[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] ubercow92 that doesnt even look better than reach. reach has better gun, vehicle character models, battlefield has better environments. except its vegetation and why are we still saying reach is a bad game based on its graphics? you are saying it did bad on the polls because of graphics, when so did games with even better graphics. if you are going to say a game sucks, at least try usung excuses that actually matter with gameplay. no reach doesnt have the best graphics out there. but it has some of the best gameplay out there. so no, bungie havent failed[/quote] Except the vegatation?? Dude, I LOL'd so hard. Do you even saw the video I posted?

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Aiden QD [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Evil Johnny You jumped from graphics to the technology, then you've got nothing to say. Okay, we haven't played the game, but while most shooters try to get the best graphics possible, Bungie try to optimize graphics and gameplay. There is always a lot going on in Halo games, lots of enemies, vehicles, explosions, [i]lighting[/i]. Take Gears for example, everyone was saying it got better graphics than Halo 3, but to what expense? Small ares, less enemies, less colours, darker tones, samey textures which aren't pieced together in a very good fashion, something you can't see so well because you play in 3rd person. Don't get me wrong, I love Gears. But then, another reason Reach graphics aren't as impressive - I find them pretty impressive though - compared to when Halo CE came out, is that with that same better technology, [b][u]it's not only about using it for better graphics like lots of games do (or almost), but to do more with it; more enemies, better AI, more things going on, better lighting, more and better textures, polygons, good optimization; it all comes to a price: graphics. Would you sacrifice some of these elements only for more eye candy?[/u][/b] I wouln't, even more considering how I find Reach's graphics so far plenty satisfying. I wouldn't have guessed the graphics was such an issue if I haven't seen your thread. But like I said, if we go to that technology you're speaking, Reach trumps all, it doesn't sacrifice anything for graphics like the -blam!-fest that Killzone 3 will be (KZ2 was terrible, more boring and generic shooters, yay!), instead it optimizes everything in the best way possible.[/quote] Wow. I'm so tired of that excuse. I will just copy what I said on the another post: Look at [b]BAD COMPANY 2[/b] dude. Huge and totally destructible maps with lots of vehicles (helicopters inclusive) and 24 players simultaneously. [url]http://pormisjuegones.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/fotobattlefieldbadcompany2.jpg[/url] [url]http://pormisjuegones.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/battlefield-bad-company-2.jpg[/url] [url]http://elblogdeljugon.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/battlefield-bad-company-2-23-05-09-005.jpg[/url] And now, look at this video: [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3j4UcYkkiiA&hd=1[/url] NO, this is not the very high PC version. [b]IT'S XBOX 360 FOOTAGE.[/b][/quote] that doesnt even look better than reach. reach has better gun, vehicle character models, battlefield has better environments. except its vegetation and why are we still saying reach is a bad game based on its graphics? you are saying it did bad on the polls because of graphics, when so did games with even better graphics. if you are going to say a game sucks, at least try usung excuses that actually matter with gameplay. no reach doesnt have the best graphics out there. but it has some of the best gameplay out there. so no, bungie havent failed

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Aiden QD [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Evil Johnny You jumped from graphics to the technology, then you've got nothing to say. Okay, we haven't played the game, but while most shooters try to get the best graphics possible, Bungie try to optimize graphics and gameplay. There is always a lot going on in Halo games, lots of enemies, vehicles, explosions, [i]lighting[/i]. Take Gears for example, everyone was saying it got better graphics than Halo 3, but to what expense? Small ares, less enemies, less colours, darker tones, samey textures which aren't pieced together in a very good fashion, something you can't see so well because you play in 3rd person. Don't get me wrong, I love Gears. But then, another reason Reach graphics aren't as impressive - I find them pretty impressive though - compared to when Halo CE came out, is that with that same better technology, [b][u]it's not only about using it for better graphics like lots of games do (or almost), but to do more with it; more enemies, better AI, more things going on, better lighting, more and better textures, polygons, good optimization; it all comes to a price: graphics. Would you sacrifice some of these elements only for more eye candy?[/u][/b] I wouln't, even more considering how I find Reach's graphics so far plenty satisfying. I wouldn't have guessed the graphics was such an issue if I haven't seen your thread. But like I said, if we go to that technology you're speaking, Reach trumps all, it doesn't sacrifice anything for graphics like the -blam!-fest that Killzone 3 will be (KZ2 was terrible, more boring and generic shooters, yay!), instead it optimizes everything in the best way possible.[/quote] Wow. I'm so tired of that excuse. I will just copy what I said on the another post: Look at [b]BAD COMPANY 2[/b] dude. Huge and totally destructible maps with lots of vehicles (helicopters inclusive) and 24 players simultaneously. [url]http://pormisjuegones.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/fotobattlefieldbadcompany2.jpg[/url] [url]http://pormisjuegones.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/battlefield-bad-company-2.jpg[/url] [url]http://elblogdeljugon.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/battlefield-bad-company-2-23-05-09-005.jpg[/url] And now, look at this video: [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3j4UcYkkiiA&hd=1[/url] NO, this is not the very high PC version. [b]IT'S XBOX 360 FOOTAGE.[/b][/quote] Dude, the graphics are obviously good, but if you think they are that better you have a problem. Reach has nothing to be jealous of. Seriously, I could understand your concerns if the graphics were the same as Halo 3, but here, while not looking like the best, they're still damn good, what's the problem? It's clearly being nitpicky and -blam!-ing for the sake of it, get over it, we don't care the graphics aren't better than Crysis 2, we only care they look a minimum good (which it's obviously more than that) and that the game will be a blast, something most shooters, even if looking better, don't give me. Get your graphic whoring out of here, and don't even go "positively troll" Crysis forums, just go to graphic whoring forums. [Edited on 06.26.2010 9:41 AM PDT]

