[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?

Medal of Honor probably payed GameSpot to keep it down along with The Old Republic, Fable III, and Gears 3, because last I checked those were the highest voted for with THOUSANDS of votes. And I mean, a lot of people have been waiting for those games for sometime.

[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][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 Using the same outdated engine again and again with some changes CAN'T be good.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][b]Posted by:[/b] jonesy90000 im confused how it ended up with those results because when i checked the poles halo reach was being voted as second best game of e3 (star wars just cant be beat, sorry)[/quote] someone hacked the polls for witcher

im confused how it ended up with those results because when i checked the poles halo reach was being voted as second best game of e3 (star wars just cant be beat, sorry)

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Aiden QD 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] Actually reach is in fact using [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pathways_into_Darkness]this game's engine[/url]. [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LeIdw31Ybvk&hd=1]But look how pretty![/url] You seem not to understand what a engine is. [Edited on 06.26.2010 7:59 AM PDT]

Kirby's Epic Yarn > Halo: Reach I knew it!

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Zos I honestly could care less about a web site opinion. I am going to have a blast playing Reach, and no web site is going to tell me what I should be playing.[/quote] exactly.

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] LegendaryFluffy Gamesradar gave them a "Reason for Living" award though, and the graphics are amazing to all but the visually challenged.[/quote]Games Radar is the most honest site I've found, when they give an award, I pay attention. When anyone else gives an award, it tells me where the money is. And they're funny. OT: The reason Bungie didn't get an award? They didn't show off Forge 2.0. Everyone knows Halo gameplay is good, that's not what they needed to show. They needed to show how you can affect that gameplay. Yes, there was the Firefight customization options, but even that wasn't talked about too much. Basically, at E3, Bungie failed to show anything new, and so everyone thought Halo Reach was going to be the same old Halo, which is really great, but not as good as all the new games. If Bungie had shown off Forge 2.0, and really shown what you can do with Reach, it would probably be at the top of a lot more lists. TL;DR Nothing new was really shown. Just small things like Space Combat (I say this because it's not in MP, and so it will just be another vehicle sequence, like the Hornet part of the Covenant in H3 Campaign. It's not that this is bad, it's just that it's not new).

[url]http://www.bungie.net/images/Games/Reach/images/screenshots/e32010/inline/Reach_E310_Campaign03.jpg[/url] [url]http://www.bungie.net/images/Games/Reach/vga/Bungie_REACH_1280x720.jpg[/url] seriously, there is little difference. the only improvement i see in the VGA screen is that the reflections are better, and that is probably down to it being a cutscene, and therefore having ideal lighting conditions. other than that, there is no difference. they have the same amount of detail on the armour, the vegetation actually looks BETTER in the e3 picture, minimal difference in the backdrops, VGAs dust effects look better, but again that is a cutscene thing, that much smoke is rarely in gameplay

[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][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] You know whats funny about this... Halo Reach was voted the best game at E3... thats all I really care about haha...

The way I see all video games is that you only need 15 other players that enjoy the game as much as you do. After that who cares?

OP are you kidding me? The graphics at e3 [b]were[/b] almost the same as the VGA trailer,the only real difference is the fact that the VGA trailer was a cutscene and adhered to certain conditions,like all cutscenes do. Oh and the graphics right now are better than most games,the engine has also been reworked to the point that it is considered a completely different engine but i won't go further into that because well i'm too lazy to explain to you. [Edited on 06.26.2010 7:51 AM PDT]

Give me another website as "proof" because gamestop is to busy reviewing this [url=http://e3.gamespot.com/story/6266705/swords-impressions?tag=top_stories;title;9]here[/url]

if you want to say why reach did bad on [url=http://e3.gamespot.com/best-of-e3-2010/special-achievement/index.html?page=2]this[/url] poll, then you can talk about graphics. if you want to say why it did bad (or actually, came third) in [url=http://e3.gamespot.com/best-of-e3-2010/genre-awards/index.html?page=9]this[/url] poll,then talk about gameplay

I watched Killzone 3, it wasn't that great. There were some cool parts, but it didn't look shooter of the show good. I wouldn't have given it to Reach either though-it didn't do nearly enough to get that. The X-box award just pissed me off-why the -blam!- would you give it the Dead-Space, a multiplatform? Honestly, everyone wanted to make love to that game so much they had to take away a deserving games spot to put it in? FAIL.

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] o0 KEV1N 0o Machinima gave it game of show, along with many other sites. Seeing the common denominator here?[/quote] I'm on your side here but still, Machinima owes its fame to Halo. Call me a cynic, but when it comes to Halo, I don't really trust Machinima's input all that much.

Nintendo won the "E3 Battle" :) With: DKCR, Zelda, Kirby, Goldeneye, Epic Mickey, 3DS. [Edited on 06.26.2010 7:42 AM PDT]

Machinima gave it game of show, along with many other sites. Seeing the common denominator here?

[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] proof? you stated other games look better. that hardly counts as proof. no, reach is not the best looking game out there, but [url=http://www.bungie.net/images/Games/Reach/images/screenshots/e32010/inline/Reach_E310_Campaign03.jpg]neither is it bad looking[/url]. and the fact that literally all you have talked about is graphics is retarded. you are saying reach is a bad game, but are ignoring gameplay

-blam!- graphics, i mean there nice but i play for the game! exactly why i still have my N64.

[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][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] b][/quote] reach wasnt in there because reach didnt have trial for real people to play