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?
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

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


Posted by: CriticalLivewire
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
Command: Open database

  • 12.05.2011 6:14 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:


Posted by: burritosenior
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.


OMFG ARE U DELUSIONAL.

Graphics are not what you "can" see. They are what you "see". There is a difference. Just because you CAN see more particles, or the engine CAN display higher resolutions doesn't mean that you DO see a better picture.


You claim that only art style is debatable but:

1. Art style is an important component of graphics. Thus graphics would be subjective - proving your own point false.

2. It's not just about art style, it's about art QUALITY. Which you have totally ignored as an important component in the graphics of a game.


Just because a painting contains more detail does not mean that it is graphically better. You could paint the most detailed painting ever and it could look horrible. It's graphics could be horrible.






By DEFINITION the quality of the art is subjective.

+

By DEFINITION art (it's quality and style) are a major component of graphics.

=

By DEFINITION graphics are SUBJECTIVE.





So...

By DEFINITION SUBJECTIVE MEANS THAT YOU CANNOT DEFINITIVELY CLAIM SUPERIORITY.





GET OFF MEEEEEEEEE.



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

[Edited on 12.05.2011 6:29 PM PST]

  • 12.05.2011 6:22 PM PDT

Boltshot = mini shotgun

Reach has the better graphics engine, but Halo 3 has the better, brighter style.

  • 12.05.2011 6:29 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Posted by: Blaze of Storm
Reach has the better graphics engine, but Halo 3 has the better, brighter style.

I would argue that not only is halo 3's style better (both geometrically and textually), that the quality of the art being displayed through the engine is far superior.


I am saying that:

An artistic masterpiece >> shown through a good engine

is better than:

A mediocre art piece >> shown through a potentially more capable engine.

Especially when technological improvements have not correlated to real world perceptible improvement, and even more especially considering their failed implementation in ways that make the game look significantly worse (motion blur etc).


Even then, I don't believe that reach has better graphics. Things like motion blur etc that are claimed to be more advanced technological features - that I believe actually subtract from the quality of the art being displayed.

I believe some of the newer more advanced lighting techniques - even being technologically more detailed and capable - look worse, due to poor implementation, poor content being lit, and the fact that more realistic does not equate to better looking, subjectively.

No matter what claims you make about an engine's specs or technology it must translate to real world performance. Despite advancements in texture and object drawing I think that objects and textures at long range look far worse in Reach than they did in Halo 3.

I believe that despite huge engine improvements - the game still looks worse, and as a result I conclude that Reach's graphics are not nearly as good as they are in halo 3.

Period.

So keep spewing nonsense about how the engine is better - but I know what I see, and Halo 3 looks far better to my eyes. My graphic designer eyes looking at a 1080p Pioneer Kuro.

GTFO.


[Edited on 12.05.2011 6:44 PM PST]

  • 12.05.2011 6:40 PM PDT

Posted by: Justin Bieberr
Graphics are not what you "can" see. They are what you "see". There is a difference. Just because you CAN see more particles, or the engine CAN display higher resolutions doesn't mean that you DO see a better picture.
That would be relevant if it weren't for the fact that the Reach engine not only CAN do those things, but DOES do those things to make a better picture.


1. Art style is an important component of graphics. Thus graphics would be subjective - proving your own point false.
...wat?
Art style is not a 'component' of graphics. That's silly. Graphics are not subjective. I'm stunned that you're still arguing this just for the sake of not looking silly.

2. It's not just about art style, it's about art QUALITY. Which you have totally ignored as an important component in the graphics of a game.... I'm not honestly sure whether you're serious.


Just because a painting contains more detail does not mean that it is graphically better. You could paint the most detailed painting ever and it could look horrible. It's graphics could be horrible.
This is not a painting. This is technology. Halo: Reach's technology gives it better graphics. It uses that technology to its fullest. Fact.






By DEFINITION the quality of the art is subjective.We aren't talking about art. I said Art Style is subjective. Which is a fact. Graphics are not in this case. That is also a fact.

By DEFINITION art (it's quality and style) are a major component of graphics.The sky is always green.

By DEFINITION graphics are SUBJECTIVE.
Root Beer is delicious + My desk is tan = you are wrong.

I can make up stuff and say it equals something too.
?

