[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 :)

If I remember right, didn't someone tamper the results?

A friend of mine works at Crack, and I showed him. He made the images, I found that facts.

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] davadude [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Wazp4 [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] davadude Killzone 3, GT 5. Wow. People these days are graphical whores. It should be: Halo:Reach GOW3 Forza 4 Star Wars: The Old Republic Look, those polls are invalid. If they exclude SW, then they are just retarded graphical whores. All those games will die out after 1/2 months, Reach will be like Halo, a strong 100k fanbase.[/quote] Tru7h Besides, Killzone3 looks exactly like MW2, which looks like MoH...[/quote] [url=http://img52.imageshack.us/img52/3104/25275.jpg]Made and uploaded by yours truly.[/url][/quote] Wait... YOU were the one who made that? My friends love you man.

OP obviously has very little reading comprehension. Reach is on the voting list. OP, Sony called and said you were late for work again. The voting for the Readers choice began yesterday and ends Friday, July 9. [url=http://e3.gamespot.com/best-of-e3-2010/game-of-the-show/index.html?page=2]What the OP was unable to read for himself.[/url] [Edited on 06.26.2010 8:45 AM PDT]

They didn't nominate Rage or Crysis 2 either, so the graphics theory fails. Not to mention the omission of games like Portal 2 and Deus Ex 3....So why does this list of games matter again?

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Wazp4 [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] davadude Killzone 3, GT 5. Wow. People these days are graphical whores. It should be: Halo:Reach GOW3 Forza 4 Star Wars: The Old Republic Look, those polls are invalid. If they exclude SW, then they are just retarded graphical whores. All those games will die out after 1/2 months, Reach will be like Halo, a strong 100k fanbase.[/quote] Tru7h Besides, Killzone3 looks exactly like MW2, which looks like MoH...[/quote] [url=http://img52.imageshack.us/img52/3104/25275.jpg]Made and uploaded by yours truly.[/url]

Much like Halo 3, Reach will outsell all other titles for Xbox 360 AND PS3. The only opinion that should count is your own, not some piss poor reviewer who is biased by his paycheck. OP I'll ask you a simple question, In two years will you be playing Epic Mickey or Halo: Reach? Even Gears of War 3 wasn't on the list. I hate Gears with a passion but it still deserved a spot, don't you agree? Think twice before you try to roast a game that hasn't even come out yet. Stat source: [url=http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/ms-halo-3-outsold-six-ps3-titles-combined]Eurogamer[/url] [Edited on 06.26.2010 8:38 AM PDT]

Outdated graphics or not, awards or not, Halo Reach will easily outsell ANY of those games and will have more people playing it online than ANY of those games.

[url=http://www.1up.com/do/feature?cId=3179985]1 up liked Reach...[/url] [Edited on 06.26.2010 8:33 AM PDT]

^^^ LOL if halo had a portal gun...

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Evil Johnny [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Pipboy 3050 I saw NOTHING good about Killzone 3 other than the graphics.[/quote] Every Killzone are true crap. Talk about a generic shooter... Same with most shooters really, Halo still manage to feel somewhat fresh because of using several gameplay elements at the same time that no other game do. [/quote] Don't forget about [i]Half-Life[/i] man. (Sorry for being off-topic.)

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Pipboy 3050 I saw NOTHING good about Killzone 3 other than the graphics.[/quote] Every Killzone are true crap. Talk about a generic shooter... Same with most shooters really, Halo still manage to feel somewhat fresh because of using several gameplay elements at the same time that no other game do.

Maybe they didn't mention it because if they allowed Reach in the competition, there would be no awards left. It would even take best racing game! :P

This is saddening. I can't believe they can't even mention Reach. I know theres other games with better graphics, but shouldn't the gameplay matter the most. Even thiugh I don't really care how many awards a game gets.

[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] As you just stated, those other games were shown with [b] images, info, and videos [/b], where as in Reach, we accutally got to PLAY THE GAME. This being stated, the reviewers already knew much about the gameplay of Reach, but not of the other games because they NEVER GOT TO PLAY THEM. [Edited on 06.26.2010 8:26 AM PDT]

meh, I don't really care what everyone else thinks about it. I'm gonna love it, that's all that matters.

