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?

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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That's why they have the MLG playlist

And none of those points are based in any fact. That is all opinion. Adding new dynamics to a game, if anything, make it more complex. That's more variables you have to worry about. The argument your giving me is not unlike the "normal gametypes vs mlg" and how one was better than the other. It's all a matter of preference. I for one don't care for the simplified game style of MLG. And CE is the only older game that still holds up to this day that I will still play (PC multiplayer). Trying to go back and play 2 or 3 after having Reach is like, "-blam!-, how did we ever stand this."

[Edited on 12.04.2011 9:30 AM PST]

  • 12.04.2011 9:24 AM PDT
  •  | 
  • Fabled Legendary Member

Yes.

  • 12.04.2011 9:27 AM PDT

Posted by: Justin Bieberr
Reach does it all better. It isn't a matter of opinion. You're wrong, kid.
:/

  • 12.04.2011 11:27 AM PDT


Posted by: burritosenior
Posted by: Justin Bieberr
Reach does it all better. It isn't a matter of opinion. You're wrong, kid.
:/
No Halo 3 feels like a cleaner game. Motion blur is bad. Things tend to look "bloobish" from a distant but when you get close it loads to look better (kind of like black ops). Halo 3 is better then almost every aspect. lolReach fails

/thread

  • 12.04.2011 11:39 AM PDT

Ricsina.Killer


Posted by: it1345
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.


The graphics have a smoother glossier feel to them, it helps that the gameplay is unmatched in todays fps.

  • 12.04.2011 12:04 PM PDT

Posted by: HoleyMoley
No Halo 3 feels like a cleaner game.
Art style.
Motion blur is bad. No. It's a good thing. It makes the 30 FPS much smoother. Sometimes it is annoying- especially if you actually freeze a cutscene to stare at it (but that would be stupid anyways, neh?), but overall it is helpful.
Things tend to look "bloobish" from a distant but when you get close it loads to look better (kind of like black ops). Halo: Reach renders much more detail at long range than Halo 3 or Halo 3: ODST.
Halo 3 is better then almost every aspect.I could call you names, but I'll just link this and let it describe why you don't know what you're talking about. Then you can feel silly.
/thread

  • 12.04.2011 12:13 PM PDT

H3 is cleaner. The colors pop out, things on it are well defined, and not overdone.

  • 12.04.2011 12:18 PM PDT
  •  | 
  • Exalted Legendary Member

Exalted Unexplainable Member

Are you sure these kids are being serious? I really question it.
Halo 3 having better graphics? No. A nowhere man could tell the difference.
Posted by: burritosenior

  • 12.04.2011 12:20 PM PDT


Posted by: burritosenior
Posted by: HoleyMoley
No Halo 3 feels like a cleaner game.
Art style.
Motion blur is bad. No. It's a good thing. It makes the 30 FPS much smoother. Sometimes it is annoying- especially if you actually freeze a cutscene to stare at it (but that would be stupid anyways, neh?), but overall it is helpful.
Things tend to look "bloobish" from a distant but when you get close it loads to look better (kind of like black ops). Halo: Reach renders much more detail at long range than Halo 3 or Halo 3: ODST.
Halo 3 is better then almost every aspect.I could call you names, but I'll just link this and let it describe why you don't know what you're talking about. Then you can feel silly.
/thread
No visible rank.(Arena rank is only visible in arena). Explosion have a way to big blast radius/strength. (Scropion, Nades, Rockets, Banshees, etc). No working ban system.(15 min) No multiplayer theater like in other games. Fileshare cannot be looked at during pre-game lobby. In Most maps are copy pasted from campaign, while in Halo 3 maps have simliar environments to campign levels but the maps are not copied.

  • 12.04.2011 12:26 PM PDT

Posted by: Izak609
Are you sure these kids are being serious?
Oh I know they aren't. Tipped their hands with the 'lolreach' thing. It's common knowledge that anyone saying that is either an idiot or an asshat. I like to give people the benefit of the doubt though, so I know they're just asshats.

But that doesn't mean I can't call out their attempts to make themselves look dumb and aid them in it.


Edit: to the post above me? None of that has anything at all to do with graphics. Oh and also? The maps were made for Multiplayer first, THEN put into the campaign. Get your facts straight.