[Edited on 12.05.2011 6:45 PM PST]

  • 12.05.2011 6:45 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:


Posted by: burritosenior
Posted by: Justin Bieberr
Graphics are not what you "can" see. They are what you "see". There is a difference. Just because you CAN see more particles, or the engine CAN display higher resolutions doesn't mean that you DO see a better picture.
That would be relevant if it weren't for the fact that the Reach engine not only CAN do those things, but DOES do those things to make a better picture.


1. Art style is an important component of graphics. Thus graphics would be subjective - proving your own point false.
...wat?
Art style is not a 'component' of graphics. That's silly. Graphics are not subjective. I'm stunned that you're still arguing this just for the sake of not looking silly.

2. It's not just about art style, it's about art QUALITY. Which you have totally ignored as an important component in the graphics of a game.... I'm not honestly sure whether you're serious.


Just because a painting contains more detail does not mean that it is graphically better. You could paint the most detailed painting ever and it could look horrible. It's graphics could be horrible.
This is not a painting. This is technology. Halo: Reach's technology gives it better graphics. It uses that technology to its fullest. Fact.






By DEFINITION the quality of the art is subjective.We aren't talking about art. I said Art Style is subjective. Which is a fact. Graphics are not in this case. That is also a fact.

By DEFINITION art (it's quality and style) are a major component of graphics.The sky is always green.

By DEFINITION graphics are SUBJECTIVE.
Root Beer is delicious + My desk is tan = you are wrong.

I can make up stuff and say it equals something too.
?


Let me link you the definition of graphics, because clearly you are too f%&(ing stupid to already know it.

Merriam webster:

1 a : a product of graphic art
b plural : the graphic media

Dictionary.com:

1. The art of drawing, especially as used in mathematics, engineering, etc.

Wikipedia:

Graphics are visual presentations on some surface.


DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT ART IS PART OF THE GRAPHICS YOU SEE?

  • 12.05.2011 7:03 PM PDT

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

March 3, 2553


Posted by: MF LEKGOLO

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?


Reach spartan models have very distinctive black lines, and the armour looks "plastic" and "unreal" compared to previous games despite the advancements in graphics and rendering. Like somebody has said before the art direction has changed from previous games. And i don't know why this is so. To me, the spartan models in particular look like they've been drawn and appear less realistic in that sense to Halo 3.

The lighting in Reach is better in some areas and horrible in others. The lighting feels and looks very artificial whereas because of the bright nature of Halo 3 and how things reflect light more, the environment feels more "warm" and "lively" thus making a more natural and real environment.

Reach because it is darker by nature doesn't have this feel, and the lighting reflects this as the areas never feel "real". As in, shadows just suddenly become shadows and there is little obvious contrast in light in your HUD from walking inside to outside. Halo 3 did this somewhat in some dark to light areas.
Both games did this, but Halo 3 seemed to be a more realistic feel. Being this because it was a different planet? I don't know. But the environments in reach definitely feel artificial.

This is why you always need dynamic lighting in games as they help to create this feel, Halo has always had static lighting. An example of dynamic lighting in a game is Skyrim.

I could go on.......

  • 12.05.2011 7:11 PM PDT

No. The art is separate. What you're talking about is essentially the colors they used. I'm talking about the actual capabilities. Detail. Pixels. Reflections. Range of vision.

Everything Reach does better. Give it up, mate. And please, if you can't have a discussion without insulting somebody, then I would highly suggest leaving until you calm down, as it might be too mature a discussion for you at the time, no offense.

  • 12.05.2011 7:18 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:


Posted by: burritosenior
No. The art is separate. What you're talking about is essentially the colors they used. I'm talking about the actual capabilities. Detail. Pixels. Reflections. Range of vision.

Everything Reach does better. Give it up, mate. And please, if you can't have a discussion without insulting somebody, then I would highly suggest leaving until you calm down, as it might be too mature a discussion for you at the time, no offense.


Graphics = what you see.

What you see = Subjective.

Capabilities /= graphics.

If reach does it better then why does it look worse.

I don't argue with 12 year olds who ignore my valid points, ignoring proven facts with their fingers in their ears screaming LA LA LA LA.

I -blam!- on those people.

[Edited on 12.05.2011 7:22 PM PST]

  • 12.05.2011 7:21 PM PDT

Posted by: Justin Bieberr
Graphics = what you see.
Close enough.