Ehhh, a few people havent got taste, have they.....

people see HALO on the title of the game and they're like " oh its another one of those games.", when they haven't even played any halo game. just like most halo fans do with call of duty.

It's probably because not all of the features of Reach were shown. Reach will at least be a nominee (well, probably) for GoTY. Once the "Incredible New Map Editor" and more is revealed, people will open their eyes.

[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] [/quote] Wait... Kirby has competition? WTF

"The Gamespot e3 awards" "..[b][u]Gamespot[/u][/b]..." Well there's your problem right there.

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] MURDUR 587 [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Sanjeev [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Aiden QD [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Sanjeev [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Aiden QD You cant be serious. [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wVTHwwCjKLk&hd=1[/url] YOU JUST CANT BE SERIOUS. And its not just Gears 3. Take a look a t the gameplay footage from [b]RAGE, Crysis 2, Vanquish[/b] or [b]Bulletstorm[/b], everyone for the XBox 360 and not even being exclusively developed for that console, with huge enviroments, enemiges and effects on screen too. There is just no excuse. Using the same outdated engine again and again with some changes CAN'T be good. There you have the proof.[/quote] There is an excuse. You want to hear it, my friend? Bungie isn't iD Software. Bungie isn't Crytek. Vanquish looks good, but not as good as Reach... and Bungie isn't Epic Games. Bungie is Bungie. They have technology they create in house which is good, but like you said, Rage looks awesome. Bulletstorm looks awesome, though I don't think Bulletstorm in particular looks that great in the grand scheme of things. Reach looks good, not as good as those games, but so what? Bungie is pushing the 360 to is limits, to the best of its abilities, with the technology they have. iD and Epic are the 2 developers in the world who have the most widely touted graphics engines in the industry, Crytek included. Comparing Bungie's technology to theirs is simply... unfair? Yea, unfair. And yes, I'm serious. Really serious. Oh and a side point, you seem really hell bent that Reach didn't win awards here because of its graphics, yet neither did the graphical powerhouses you are using as references either. Disconnect much?[/quote] Thats definetly NOT an excuse. Bungie is one of the biggest developers in the industry, Halo literally PRINTS money for them. The only reason for the mediocre graphics is the engine they used for REACH, same as Halo 3 and even Halo 2 (!!) Why dont create a new and unique engine for the 360 starting by zero? Because that takes a lot of time, work and money. Why should they spent those things if the Halo fans will buy it however it looks? THERE is the reason for the average visuals. And what you said about Rage, Crysis 2, etc. are not nominees for Best E3 Game... well, maybe they fail on things where Halo Reach succeeds.[/quote] Save for iD Tech 5 as far as I can tell, every other engine is built and then improved upon. No one rewrites an engine from scratch. You know why? Because its stupid. Bungie keeps the same engine for each game series while they are working on it because it makes sense to do so. A lot of resources carry over because it makes development sense. You say it like its a crime Bungie has committed when you fail to accept that that is basically what everyone does. Gears of War 3 is still running off the same engine that was used for Gears 1, just with modifications, just like how Reach is running on the same engine that was used for Halo 2, just with heavy modifications. Just like every other game on the market. You obviously don't know how much work goes into building an engine from scratch. If everyone was doing that, we wouldn't be playing this many games per year because they will all still be in production. Why not create a brand new engine for the 360? You answered your own question. Because that takes a lot of time, work and money: A luxury a lot of developers are not privy to in this day and age. Certain big name studios can get away with it, like iD and that's the reason why Rage, running on iD Tech 5, looks awesome, platform regardless. Independent developers like Bungie? They can't afford that luxury. Most of the development studios out now can't. And to your other question: "Why should they spend those things if the Halo fans will buy it however it looks" Because the Halo fans were drawn in my the amazing story, the amazing gameplay and the amount of support given by the developer. Look around you. The people here, the Halo fans, here... the majority are trying to tell you that they don't really care about the graphics. They want gameplay and gameplay is what keeps a lot of Halo fans, including myself, to Halo. Its the reason we buy the game, because we know we're gonna get a fun time with our purchase. Because we know we are gonna get a content rich, feature filled experience that no other console focused developer has been able to offer. There.[/quote] Wait i thought halo 2 used the CE engine which used the pathways of darkness engine.Or something like that.[/quote] My bad. You are absolutely right. But, Halo 3's engine was not a brand new engine, if I am not wrong. It was built off the foundation from the Improved Pathways engine from Halo 2 but for all intents and purposes, the Halo 3 engine was new... which Reach is built on top off.

