Reach has that much more detail crammed into it. Aliasing becomes more apparent. The only thing you can really do about that is having a higher definition display that can effectively cram all of that stuff in better.

If you don't believe me here is a very good vidoc where they go into depth about the development process. They get to these points about half-way in. Do watch


I agree. Geometry in reach is superior. However, I think textures, color, and details at long range are too much to sacrifice for a higher polygon count.

I hate the way Reach renders things long range.

And your point about the physics engine is irrelevant. Physics in reach are worse than ever before. And it has nothing to do with the engine. It has to do with the choices the designers made regarding gravity, weight of objects, trajectory of nades etc etc.

They need to take some time to think about what REALLY matters.

  • 12.03.2011 10:29 PM PDT

When he was younger, he was the one who always had the jokes and riddles that would keep the spirits of the Spartans high. Over the years however, his lifetime of combat had hardened him, as it had all of the Spartans. Within Will, John thought, something special had been lost.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by: Justin Bieberr

Posted by: Will 043
It's all about where and how the system resources are being spent.

I felt the same way about the textures in Dead Space 2 compared to the first they seemed higher resolution/more defined. They gave up some of the sharpness and gained a whole lot more, but resolution isn't everything. Realistic animation and better physics for one not to mention the rendering in Reach is capable of up to 4 times as many polygons in any given model. If anything, everything in Reach has that much more detail crammed into it. Aliasing becomes more apparent. The only thing you can really do about that is having a higher definition display that can effectively cram all of that stuff in better.

If you don't believe me here is a very good vidoc where they go into depth about the development process. They get to these points about half-way in. Do watch


I agree. Geometry in reach is superior. However, I think textures, color, and details at long range are too much to sacrifice for a higher polygon count.

I hate the way Reach renders things long range.

And your point about the physics engine is irrelevant. Physics in reach are worse than ever before. And it has nothing to do with the engine. It has to do with the choices the designers made regarding gravity, weight of objects, trajectory of nades etc etc.

They need to take some time to think about what REALLY matters.


Making it prettier?

...and not specifically physics, I was just naming other things system resources are spent on. Yes, aside from things that go boom, and fall to pieces, there are virtually no physics in Halo titles compared to something like Red Faction or Battlefield. I was leading into animation and rendering when I was listing general items.

  • 12.03.2011 11:26 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:


Posted by: Will 043
Posted by: Justin Bieberr

Posted by: Will 043
It's all about where and how the system resources are being spent.

I felt the same way about the textures in Dead Space 2 compared to the first they seemed higher resolution/more defined. They gave up some of the sharpness and gained a whole lot more, but resolution isn't everything. Realistic animation and better physics for one not to mention the rendering in Reach is capable of up to 4 times as many polygons in any given model. If anything, everything in Reach has that much more detail crammed into it. Aliasing becomes more apparent. The only thing you can really do about that is having a higher definition display that can effectively cram all of that stuff in better.

If you don't believe me here is a very good vidoc where they go into depth about the development process. They get to these points about half-way in. Do watch


I agree. Geometry in reach is superior. However, I think textures, color, and details at long range are too much to sacrifice for a higher polygon count.

I hate the way Reach renders things long range.

And your point about the physics engine is irrelevant. Physics in reach are worse than ever before. And it has nothing to do with the engine. It has to do with the choices the designers made regarding gravity, weight of objects, trajectory of nades etc etc.

They need to take some time to think about what REALLY matters.


Making it prettier?

...and not specifically physics, I was just naming other things system resources are spent on. Yes, aside from things that go boom, and fall to pieces, there are virtually no physics in Halo titles compared to something like Red Faction or Battlefield. I was leading into animation and rendering when I was listing general items.


I'm not sure if we are arguing now or what....but....

All I am trying to say is, the game doesn't look as good, and it doesn't play as good.

The 360 has reached it's limits and so everything a trade-off.

We can go further into how and what they did wrong but who cares I will never buy another bungie game again after what they have done to Halo.

  • 12.03.2011 11:45 PM PDT

When he was younger, he was the one who always had the jokes and riddles that would keep the spirits of the Spartans high. Over the years however, his lifetime of combat had hardened him, as it had all of the Spartans. Within Will, John thought, something special had been lost.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Actually I take that back. I was agreeing with you by the way, I was just saying that I wasn't pointing physics out exclusively. I'm taking that back because the physics did get a bit of loving.

At 3:39 in the ViDoc they talk about the particle system. A maximum of 100 colliding particles in Halo 3 scales up to thousands in Reach. This doesn't just mean sparks, or even just particles themselves. What they've done is allowed for more active/potential objects in the game at one time. Whether it's the way something blows up or just how many things/objects/characters that can be moving around at one time. Physics is the unsung hero of many a game, working tirelessly in the background to ensure that games don't just look as real as possible but behave real to (i.e. stationary immovable objects from earlier game that you hated driving into vs that same pile of crates now). They touched on the physics in a Halo 3 ViDoc. There were different levels of active when it came to object interaction. The shot they showed of the guys dev kit was not flattering at all when they had the different items color coded and explained them.

Summary: I was right to point out physics as having benefited from the resource allocation.

Halo 3 may have rendered everything twice on different layers to produce great light to dark and color contrast (not to mention it's unintended use in screen shots) and rendered them inherently at greater distances, but Reach is graphically superior in it's own right for cutting those things that hogged system resources and instead flexing that processing power elsewhere.

Posted by: Justin Bieberr
We can go further into how and what they did wrong but who cares I will never buy another bungie game again after what they have done to Halo.

Yet your on the Bungie forums being a fan just like anyone else. You're kind of contradicting yourself. And they have done great things with Halo by the way. They "made" Halo. You have to include M$'s influence in the matter as far as what's become of it. Rather than beating Halo into the ground for the rest of their lives, Bungie decided to make a very ambitious last addition to their series. They only made 4 games by the way. Halo 3: ODST was forced by their publisher, M$, to be released at a later date but as a standalone title that it was never meant to be. The game had it's merits and brought a unique and enjoyable experience to the table, but it is at it's heart only an expansion. Were they a multiplatform developer you would have seen the same sort of thing you see with PC titles. Like StarCraft then StarCraft: Broodwar. And Reach, Reach is the most refined incarnation of the Halo multiplayer to date. Though all of the games were their own experience adding and subtracting as they went along, Reach effectively incorporated several new ambitious and improved aspects including the now fourth leg (armor abilities). IMAO M$ is the worst thing that happened to Halo. Just look at Halo Wars. I disowned Halo after it's appropriation last July. I want to remember it as it was. We the community said goodbye over Bungie day, and I haven't really played it since. It's not Halo without Bungie.

may she rest in peace

[Edited on 12.04.2011 12:56 AM PST]

  • 12.04.2011 12:51 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

I am on the bungie forums as a fan of what used to be in h1-3.

Armor abilities do not belong in multiplayer. They kill the skill gap and throw the game's golden triangle out of balance. Reach multiplayer wise is perhaps the greatest failure of the series and it's population reflects that.

Armor abilites should have been left for customs.

Aside from that they killed the dynamics of shooting, melee, and grenades. Literally. Killed it.

Reach is the LEAST refined multiplayer to date.

Try and argue against me. I dare you.

  • 12.04.2011 2:07 AM PDT

  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • of 4