What you see = Subjective.
Not with anything other than the art style.

Capabilities /= graphics.
No, but how fully the system uses those capabilities = graphics. Which Reach does to its fullest.

If reach does it better then why does it look worse.Because you don't like the colors used.

  • 12.05.2011 7:25 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Not with anything other than the art style.

Motion blur has nothing to do with art it is an engine function yet it detracts from the graphics of the game IMO.

Art style effects graphics. Art style + art quality + engine quality = graphics.

It doesn't matter how fully the engine uses the xbox, if the art sucks the game's graphics will be bad.

It's not just about colors. Do you understand how games are made? Skyboxes for instance are painted by painters in real life, then using advanced photography transferred into the game. It's not just colors. It's the textures and the content of the art itself.

Maps are created in 3ds max by artists rendering polygons, the shapes and surfaces. The quality and time that these artists put into creating these surfaces effects graphic quality. If the artist polygons are too detailed then they will hog engine power hurting everything else. Sometimes less is more. Too much detail can hurt the engine. Artist photograph textures in real life and then apply them to geometric surfaces in the game. This has a huge impact on graphics. The quality of their work is very subjective and thus the resulting graphics are subjective.

I don't just not like the colors. I don't like the colors, the matte textures. I don't like the field of view - I far preferred 60deg to 78. I don't like the motion blur. I don't like the quality of the reflections. I don't like the lighting and the way maps are lit. I hate the look of the spartans. Everything in this game looks cartoonish to me. Look at the god damn water on forge world. Its horrible!

[Edited on 12.05.2011 7:57 PM PST]

  • 12.05.2011 7:52 PM PDT

Motion blur is there to make the 30 FPS appear smoother.
No, art style does not affect the graphics. At all. In the slightest. The art style is what you see. The graphics are the details of what you see. Which are undeniably superior in Halo: Reach due to the superior technology.

The art can suck but if what does suck is incredibly detailed, then the graphics are still good. For example. The art in Halo: CE is awesome. The graphics are still poor compared to today's standards. Separate, mate.

Textures are part of graphics. The artist chooses what texture should go somewhere, but the detail of the texture is what the graphics are. In Reach, that texture is far more in depth. Therefore the graphics are superior. Simple concept, really.

Skyboxes? Yes, they are art. Choose the art style. Choose the colors. Those are the things you don't like. The texture, and how well they pop out at you? That would be the graphics part. Which is superior in Halo: Reach.

Too much detail can hurt the engine, yes. And if you want, you can argue that it's bad Reach's graphics are so good because it hurts other things... but that doesn't change the fact that they are simply that much better.
:/

No, graphics are not subjective in the slightest. Only the art style is.

  • 12.05.2011 7:57 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:


Posted by: burritosenior
Motion blur is there to make the 30 FPS appear smoother.
No, art style does not affect the graphics. At all. In the slightest. The art style is what you see. The graphics are the details of what you see. Which are undeniably superior in Halo: Reach due to the superior technology.

The art can suck but if what does suck is incredibly detailed, then the graphics are still good. For example. The art in Halo: CE is awesome. The graphics are still poor compared to today's standards. Separate, mate.

Textures are part of graphics. The artist chooses what texture should go somewhere, but the detail of the texture is what the graphics are. In Reach, that texture is far more in depth. Therefore the graphics are superior. Simple concept, really.

Skyboxes? Yes, they are art. Choose the art style. Choose the colors. Those are the things you don't like. The texture, and how well they pop out at you? That would be the graphics part. Which is superior in Halo: Reach.

Too much detail can hurt the engine, yes. And if you want, you can argue that it's bad Reach's graphics are so good because it hurts other things... but that doesn't change the fact that they are simply that much better.
:/

No, graphics are not subjective in the slightest. Only the art style is.


How is smoother better. At all ROFL? How does that justify blur?! So if they added way way more blur so everything was super blurry all the time then Reach would still be graphically superior even though everything looked like poo?

NO.

Art style is part of graphics. BY F%&KING DEFINITION BRO. WHAT YOU SEE IS THE ART STYLE SHOWN THROUGH THE ENGINE.

THEY BOTH IMPACT WHAT YOU SEE.

AND WHAT YOU SEE = GRAPHICS.

MORE DETAIL /= BETTER GRAPHICS.