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] MURDUR 587 [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Sanjeev [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Aiden QD [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Sanjeev [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Aiden QD You cant be serious. [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wVTHwwCjKLk&hd=1[/url] YOU JUST CANT BE SERIOUS. And its not just Gears 3. Take a look a t the gameplay footage from [b]RAGE, Crysis 2, Vanquish[/b] or [b]Bulletstorm[/b], everyone for the XBox 360 and not even being exclusively developed for that console, with huge enviroments, enemiges and effects on screen too. There is just no excuse. Using the same outdated engine again and again with some changes CAN'T be good. There you have the proof.[/quote] There is an excuse. You want to hear it, my friend? Bungie isn't iD Software. Bungie isn't Crytek. Vanquish looks good, but not as good as Reach... and Bungie isn't Epic Games. Bungie is Bungie. They have technology they create in house which is good, but like you said, Rage looks awesome. Bulletstorm looks awesome, though I don't think Bulletstorm in particular looks that great in the grand scheme of things. Reach looks good, not as good as those games, but so what? Bungie is pushing the 360 to is limits, to the best of its abilities, with the technology they have. iD and Epic are the 2 developers in the world who have the most widely touted graphics engines in the industry, Crytek included. Comparing Bungie's technology to theirs is simply... unfair? Yea, unfair. And yes, I'm serious. Really serious. Oh and a side point, you seem really hell bent that Reach didn't win awards here because of its graphics, yet neither did the graphical powerhouses you are using as references either. Disconnect much?[/quote] Thats definetly NOT an excuse. Bungie is one of the biggest developers in the industry, Halo literally PRINTS money for them. The only reason for the mediocre graphics is the engine they used for REACH, same as Halo 3 and even Halo 2 (!!) Why dont create a new and unique engine for the 360 starting by zero? Because that takes a lot of time, work and money. Why should they spent those things if the Halo fans will buy it however it looks? THERE is the reason for the average visuals. And what you said about Rage, Crysis 2, etc. are not nominees for Best E3 Game... well, maybe they fail on things where Halo Reach succeeds.[/quote] Save for iD Tech 5 as far as I can tell, every other engine is built and then improved upon. No one rewrites an engine from scratch. You know why? Because its stupid. Bungie keeps the same engine for each game series while they are working on it because it makes sense to do so. A lot of resources carry over because it makes development sense. You say it like its a crime Bungie has committed when you fail to accept that that is basically what everyone does. Gears of War 3 is still running off the same engine that was used for Gears 1, just with modifications, just like how Reach is running on the same engine that was used for Halo 2, just with heavy modifications. Just like every other game on the market. You obviously don't know how much work goes into building an engine from scratch. If everyone was doing that, we wouldn't be playing this many games per year because they will all still be in production. Why not create a brand new engine for the 360? You answered your own question. Because that takes a lot of time, work and money: A luxury a lot of developers are not privy to in this day and age. Certain big name studios can get away with it, like iD and that's the reason why Rage, running on iD Tech 5, looks awesome, platform regardless. Independent developers like Bungie? They can't afford that luxury. Most of the development studios out now can't. And to your other question: "Why should they spend those things if the Halo fans will buy it however it looks" Because the Halo fans were drawn in my the amazing story, the amazing gameplay and the amount of support given by the developer. Look around you. The people here, the Halo fans, here... the majority are trying to tell you that they don't really care about the graphics. They want gameplay and gameplay is what keeps a lot of Halo fans, including myself, to Halo. Its the reason we buy the game, because we know we're gonna get a fun time with our purchase. Because we know we are gonna get a content rich, feature filled experience that no other console focused developer has been able to offer. There.[/quote] Wait i thought halo 2 used the CE engine which used the pathways of darkness engine.Or something like that.[/quote] Well, the OP was talking about how [i]Halo 3[/i] used the same engine as [[i]Halo 2[/i] and never mentioned etc. But you are correct that it at least uses the same engine as [i]Halo: CE[/i].

