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:


Posted by: ARuff360
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.





I didn't say it's art style was the best....lol.....kids these days.

  • 12.05.2011 10:32 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

All it took was a stew of whoopass.

One is bright, the other is a little dark.

  • 12.06.2011 4:06 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

I enjoyed reading this debate/argument between burritosenior and Justin Bieberr.

I can't believe someone would argue (with such poor knowledge) against the fact that Halo: Reach has clearly better graphics than Halo 3.

Learn to interpret things properly. All you like in Halo 3 is it's brighter colours and art.

  • 12.06.2011 8:35 AM PDT

too much contrast between light and dark in games now, reach is either dark as hell or just good enough

  • 12.06.2011 8:53 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:


Posted by: Elem3nt 117
I enjoyed reading this debate/argument between burritosenior and Justin Bieberr.

I can't believe someone would argue (with such poor knowledge) against the fact that Halo: Reach has clearly better graphics than Halo 3.

Learn to interpret things properly. All you like in Halo 3 is it's brighter colours and art.



I will never forget the day someone told me to "Stop banging my head against the bNet wall of retardation."

You are exactly what he was talking about.

  • 12.06.2011 10:19 PM PDT

Sorry. I haven't been on a computer in two days. I'm back now though!

Posted by: Justin Bieberr
Overall presentation = graphics.
Graphics + Color + Voicing + Music + Syncing + Particle Effects = Overall presentation.
This is what our argument boils down to and I am correct.No. What this boils down to is the fact that you still, somehow, think this is some sort of 'argument.' This isn't you trying to 'prove' yourself correct. This is me explaining to you, quite patiently, why you are wrong. Just curious: Are you part of the flat earth society?



Posted by: Justin Bieberr
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.
You do realize these two statements contradict one another, yes? Because that isn't what I believe in the slightest. In fact, I've said the opposite of that numerous times. Then again, those do happen to be some of the parts you skip over in your oblivious rants.

  • 12.07.2011 6:04 AM PDT

Halo 3: ReV Eskimo

eventually ill be back on Reach and CEA. i enjoy gaming for fun, im a great player and i enjoy smoking while i play. so any chill players feel free to add me. I in NO way support halocharts; old username.

nope.

  • 12.07.2011 11:19 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:


Posted by: burritosenior
Sorry. I haven't been on a computer in two days. I'm back now though!

Posted by: Justin Bieberr
Overall presentation = graphics.
Graphics + Color + Voicing + Music + Syncing + Particle Effects = Overall presentation.
This is what our argument boils down to and I am correct.No. What this boils down to is the fact that you still, somehow, think this is some sort of 'argument.' This isn't you trying to 'prove' yourself correct. This is me explaining to you, quite patiently, why you are wrong. Just curious: Are you part of the flat earth society?



Posted by: Justin Bieberr
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.
You do realize these two statements contradict one another, yes? Because that isn't what I believe in the slightest. In fact, I've said the opposite of that numerous times. Then again, those do happen to be some of the parts you skip over in your oblivious rants.


1. Art and particle effects are part of graphics. Somehow you still fail to understand this.

Just curious, why have you wasted years of our life on bNet? Is it because your life is so pathetic that you have nothing better to do than discuss a video game with children?

What's even sadder is that most of the 12 ears olds here have a higher level of intelligence than you. At least they are capable of understanding simple definitions.

  • 12.07.2011 5:26 PM PDT

Hanger one I just shredded with the SMGs until ammo was out and I just threw 'nades like a boss while BRing.

My experience playing Cairo Station on Legendary

Maybe not better graphics, but much more appealing ones. The color differentiation is awesome, and just over all is nicer to look at. Halo: Reach has joined the ranks of Gun Metal-Grey.

  • 12.07.2011 6:30 PM PDT

Art is part of graphics. Art encompasses graphics.

Art style does not.

Particle Effects- the detail of them- are affected directly by what the engine can do. But the physics behind them adds to the presentation.

I will just say it one more time though: If you are unable to hold a conversation without blatant insults being thrown about, then please leave, as this discussion is clearly too mature for you. If you would like to continue, I would be more than happy to oblige if you can act like an adult. But please do not expect anybody to take you seriously when your only rebuttals are 'u r dum.'

  • 12.08.2011 10:37 AM PDT

Aesthetically, Halo 3 is better
Graphically, Halo Reach is better

  • 12.09.2011 2:36 PM PDT

Reach looks like someone crammed dirt, sand, and dust into a machine, and projected all three all over a Halo game, while dimming down the brightness and contrast.

Halo 3 is much more beautifully colored, and very well lite.

Just look at all the detail in Sierra 117 alone, and just look at all the lighting and shadowing of sunlight beaming through the trees.

  • 12.10.2011 8:32 PM PDT

I understand what Bungie was going for in Reach, with that whole abysmal gritty look, but I definitely prefer Halo 3's aesthetic.

  • 12.11.2011 3:14 AM PDT

I've noticed that Halo Reach graphics look somewhat "shaky" and a little like cartoons. I don't think Bungie needed to change much. I'm not a fan with the disappearance of the Battle Rifle, or the new ranking system, or the feel of the game. There may have been a lot of new people working on this game that Bungie just hired. And since this was their last Halo game, they probably didn't give too much of a -blam!-.

Even the little things like the score board. Before you could not only see how many points you had, but a little bar to show roughly how much you needed (If you had 25 kills in TS, the bar would be half way). And a bunch of other things like how the body of a player wont move after they die. In Halo 3 you could Tbag and smack a body around as they had to watch. Now, its like a rock..

Anyways, thats my rant. I wish everyone went back to the good ol' days of Halo 3. I hear so many people complaining about Halo Reach, so why not play Halo 3 instead? I'm on it right now.

  • 12.11.2011 9:44 AM PDT

Here's Forty Shillings on the Drum,
For those who Volunteer to come,
to list and fight and fall today
over the hills and far away

I think the overall design was better and I prefer the brightness of Halo 3 than the darkness of Reach. Texture wise however Reach wins hands down.

  • 12.13.2011 6:54 PM PDT


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.
As would I.

  • 12.14.2011 12:56 PM PDT

Reach has far superior graphics, anyone saying otherwise is kidding themselves. However, if you like H3's art style more, then fine, whatever, but that has nothing to do with graphics.

  • 12.14.2011 2:02 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

I'm listeni- Oh wait I don't give a -blam!- what you have to say.


Posted by: GarnetSoldier1
Aesthetically, Halo 3 is better
Graphically, Halo Reach is better
basically the whole dumb argument itt solved in two sentences.

  • 12.15.2011 1:34 AM PDT


Posted by: Frasier Crane

Posted by: GarnetSoldier1
Aesthetically, Halo 3 is better
Graphically, Halo Reach is better
basically the whole dumb argument itt solved in two sentences.

GOD, thank you. This stupid argument can finally end.

  • 01.21.2012 8:41 PM PDT


Posted by: Rocketman287

Posted by: Frasier Crane

Posted by: GarnetSoldier1
Aesthetically, Halo 3 is better
Graphically, Halo Reach is better
basically the whole dumb argument itt solved in two sentences.

GOD, thank you. This stupid argument can finally end.
End? It ended like two months ago. Way to bump it up after a month.
>.<

  • 01.21.2012 10:07 PM PDT

Everything looked better in Halo 3. Armor, environments, people, vehicles. Not sure what they did with Reach but I loved 3's graphics.

  • 01.22.2012 12:40 AM PDT

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