Halo 4 had juicer colors and seemed more natural and beautiful. So no.. Reach had very boring coloring scheme.
English
-
This. Although at the time, Reach was obviously stunning.
-
I'm afraid you may confusing the two games.
-
Obviously not.
-
Halo Reach was certainly a much more bright color wise. Personally, the entire game is better. If you honestly need pictures to prove it, look it up because I'm on mobile.
-
[quote]Halo Reach was certainly a much more bright color wise.[/quote] Explain that one to me.
-
First campaign mission. Not as in shiny, as in color scheme. The people were nitty gritty dirty and chipped, but the landscaping was beautiful.
-
Find me one campaign mission in Halo Reach with a brighter color palate than Requiem. Reach's was completely filled with grain and an overly dark art style to create some forced sense of "grit." [url=http://www.electricblueskies.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Halo-Reach-Postcards-Winter-Contingency-032-Visegrad-Overview.jpg]Explain how this[/url] [url=http://halofanforlife.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/m20field.jpg]is brighter than this.[/url] You're completely confusing objective color scheming with what you believe is a better looking color scheme. Halo 4's colors were absolutely more vibrant than Reach's. Whether or not you feel Reach's art direction in general was better than 4 is completely irrelevant to that.
-
Edited by IVI1CR0S0F7: 9/20/2013 4:51:57 AMIf you're going to make a comparison, at least make it fair. It is like you tried finding the most colorless area in Reach and used it to compare. I can do the same. [url=http://media1.gameinformer.com/imagefeed/screenshots/HaloCombatEvolvedAnniversary/th_Installation%2004_HaloFest1.jpg]Reach[/url] [url=https://waypointprod.blob.core.windows.net/blogfilestore/storage/blogs/headlines/2012/10/4/abandon2.png]4[/url] And no, don't get excited. I'm not saying Reach is more colorful. I'm just saying your comparison sucked.
-
Lol Bungie didn't even make that Reach map.
-
Erm, he pointed out the first mission in Reach. And Requiem's the closest fit to that. Don't blame me for the comparison.
-
Edited by IVI1CR0S0F7: 9/20/2013 5:28:05 AMHe didn't say it was more colorful in his second post. He even said he wasn't really talking about the color scheme. He just liked the landscape, which no one was talking about. He kind of contradicted himself with this post. As for you, you picked a much more colorful and brighter level to compare to Reach's 1st mission. It would have made more sense to compare both 1st missions(Halo 4's first mission is pretty gray), although, they are still very different, so that comparison would suck too. Requim is Forerunner and therefore will feature forests along with blinding bright blue and green lights everywhere compared to Winter Contingency's forests and shacks. You can see now why this wasn't a good choice.
-
[quote]He didn't say it was more colorful in his second post.[/quote] Well of course- but he didn't contradict anything he'd said prior to that. All he said was that he wasn't talking about how shiny the colors were in the first mission. His point wasn't contradictory, simply irrelevant. [quote]First campaign mission. [b]Not as in shiny, as in color scheme.[/b] The people were nitty gritty dirty and chipped, but the landscaping was beautiful.[/quote] [quote]He even said he wasn't really talking about the color scheme.[/quote] Incorrect. [quote]He just liked the landscape, which no one was talking about. He kind of contradicted himself with this post.[/quote] No, he didn't. He simply made an irrelevant observation and I refuted it by attempting to go back to the original premise of the discussion, using his example of "the first mission" for context. [quote]As for you, you picked a much more colorful and brighter level to compare to Reach's 1st mission.[/quote] Absolutely not my reasoning. I picked a landscape that was similar to Reach's. Dawn was a largely interior playspace set [i]in space.[/i] The landscape is supposed to be black/gray to accentuate the "lost in space" feeling. [quote]It would have made more sense to compare both 1st missions(Halo 4's first mission is pretty gray), although, they are still very different, so that comparison would suck too.[/quote] Exactly. [quote]Requim is Forerunner and therefore will feature forests along with blinding bright blue and green lights everywhere compared to Winter Contingency's forests and shacks.[/quote] Erm, Requiem didn't have forests anywhere. More importantly, the image I displayed was purposefully chosen as it strayed [i]away[/i] from the Forerunner design language and instead showed off the colors of a similar environment- a green field. [quote]You can see now why this wasn't a good choice.[/quote] It's the best I could have made in regards to Winter Contingency. It wouldn't have been fair to compare any other environment in Halo 4 to it.