[Edited on 12.04.2011 12:29 PM PST]

  • 12.04.2011 12:27 PM PDT
  •  | 
  • Exalted Legendary Member

Exalted Unexplainable Member

Fine... Make sure to wash your hands on the way out though. :D
Posted by: burritosenior
But that doesn't mean I can't call out their attempts to make themselves look dumb and aid them in it.

  • 12.04.2011 12:31 PM PDT


Posted by: burritosenior
Posted by: Izak609
Are you sure these kids are being serious?
Oh I know they aren't. Tipped their hands with the 'lolreach' thing. It's common knowledge that anyone saying that is either an idiot or an asshat. I like to give people the benefit of the doubt though, so I know they're just asshats.

But that doesn't mean I can't call out their attempts to make themselves look dumb and aid them in it.


Edit: to the post above me? None of that has anything at all to do with graphics. Oh and also? The maps were made for Multiplayer first, THEN put into the campaign. Get your facts straight.
And? That makes the campaign seem even more shallow. Reach isn't that great. H3 is better.
/thread

  • 12.04.2011 12:33 PM PDT

Posted by: HoleyMoley
And? That makes the campaign seem even more shallow. Reach isn't that great. H3 is better.
You're free to think that all you want. I have no intention of arguing that.

I'm telling you a simple fact. Halo: Reach's graphics are superior to Halo 3's in every way. That is not opinion, but fact. You are wrong. Get over it.

/thread
Pumpkin Pie is the best pie.
/thread

(See? I can say something completely irrelevant and say that is the defining comment too! Good thing I'm being satirical though instead of serious or else I'd look like an idiot, huh? Close one!)

  • 12.04.2011 12:39 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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I suppose it can't be a matter of who is right when people form an emotional opinion out of nostalgia or plain fanboyism, and skew everything out of focus to justify it to themselves. The arguments opposed to Reach have no basis in anything but that, and are as such pathetic and closed-minded.

Posted by: HoleyMoley
No visible rank.(Arena rank is only visible in arena).
Why does this matter, besides you not liking it that way.

Explosion have a way to big blast radius/strength. (Scropion, Nades, Rockets, Banshees, etc).Quite a bit more realistic if you ask me.

No working ban system.(15 min) waaht, um, ya no ban system... >.>

No multiplayer theater like in other games It didn't work that well in the first place. The feature was cut in favor of other things.

Fileshare cannot be looked at during pre-game lobby.The improved network model doesn't allow for it. When you're in the lobby you are connected to the other players just the same way you are in the game. Again, a design choice to improve latency.

In Most maps are copy pasted from campaign, while in Halo 3 maps have simliar environments to campign levels but the maps are not copied.Copy and paste has nothing to do with it. As burrito pointed out it was actually the reverse, and it was done to improve the connection between campaign and multiplayer just the same as being able to use your multiplayer model in the campaign. They made them the same.


Everything you've listed was purposeful, intentful, on purpose design choices. Many of the finer points are really not the atrocities you're claiming them to be. They don't negatively impact the game, and in most cases they're actually improving it.

But you don't like it. That's fine. I don't understand why you don't, but that's ok. You can keep those nostalgia glasses on and sit in closed-minded ignorance.

[Edited on 12.04.2011 8:37 PM PST]

  • 12.04.2011 3:57 PM PDT

Halo 3 does not have better graphics at all. Rather, I believe it just has a bit better lighting, and colors stood out more than they do in Reach. Sometimes, I believe cartoony colors and models stand out more and are more fun than what Reach has, and that leads people to believe it is more graphically powerful than Reach.

I will admit Halo Reach is the first Halo game that's graphics does not leave its predecessor in the dust (Halo 2 to Halo CE, Halo 3 to Halo 2), but is futile to to argue Halo 3 has better graphics.

  • 12.04.2011 4:24 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:


Posted by: Will 043
That's why they have the MLG playlist

And none of those points are based in any fact. That is all opinion. Adding new dynamics to a game, if anything, make it more complex. That's more variables you have to worry about. The argument your giving me is not unlike the "normal gametypes vs mlg" and how one was better than the other. It's all a matter of preference. I for one don't care for the simplified game style of MLG. And CE is the only older game that still holds up to this day that I will still play (PC multiplayer). Trying to go back and play 2 or 3 after having Reach is like, "-blam!-, how did we ever stand this."


So if I added a new dynamic weapon that everyone started with called the "Big Rifle" that nuked everyone instantly then that would add dynamics to the game? Making it more complex?