another laughable thread... Funny how so many Halo haters troll the B.Net forums... Why is that? If Halo sucks so bad then for chrisake why hang out on Halo's website? Halo haters on B.net = Fail, Not Bungie.

To be completely honest, the Reach E3 demo was not that impressive. Im not saying the game wont be amazing (I LOVED THE DEMO and have already payed of the Legendary Edition) but showing off a 5-10 min campaign portion where you fight maybe a half a dozen Elites and some other enemies then fly into space for some arcade-y action is just not that great. Bungie should have showed us much more MP stuff. Show off some new AA, maps, weapons, etc. THATS what people want to see.

Yes, because many people share the opinions and personal tastes of the hoighty toighty editors of video magazines.

Keep telling yourself Reach looks bad, keep telling yourself. Oh the naivety...

i r pissed

Uh, reader's choice award doesn't come out until July 9th. Who cares about the editor's?

unlike you retards people can see reach is a bad game.

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] A 3 Legged Goat World rekowned Disney's Epic Disney is up there? wut [/quote] lolfix'd

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Aiden QD [url]http://e3.gamespot.com/best-of-e3-2010/game-of-the-show/index.html[/url] [u]Nominees Best E3 Game:[/u] [b]Castlevania: Lords of Shadow Disney Epic Mickey Dead Space 2 EA Sports MMA Kirby's Epic Yarn Child of Eden Killzone 3 Shogun 2: Total War Mortal Kombat Gran Turismo 5[/b] [i]Oh. Where is Reach?[/i] [u]Best 360 Game:[/u] [b]Dead Space 2[/b] [i]No Reach too[/i] [u]Best Shooter:[/u] [b]Killzone 3[/b] [i]Seems like Bungie's game disappointed some people outside of this forum. What a surprise...![/i] My conclusion is: [b]the outdated graphics have their price...[/b][/quote] Funny, you get that from one site...Fair enough, Reach didn't win...Everyone knew what to expect really... It doesn't have the best graphics...But I can bet my ballsack...It will outlast all of those games on that list you made, in replayability, fun, and multiplayer aspects...Killzone 3, has never been known for having "Coop" or "good multiplayer". So, epic fail? Yeah, I doubt that. Oh and comparing Halo to games like cod, or BC2 (Love this game). They could easily focus on other graphical things...They don't have other Aliens, with different physical aspects...Most fps, you fight humans/terrorist. Variety of enemies affect everything, including a graphics engine. [Edited on 06.26.2010 9:22 AM PDT]

