JavaScript is required to use Bungie.net

#Halo

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]
Add more answer options

Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post.

  • my biggest gripe about H4 graphics... explosions. what the heck?! even when the Wraiths fire, it looks sooo cheesy.
    Add more answer options

    Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post.

  • Halo 4's graphics are vastly superior to Reach, both technically and artistically. The vibrancy of the colours was a welcomed return from the washed out Reach. The textures didn't look as bland as Reach's, which tended to look very flat and made the environment look bland. Seriously, Halo 4's stuff looked very close to it's stunning artwork, which is rare for games to achieve. [Edited on 11.23.2012 9:22 AM PST]
    Add more answer options

    Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post.

  • [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] bagan bodies 2 You think the textures in Reach were better? WAT[/quote]Zoom in on the Phantom.
    Add more answer options

    Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post.

  • I absolutely hate how they make the skybox. If you load up Ragnorok and walk around it feels like the sky is literally right above the level and following you. I hate it.
    Add more answer options

    Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post.

  • I wouldn't agree it's better in all areas. There are many areas where Reach is superior from textures, to landscapes and draw distance etc. There is also a reason 343 Industries was not able to give you a theater option for campaign. But if you pause at areas or look closely, you'll see where they cut corners. I'd say Halo 4 has better CGI and cutscenes, lighting and particle effects, not to mention improved character models, polygons. Also, you are comparing a game that came out in 2010 to one that came out in 2012. Just like Reach looks better than Halo 3, Halo 4 will naturally look better than Reach. http://www.velocitygamer.com/wp-content/gallery/halo-2/2820769-web_preview.png http://www.velocitygamer.com/wp-content/gallery/halo-2/coper5.jpg If Bungie had half the money Microsoft spent on Halo 4 and as much time, you'd see magic as well. Also, Certain Affinity had to build Forge World, 343 was too busy with the rest. [Edited on 11.23.2012 4:38 AM PST]
    Add more answer options

    Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post.

  • Halo 4 graphics > Reach's graphics in every aspect.
    Add more answer options

    Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post.

  • It's easy, Halo was always known for it's saturated colors and visual flair. Purples and greens were bright, the sky was blue etc. Not to mention that the landscapes and textures were phenomenal. Pause in any level in Reach and just look at the various graphical features in the levels. Halo 4 has gone the modern shooter route. Great overall visuals and realism added by toning down colors. I'm sure you've noticed the new "brown" that's in Halo that never existed before. And how red vs blue looks more like washed out red vs washed out blue. If you pause the game in Halo 4 and look closely, you'll see cardboard cutouts in the distance, poor textures, painted landscapes. It's very Mass Effect-ish to me. In multiplayer, look at Valhalla for example. You think it looks better, until you see the water physics are poorer, that green and grass have been removed for flat brown surfaces. Plus every level feels like it has a "ceiling". Play a level in Reach like Spire or any map on the forge world. It feels like you are small people on a huge stage. Play a map in Halo 4 and it feels like you are as big as a level sometimes. It's hard to explain. I don't know what I necessarily prefer. Halo 4 is visually stunning, but once you dig deeper, you see the flaws and how they achieved it. Besides, digital foundry had a great article on it. A lot of the guys who work at 343 Industries had roles in developing DX11. Not to mention that Halo 4 is perhaps the most expensive game Microsoft ever made and that they had nearly 3+ years to make it. Bungie made Halo 3 in 2007, numerous map packs, they then released ODST in 2009, and then Reach by 2010. Imagine if they had 3-4 years, and close to an unlimited budget. That's why I am so excited for Destiny.
    Add more answer options

    Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post.

  • [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.
    Add more answer options

    Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post.

  • 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.
    Add more answer options

    Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post.

  • Meh, I don't see what you are talking about at all. The graphics in 4 were brilliant for xbox, and probably among the best the aging console can offer.
    Add more answer options

    Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post.

  • You think the textures in Reach were better? WAT I can't think of any way shape or form that Reach or previous installments beat out Halo 4, with the sole exception being the distant backgrounds as paintings as opposed to of real time structures.
    Add more answer options

    Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post.

preload icon
preload icon
preload icon
You are not allowed to view this content.