{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
11/23/2012 2:44:28 AM
11
Graphics: Reach Vs Halo-4.
After playing Halo-4 for about two weeks now I've noticed a ton of graphical differences between Halo's newest installment and Reach. Halo-4 Has some genuinely impressive environmental lighting; god rays, light reflections, lense flare, etc, but I feel adding those features came with a big trade off. After playing Reach for a bit I noticed the game had vastly better textures, particle effects, dynamic lighting effects from explosions and weapons fire. Overall I think both games are visually impressive, but I kind of wish Halo-4 production team had scaled back some of the new fancy environmental lighting effects in favor of better textures like Reach. What game do you feel had better overall graphics and why; Reach or Halo-4?
[Edited on 11.22.2012 6:45 PM PST]
-
[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] flamedude I think the graphics technology of Halo 4 was incredible, but I think they were let down by really inconsistent art quality jumping from a good looking new Chief to the utterly drab and unmemorable Lich.[/quote] That's my biggest gripe about Halo-4. Overall the graphics were great but inconsistent; odd texture pops, certain environmental and enemy details were kind of fuzzy/ low rez. As great as the new lighting system is in some sections of the campaign it's a little bit overdone to the point of being distracting. The one thing that Reach has over Halo-4 is that graphically it's more consistent. In fact my biggest complaint about Reach's graphics is the annoying motion blur and ghosting caused by temporal AA. Thankfully 343 used FXAA and avoided that.