IF THE ART SUCKS THE GAMES GRAPHICS ARE BAD. IF YOU PUT A 6 YEAR OLDS CRAYON DRAWING ON THE CRYSIS ENGINE THE GRAPHICS WOULD BE BAD.

PERIOD.

ART IS PART OF GRAPHICS. THEY ARE NOT SEPARATE.

WHAT IF I SAID MOTION BLUR HURTS THE GRAPHICS SO MUCH THAT I PREFER H1 GRAPHICS TO REACH?

THEN WHAT?!

PLEASE PLEASE EXPLAIN TO ME HOW ANY SPEC CAN CONFIRM THAT MOTION BLUR IS BETTER THAN NO BLUR.

ITS SUBJECTIVE.

ENGINES DISPLAY ART. SOME FEATURES OF THE ENGINE ARE SUBJECT TO PERSONAL PREFERENCE LIKE MOTION BLUR.

THEREFORE WHETHER OR NOT THE ENGINE IS BETTER IS SUBJECTIVE.

PWND.

[Edited on 12.05.2011 8:14 PM PST]

  • 12.05.2011 8:12 PM PDT

Posted by: Justin Bieberr
How is smoother better. At all ROFL? How does that justify blur?!


How is smooth better? Um... because it's easier on the eyes to see continuous movement instead of choppy movement. Maybe you disagree, but I'm willing to bet the majority agree with me. Hence why people get upset over lag.
:/


So if they added way way more blur so everything was super blurry all the time then Reach would still be graphically superior even though everything looked like poo?You can't add motion blur to things that are stationary. Hence the word 'motion.' If they suddenly made everything fuzzy then no, the graphics would not be considered superior to Reach. But we aren't talking about blurry images. We're talking about motion blur. Duh.

Art style is part of graphics. BY F%&KING DEFINITION BRO. WHAT YOU SEE IS THE ART STYLE SHOWN THROUGH THE ENGINE.No. Well, yes except for the first sentence, but it doesn't mean what you think it means. The art is what you see through the graphics, sure. But the art could be the same with inferior graphics. It would just be less detailed. Hence why they are separate.

THEY BOTH IMPACT WHAT YOU SEE.True.

AND WHAT YOU SEE = GRAPHICS.
The detail of what you see and the quality (not counting color, as color/art style is subjective) is what graphics consist of.

MORE DETAIL /= BETTER GRAPHICS. ...No. More detail is essentially the definition of superior graphics.

IF THE ART SUCKS THE GAMES GRAPHICS ARE BAD.That is untrue, as I demonstrated earlier in the post.
IF YOU PUT A 6 YEAR OLDS CRAYON DRAWING ON THE CRYSIS ENGINE THE GRAPHICS WOULD BE BAD.No. The art would be bad. The detail on the items themselves wouldn't be affected directly in the slightest. You are wrong, I'm afraid.

WHAT IF I SAID MOTION BLUR HURTS THE GRAPHICS SO MUCH THAT I PREFER H1 GRAPHICS TO REACH?

THEN WHAT?!
You would then have to say you prefer the game without motion blur. So you would rather have a choppy game with good graphics rather than a smooth, though blurry movement-filled, game with good graphics.


PLEASE PLEASE EXPLAIN TO ME HOW ANY SPEC CAN CONFIRM THAT MOTION BLUR IS BETTER THAN NO BLUR.If you would rather see choppy movement that is fine. That's subjective. That doesn't influence the graphics though.

ENGINES DISPLAY ART.Yes. SOME FEATURES OF THE ENGINE ARE SUBJECT TO PERSONAL PREFERENCE LIKE MOTION BLUR.Yes.

THEREFORE WHETHER OR NOT THE ENGINE IS BETTER IS SUBJECTIVE.Irrelevant, but also incorrect. You yourself said earlier that what the engine is capable of is not representative of what actually is. The Halo: Reach engine is far more capable and far more advanced than the Halo 3 engine. You already said that in your earlier post. The Halo: Reach engine is superior to Halo 3's. Fact. A fact you already said.

  • 12.05.2011 8:29 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Graphics engine + art style = Graphics.

As I have already proven using multiple definitions - Art style is part of the graphics that you see.

If you think that a 6 year olds crayon drawing in the Crysis engine is good graphics then clearly this conversation is over.

Clearly you don't recognize the difference between good graphics and a good graphics engine. they are different words and they mean different things.