ROFL.

AA doesnt integrate with current game functions and add to them - it subtracts from them.

You claim MLG is "simplified" but in reality the game rests on a much deeper and more dynamic set of rules. Sometimes less is more.

And yes, you like the simple easy noob-down called reach. I have no problem with you using AA in the playlists of your choice. My problems with reach are in the core mechanics of the game. The things that I value.

While the things that you value have improved (smoke and mirrors, flashy gameplay etc) the things that I value have been destroyed.

I wan't a game that satisfies both of us. Something with the slow paced randomness and laid back gameplay style for you, and something swift, deadly, and filled with tactics, teamwork and precision for me.

the MLG playlist in Reach, even with the best possible settings, is to me, an abomination. It does not even slightly compare to previous games competitively and multiple pro's have spoken out, and even retired because of it. Almost all of my friends on xbox live, people I have known for years - have quit halo entirely because of it.

  • 12.04.2011 6:44 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:


Posted by: burritosenior
Posted by: Justin Bieberr
Reach does it all better. It isn't a matter of opinion. You're wrong, kid.
:/


Oh, wow, way to really prove me wrong there!

The quality of the look of a game is subjective. And it always will be.

  • 12.04.2011 6:45 PM PDT

Posted by: Justin Bieberr
The quality of the look of a game is subjective. And it always will be.
No. The quality of graphics is not subjective. That's asinine. The preference of the art style is.

But Halo: Reach is technologically superior in every way. That is an undeniable fact. Get over it.
:/

  • 12.04.2011 7:00 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

A blind person could tell that Reach has better graphics than 3.



[Edited on 12.04.2011 7:04 PM PST]

  • 12.04.2011 7:03 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:


Posted by: burritosenior
Posted by: Justin Bieberr
The quality of the look of a game is subjective. And it always will be.
No. The quality of graphics is not subjective. That's asinine. The preference of the art style is.

But Halo: Reach is technologically superior in every way. That is an undeniable fact. Get over it.
:/


Since when does graphics = graphics engine?

Wikipedia: "Graphics are visual presentations on some surface, such as a wall, canvas, computer screen, paper, or stone to brand, inform, illustrate, or entertain. Examples are photographs, drawings, Line Art, graphs, diagrams, typography, numbers, symbols, geometric designs, maps, engineering drawings, or other images. Graphics often combine text, illustration, and color."

Sure the graphics engine in reach may be more advanced, but ARE THE ACTUAL GRAPHICS DISPLAYED BY THE GAME SUPERIOR TO H3?

Burritosenior you are A TROLL. Quality of graphics in a game is subjective. Graphics is what you see on screen - a combination of art and the engine it is shown through - and that is SUBJECTIVE.

  • 12.04.2011 7:22 PM PDT
  •  | 
  • Exalted Mythic Member
  • gamertag: Gazas
  • user homepage:

The Mythic Threads (Halo 3) (ODST) (Reach)

Posted by: Justin Bieberr
Burritosenior you are A TROLL.
What's your definition of troll?

  • 12.04.2011 11:07 PM PDT

Yes, it is what you can see.
And what you can see in Reach is better due to the superior technology available at the time. That is a fact. Go read the four page article I linked. The only debatable thing here is the art style.

Again, you are wrong. Get over it, mate.

  • 12.05.2011 12:30 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

INITIATE_PROTOCOL_GREETING

GREETINGS, I AM 02-014 CRITICAL LIVEWIRE, ENVIRONMENTAL MONITOR OF INSTALLATION 02.

END_PROTOCOL_GREETING

COMMUNICATION_OPENED

I HAVE NOT HEARD OF THIS 'REACH' I KNOW NOTHING MORE THEN OUR INSTALLATION

ACCESSING_FORERUNNER_DATA_LOGS
RETRIEVED_HUMAN_RECORDS
ERROR_WHEN_LOCATING_MISSING_FILE_'REACH'

RECLAIMERS, YOUR SPECIES KNOWLEDGE ELUDES ME.

END_COMMUNICATION


[Edited on 12.05.2011 12:50 PM PST]

  • 12.05.2011 12:49 PM PDT

Let the ones with brains the size of planets do the thinking. - Tycho

Monitor? What is the Reason of your presence here? Are you trying to compile data from our records?

  • 12.05.2011 2:59 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

All that is needed for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.


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.

  • 12.05.2011 6:13 PM PDT

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