These are groundbeaking games, halo;reach will win when it comes to release day

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Evil Johnny You jumped from graphics to the technology, then you've got nothing to say. Okay, we haven't played the game, but while most shooters try to get the best graphics possible, Bungie try to optimize graphics and gameplay. There is always a lot going on in Halo games, lots of enemies, vehicles, explosions, [i]lighting[/i]. Take Gears for example, everyone was saying it got better graphics than Halo 3, but to what expense? Small ares, less enemies, less colours, darker tones, samey textures which aren't pieced together in a very good fashion, something you can't see so well because you play in 3rd person. Don't get me wrong, I love Gears. But then, another reason Reach graphics aren't as impressive - I find them pretty impressive though - compared to when Halo CE came out, is that with that same better technology, [b][u]it's not only about using it for better graphics like lots of games do (or almost), but to do more with it; more enemies, better AI, more things going on, better lighting, more and better textures, polygons, good optimization; it all comes to a price: graphics. Would you sacrifice some of these elements only for more eye candy?[/u][/b] I wouln't, even more considering how I find Reach's graphics so far plenty satisfying. I wouldn't have guessed the graphics was such an issue if I haven't seen your thread. But like I said, if we go to that technology you're speaking, Reach trumps all, it doesn't sacrifice anything for graphics like the -blam!-fest that Killzone 3 will be (KZ2 was terrible, more boring and generic shooters, yay!), instead it optimizes everything in the best way possible.[/quote] Wow. I'm so tired of that excuse. I will just copy what I said on the another post: Look at [b]BAD COMPANY 2[/b] dude. Huge and totally destructible maps with lots of vehicles (helicopters inclusive) and 24 players simultaneously. [url]http://pormisjuegones.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/fotobattlefieldbadcompany2.jpg[/url] [url]http://pormisjuegones.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/battlefield-bad-company-2.jpg[/url] [url]http://elblogdeljugon.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/battlefield-bad-company-2-23-05-09-005.jpg[/url] And now, look at this video: [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3j4UcYkkiiA&hd=1[/url] NO, this is not the very high PC version. [b]IT'S XBOX 360 FOOTAGE.[/b]

My conclusion is gamespot dont know bugger all about games, i mean half of the games on that list i have never heard of and the other half arent that good anyway.

Guys, just let this thread die. There's nothing to discuss, just to argue over. [Edited on 06.26.2010 9:07 AM PDT]

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Rand0m TAG nintendo had the best presentation at the awards show. i think we should all sell our 360s to get one!!![/quote] Before I had a 360 I got a Wii and I hated it!

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] z0rgy you dared say something not good about reach, despite it being [u]an opinion[/u]? get ready to be flamed a lot![/quote] Fixed. [Edited on 06.26.2010 9:01 AM PDT]

nintendo had the best presentation at the awards show. i think we should all sell our 360s to get one!!!

Wow. All those games are debut games. We already know about the good games so they didnt promote them as well. Besides, best at e3 doesnt mean game of the year.

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Aiden QD [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] ubercow92 like the other guy said, they didnt show much NEW. they showed us gameplay, but we already played the beta. the only never before seen things they showed was space combat, and firefights custom options. not exactly enough new content to steal the show and lol get what they deserve? third place for best shooter, oh the horror. if the reason they didnt win was the graphics, then the award means nothing. best game, or best shooter. see graphics in those titles? no[/quote] Again: other games like Dead Space 2, Gran Turismo 5 or Castlevania: Lords Oof Shadow where shown much earlier than the E3 with images, info and videos. Thats not a valid argument at all. And believe it or not, the technological part of a videogame is important too. Sell your 360 and get a Super Nintendo if you dont care about that.[/quote] You jumped from graphics to the technology, then you've got nothing to say. Okay, we haven't played the game, but while most shooters try to get the best graphics possible, Bungie try to optimize graphics and gameplay. There is always a lot going on in Halo games, lots of enemies, vehicles, explosions, [i]lighting[/i]. Take Gears for example, everyone was saying it got better graphics than Halo 3, but to what expense? Small ares, less enemies, less colours, darker tones, samey textures which aren't pieced together in a very good fashion, something you can't see so well because you play in 3rd person. Don't get me wrong, I love Gears. But then, another reason Reach graphics aren't as impressive - I find them pretty impressive though - compared to when Halo CE came out, is that with that same better technology, it's not only about using it for better graphics like lots of games do (or almost), but to do more with it; more enemies, better AI, more things going on, better lighting, more and better textures, polygons, good optimization; it all comes to a price: graphics. Would you sacrifice some of these elements only for more eye candy? I wouln't, even more considering how I find Reach's graphics so far plenty satisfying. I wouldn't have guessed the graphics was such an issue if I haven't seen your thread. But like I said, if we go to that technology you're speaking, Reach trumps all, it doesn't sacrifice anything for graphics like the -blam!-fest that Killzone 3 will be (KZ2 was terrible, more boring and generic shooters, yay!), instead it optimizes everything in the best way possible.

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Sanjeev [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] A 3 Legged Goat Disney Epic Mickey is up there? wut [/quote] Don't diss man! That game looks awesome. So does Kirby![/quote] Eh, the only one there that holds my interest is [i]DS2[/i].

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] A 3 Legged Goat Disney Epic Mickey is up there? wut [/quote] Don't diss man! That game looks awesome. So does Kirby!

Also,anyone who frequents Gamespot.com knows it is FULL of Sony chogs and Nintendo fans. Sorry, but Halo fans are too busy having a good time to worry about what Sonygirls and Casual gamers think.

Disney Epic Mickey is up there? wut

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] davadude A friend of mine works at Crack, and I showed him. He made the images, I found that facts.[/quote] Brilliant :)