Motion blur does not smooth in-between frames. Once again you demonstrate a complete lack of any sort of understanding as to how these systems work. It BLURS in between frames. It adds twice as many frame fragments. If you blur instead of providing accurate renders picture quality is deteriorated and blur will be rendered on top of otherwise crystal clear render space. Degrading picture quality for the ILLUSION of smoothness.

People with attention to detail will see this as a degradation and those without it won't notice unless informed of it's existence. If you can see motion blur then that is evidence right there of degradation.

These are not crystal clear in-between frames being added. It's blur and it distracts from the crispness and clarity. AND AS YOU DEFINED GRAPHICS YOURSELF, MORE DETAIL IS ESSENTIALLY BETTER GRAPHICS. MOTION BLUR DEGRADES DETAIL BY BLURRING OVER THE PAST FRAMES PIXELS. THIS REDUCES DETAIL YES.

WTF NOW?

AS I SAID BEFORE. GRAPHICS IS NOT SIMPLY ABOUT DETAIL. EVERYTHING THAT GOES INTO PRODUCING IMAGES ON YOUR SCREEN EFFECTS GRAPHICS. EVERYTHING. SOME OF IT IS SUBJECTIVE AND SOME OF IT IS NOT.

THEREFORE GRAPHICS ARE SUBJECTIVE.

AND JESUS CHRIST HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO SAY THIS:

"GRAPHICS" IS NOT SYNONYMOUS WITH "GRAPHICS ENGINE". THEY ARE DIFFERENT WORDS AND THEY MEAN DIFFERENT THINGS. CLARIFY YOURSELF.


  • 12.05.2011 8:49 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

But we aren't talking about blurry images. We're talking about motion blur.

MOTION BLUR IS CREATED BY BLURRING PARTS OF A PREVIOUS FRAME AND DISPLAYING IT IN-BETWEEN FRAMES. SO, YES, WE ARE TALKING ABOUT BLURRY IMAGES.

but it doesn't mean what you think it means.

NO, IT DOESNT MEAN WHAT YOU THINK IT MEANS. YOU NEED TO GET YOUR DEFINITIONS CHECKED. IN THE DICTIONARY. ANY DICTIONARY REALLY.

The art is what you see through the graphics

NO, THE ART IS WHAT YOU SEE THROUGH THE GRAPHICS ENGINE. DURRRRRRRR HERP A DERP.

The detail of what you see and the quality (not counting color, as color/art style is subjective) is what graphics consist of.

SO GRAPHICS IS SUBJECTIVE. IM GLAD WE AGREE.

No. The art would be bad. The detail on the items themselves wouldn't be affected directly in the slightest. You are wrong, I'm afraid.

IF A GAPHICS ENGINE DISPLAYS AN IMAGE THAT LOOKS BAD. THEN IT IS DISPLAYING BAD "GRAPHICS" - AS GRAPHICS IS DEFINED BY ANY MAJOR DICTIONARY. EVER.

You would then have to say you prefer the game without motion blur.

NO, I DONT PREFER THE GAME. I PREFER THE GRAPHICS WITHOUT MOTION BLUR. AND BLUR EFFECTS THE GRAPHICS SO HEAVILY IMO THAT H1 HAS BETTER GRAPHICS IMO. SEE HOW SUBJECTIVE IT IS?

If you would rather see choppy movement that is fine. That's subjective. That doesn't influence the graphics though.

CHOPPY > BLURRY

BLURRY GRAPHICS = BAD GRAPHICS IMO

NOTICE THE "IMO" CUZ AS YOU ACKNOWLEDGED MOTION BLUR IS PART OF THE ENGINE, AND MOTION BLUR IS SUBJECTIVE, THEREFORE THE QUALITY OF GRAPHICS IN THE ENGINE IS SUBJECTIVE.

I KNOW....REALLY TOUGH MATERIAL HUH?

You yourself said earlier that what the engine is capable of is not representative of what actually is.

GRAPHICS IS DEFINED AS WHAT ART THE ENGINE PRODUCES.

GRAPHICS ENGINE IS WHAT THE ENGINE IS CAPABLE OF.

THEY ARE DIFFERENT.


The Halo: Reach engine is far more capable and far more advanced than the Halo 3 engine.

YET THE GRAPHICS ARE WORSE - ONCE AGAIN - SUBJECTIVE BY EVERY MAJOR DEFINITION.