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Sanjeev [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Aiden QD [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Sanjeev [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Aiden QD You cant be serious. [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wVTHwwCjKLk&hd=1[/url] YOU JUST CANT BE SERIOUS. And its not just Gears 3. Take a look a t the gameplay footage from [b]RAGE, Crysis 2, Vanquish[/b] or [b]Bulletstorm[/b], everyone for the XBox 360 and not even being exclusively developed for that console, with huge enviroments, enemiges and effects on screen too. There is just no excuse. Using the same outdated engine again and again with some changes CAN'T be good. There you have the proof.[/quote] There is an excuse. You want to hear it, my friend? Bungie isn't iD Software. Bungie isn't Crytek. Vanquish looks good, but not as good as Reach... and Bungie isn't Epic Games. Bungie is Bungie. They have technology they create in house which is good, but like you said, Rage looks awesome. Bulletstorm looks awesome, though I don't think Bulletstorm in particular looks that great in the grand scheme of things. Reach looks good, not as good as those games, but so what? Bungie is pushing the 360 to is limits, to the best of its abilities, with the technology they have. iD and Epic are the 2 developers in the world who have the most widely touted graphics engines in the industry, Crytek included. Comparing Bungie's technology to theirs is simply... unfair? Yea, unfair. And yes, I'm serious. Really serious. Oh and a side point, you seem really hell bent that Reach didn't win awards here because of its graphics, yet neither did the graphical powerhouses you are using as references either. Disconnect much?[/quote] Thats definetly NOT an excuse. Bungie is one of the biggest developers in the industry, Halo literally PRINTS money for them. The only reason for the mediocre graphics is the engine they used for REACH, same as Halo 3 and even Halo 2 (!!) Why dont create a new and unique engine for the 360 starting by zero? Because that takes a lot of time, work and money. Why should they spent those things if the Halo fans will buy it however it looks? THERE is the reason for the average visuals. And what you said about Rage, Crysis 2, etc. are not nominees for Best E3 Game... well, maybe they fail on things where Halo Reach succeeds.[/quote] Save for iD Tech 5 as far as I can tell, every other engine is built and then improved upon. No one rewrites an engine from scratch. You know why? Because its stupid. Bungie keeps the same engine for each game series while they are working on it because it makes sense to do so. A lot of resources carry over because it makes development sense. You say it like its a crime Bungie has committed when you fail to accept that that is basically what everyone does. Gears of War 3 is still running off the same engine that was used for Gears 1, just with modifications, just like how Reach is running on the same engine that was used for Halo 2, just with heavy modifications. Just like every other game on the market. You obviously don't know how much work goes into building an engine from scratch. If everyone was doing that, we wouldn't be playing this many games per year because they will all still be in production. Why not create a brand new engine for the 360? You answered your own question. Because that takes a lot of time, work and money: A luxury a lot of developers are not privy to in this day and age. Certain big name studios can get away with it, like iD and that's the reason why Rage, running on iD Tech 5, looks awesome, platform regardless. Independent developers like Bungie? They can't afford that luxury. Most of the development studios out now can't. And to your other question: "Why should they spend those things if the Halo fans will buy it however it looks" Because the Halo fans were drawn in my the amazing story, the amazing gameplay and the amount of support given by the developer. Look around you. The people here, the Halo fans, here... the majority are trying to tell you that they don't really care about the graphics. They want gameplay and gameplay is what keeps a lot of Halo fans, including myself, to Halo. Its the reason we buy the game, because we know we're gonna get a fun time with our purchase. Because we know we are gonna get a content rich, feature filled experience that no other console focused developer has been able to offer. There.[/quote] Wait i thought halo 2 used the CE engine which used the pathways of darkness engine.Or something like that.

[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] [i]Oh. Where is Reach?[/i] .[/b][/quote] Not out yet?