The Halo: Reach engine is superior to Halo 3's. Fact.

RIGHT. IT IS A BETTER ENGINE. BUT DUE TO HORRIBLE USE OF THE ENGINE (THINGS LIKE MOTION BLUR) IT IS DISPLAYING WORSE GRAPHICS THAN THE H3 ENGINE.

  • 12.05.2011 9:00 PM PDT

Graphics engine + art style = Graphics.Um... no. Graphics engine is what allows the graphics to become better. The art style is separate. Again.

If you think that a 6 year olds crayon drawing in the Crysis engine is good graphics then clearly this conversation is over.Then I'm assuming you won't respond to this post, not even with an 'OMG U DUM I R LEAVIN NAO' post. Because you're wrong. And do you know why?
If we took the Halo: Reach engine and its graphics and stripped it of all color so it was just white? The graphics would still be good. It's just that the lack of colors would detract from the overall presentation. You know, since art style is separate from graphics. Graphics are fact. Art style is subjective.

Motion blur does not smooth in-between frames. Once again you demonstrate a complete lack of any sort of understanding as to how these systems work. It BLURS in between frames. It adds twice as many frame fragments. If you blur instead of providing accurate renders picture quality is deteriorated and blur will be rendered on top of otherwise crystal clear render space. Degrading picture quality for the ILLUSION of smoothness.You don't seem to understand a word I said, mate. I would highly advise going back and reading it again. I never said it 'smoothed in-between frames.' The blur makes it so your eye sees a continuous, fluid movement instead of the frames jumping from one position to the next. The motion blur does go on top of the graphics, yes. Like I said in my first post- if you would rather have a choppier game with good graphics rather than a smooth and blurry-movement-filled game with good graphics, that is your opinion. you essentially agreed with me. Again.

These are not crystal clear in-between frames being added. It's blur and it distracts from the crispness and clarity.I said that in both this post and the last post. Multiple times.

AND AS YOU DEFINED GRAPHICS YOURSELF, MORE DETAIL IS ESSENTIALLY BETTER GRAPHICS. MOTION BLUR DEGRADES DETAIL BY BLURRING OVER THE PAST FRAMES PIXELS. THIS REDUCES DETAIL YES.No. You just said it puts the blur over the graphics. The graphics are still there, clear under the motion blur. The graphics are still superior regardless of motion blur. But the blur... well, blurs the image so the movements appear smoother.

AS I SAID BEFORE. GRAPHICS IS NOT SIMPLY ABOUT DETAIL. EVERYTHING THAT GOES INTO PRODUCING IMAGES ON YOUR SCREEN EFFECTS GRAPHICS. EVERYTHING. SOME OF IT IS SUBJECTIVE AND SOME OF IT IS NOT.Nope. That would be overall presentation. Graphics are about the detail of what you see, distance you can see it, texture, that sort of thing. Technical things, as far as games are concerned. Art style is totally separate. That is what is subjective.


"GRAPHICS" IS NOT SYNONYMOUS WITH "GRAPHICS ENGINE". THEY ARE DIFFERENT WORDS AND THEY MEAN DIFFERENT THINGS. CLARIFY YOURSELF.
However many times it takes for you to understand it. After all, you're the ones that went from arguing why the graphics are better (well, not so much 'arguing' as 'persisting in known falsities') to saying the engine itself is better.
:/

I would highly advise turning off caps lock if you decide to break your word and reply anyways though. It's rather annoying and does not emphasize your point whatsoever.

  • 12.05.2011 9:05 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

and stripped it of all color so it was just white? The graphics would still be good.

NO, the engine would still be good. The graphics would be whiteness, which would be bad imo.

Overall presentation = graphics. By definition. This is what our argument boils down to and I am correct.

By definition.

[Edited on 12.05.2011 9:10 PM PST]

  • 12.05.2011 9:08 PM PDT

Reach is superior in terms of technical graphics.

whether or not you like the art-style, that's subjective.

  • 12.05.2011 9:10 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

However many times it takes for you to understand it.

Lol you can keep telling me factually wrong things all you want. I understand EXACTLY what you are saying.

You think that art does not play a part in graphics because you believe that graphics = graphics engine.

Let me give you an analogy:

A train vs a train engine. They are different things you see.

The engine pulls the content (the cars). The train itself is not seperate from the cars (the content). The train encompasses the engine and the cars. The train is the whole thing.

Just because the engine is fast/looks pretty does not mean the train will be fast and pretty.

Derp derp.

Look up the difference between graphics and graphics engine you twat.

[Edited on 12.05.2011 9:15 PM PST]

  • 12.05.2011 9:15 PM PDT


Posted by: cameo_cream


This is why you always need dynamic lighting in games as they help to create this feel, Halo has always had static lighting. An example of dynamic lighting in a game is Skyrim.

I could go on.......

Halo 3/Reach utilize HDR, which is a dynamic lighting system.


  • 12.05.2011 9:18 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:


Posted by: ARuff360
Reach is superior in terms of technical graphics.

whether or not you like the art-style, that's subjective.


Um, what is "technical graphics"? Please choose your words carefully and make sure they actually mean something. We have enough burritoseniors just making up definitions around here.

  • 12.05.2011 9:18 PM PDT


Posted by: Justin Bieberr

Posted by: ARuff360
Reach is superior in terms of technical graphics.

whether or not you like the art-style, that's subjective.


Um, what is "technical graphics"? Please choose your words carefully and make sure they actually mean something. We have enough burritoseniors just making up definitions around here.

a game that's more technically advanced.

why would I need to make something like that up?

review sites usually have a category along with a corresponding reward that's devoted to games that are the most technically advanced in graphics. you aren't going to find art-style based games like 'Kirby's Epic Yarn' you're going to see things like Crysis, Battlefield or whatever game is best at utilizing the limited hardware on a console. (Uncharted, Killzone, Gears of War)

these games are to be judged on their technical merit, not their art style. a game CAN have both, I wouldn't dispute that, but most games that are technically impressive are pretty bland in the art-style department.

this is how Gamespot describes their award for technical graphics:

"Every year, games push the boundaries of what game hardware can do by exploring new effects, pushing more polygons, and creating a more technically impressive picture than anything we've seen previously. This category recognizes the games with the most technically impressive graphics."

and their description for artistic graphics:

"Video games are a visual medium, and some games take this fact as a challenge. This award recognizes games that use a strong artistic design to bring their worlds to life."


[Edited on 12.05.2011 9:38 PM PST]

  • 12.05.2011 9:34 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:


Posted by: ARuff360

Posted by: Justin Bieberr

Posted by: ARuff360
Reach is superior in terms of technical graphics.

whether or not you like the art-style, that's subjective.


Um, what is "technical graphics"? Please choose your words carefully and make sure they actually mean something. We have enough burritoseniors just making up definitions around here.

a game that's more technically advanced.

why would I need to make something like that up?

review sites usually have a category along with a corresponding reward that's devoted to games that are the most technically advanced in graphics. you aren't going to find art-style based games like 'Kirby's Epic Yarn' you're going to see things like Crysis, Battlefield or whatever game is best at utilizing the limited hardware on a console. (Uncharted, Killzone, Gears of War)

these games are to be judged on their technical merit, not their art style. a game CAN have both, I wouldn't dispute that, but most games that are technically impressive are pretty bland in the art-style department.

this is how Gamespot describes their award for technical graphics:

"Every year, games push the boundaries of what game hardware can do by exploring new effects, pushing more polygons, and creating a more technically impressive picture than anything we've seen previously. This category recognizes the games with the most technically impressive graphics."

and their description for artistic graphics:

"Video games are a visual medium, and some games take this fact as a challenge. This award recognizes games that use a strong artistic design to bring their worlds to life."


Right. But technical graphics doesn't really mean anything.

I'm not really sure why you put those two words together...

Also, art plays a huge part in why crysis is da best. Crysis would be horrible graphically if the art wasn't spectacular.

[Edited on 12.05.2011 9:47 PM PST]

  • 12.05.2011 9:47 PM PDT

if it didn't mean anything, it wouldn't be acknowledged by the reviewing community.

and I'm talking about an art style. Crysis' art style is NOT the best, it's very bland compared to games like Banjo Kazooie N&B, Okami, or whatever titles Nintendo has out.

those games are great to look at for how unique they are. Crysis is not unique, it's only attempting to mirror real life in terms of detail. therefore it is a technically impressive game with a bland art style.



  • 12.05.2011 10:02 PM PDT

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