-
[quote]Well of course- but he didn't contradict anything he'd said prior to that. All he said was that he wasn't talking about how shiny the colors were in the first mission. His point wasn't contradictory, simply irrelevant. [/quote] He calls Reach bright color wise, then says the people were "nitty gritty dirty and chipped". If he meant Reach as in the actual game, arguably, that's a contradiction right there since he calls the game bright then goes to point out something that's everywhere in the game and claims it's the opposite. If he meant the planet, then it isn't a contradiction, and really only meant the landscape. [quote]Incorrect.[/quote] Read above. [quote]No, he didn't. He simply made an irrelevant observation and I refuted it by attempting to go back to the original premise of the discussion, using his example of "the first mission" for context.[/quote] Read above. [quote]Absolutely not my reasoning. I picked a landscape that was similar to Reach's. Dawn was a largely interior playspace set [i]in space.[/i] The landscape is supposed to be black/gray to accentuate the "lost in space" feeling.[/quote] I already pointed out that Requiem was a bad choice. The most similarity Winter Contingency and Requiem have is that they are both green. They aren't even the same green either. Reach's grass is more of a dark sage with some red plants all over the place while Requiem has bright green everywhere. Everything else is different. One has flying bright, colorful buildings(one is even in your picture)and oddly shaped and arranged giant rocks, while the other has shacks(a very prominent one in your picture) and a waterfall. Did Requiem even have trees? [quote]Erm, Requiem didn't have forests anywhere.[/quote] So it doesn't have trees. More reason it was a bad comparison. [quote]More importantly, the image I displayed was purposefully chosen as it strayed [i]away[/i] from the Forerunner design language and instead showed off the colors of a similar environment- a green field.[/quote] The picture you gave of Reach was pointed straight at a building with some hay bails, metal fences, and shacks everywhere. You could have at least found a mostly empty field for the Reach picture too. Not that it matters. Like I said, they aren't even the same green. It's really just a lost cause. [quote] It's the best I could have made in regards to Winter Contingency. It wouldn't have been fair to compare any other environment in Halo 4 to it.[/quote] Your best wasn't good enough. Don't take that the wrong way. You can't really compare the single player levels. The levels are just too different which shouldn't be a surprise since one is completely human while the other is mostly Forerunner. You'd be better off comparing multiplayer, but the only problem is that people here were debating about single player, not multiplayer.
-
[quote]He calls Reach bright color wise, then says the people were "nitty gritty dirty and chipped". If he meant Reach as in the actual game, arguably, that's a contradiction right there since he calls the game bright then goes to point out something that's everywhere in the game and claims it's the opposite. If he meant the planet, then it isn't a contradiction, and really only meant the landscape.[/quote] You can be bright while being "nitty gritty dirty and chipped." The two aren't mutually exclusive. Just look at, say, Battlefield 4. The colors are extravagant in the game, whilst still maintaining grit. [quote]Read above.[/quote] How does the above refute that? He directly mentioned that it was the color scheme, and you said it wasn't. [quote]I already pointed out that Requiem was a bad choice.[/quote] And making that point doesn't mean it's sound. [quote]The most similarity Winter Contingency and Requiem have is that they are both green.[/quote] Which is exactly why I chose them- they have the [i]same[/i] color scheme. [quote]They aren't even the same green either. Reach's grass is more of a dark sage with some red plants all over the place while Requiem has bright green everywhere.[/quote] Which is exactly my point? Reach's color palate in similar conditions is far less bright than 4's. You're basically saying that the color palate's can't be compared as they're not the same. [quote]Everything else is different. One has flying bright, colorful buildings(one is even in your picture)and oddly shaped and arranged giant rocks, while the other has shacks(a very prominent one in your picture) and a waterfall. Did Requiem even have trees?[/quote] A) How is that building bright and colorful in any way? It's a monotonous gray color from what we can see here- thought still brighter than Reach's Forerunner objects. B) No, Requiem didn't have trees. Regardless the comparison wasn't the shacks- it was the color scheme of the terrain. [quote]So it doesn't have trees. More reason it was a bad comparison.[/quote] Erm, no. I'm comparing terrain and overall color palate. [quote]The picture you gave of Reach was pointed straight at a building with some hay bails, metal fences, and shacks everywhere. You could have at least found a mostly empty field for the Reach picture too. Not that it matters. Like I said, they aren't even the same green. It's really just a lost cause.[/quote] A) The comparison was the color scheme of the terrain, and how "bright and vibrant" the color was. B) That's the [i]entire reason[/i] I chose it. The green in Reach is far more dull than 4's. [quote]Your best wasn't good enough. Don't take that the wrong way. You can't really compare the single player levels. The levels are just too different which shouldn't be a surprise since one is completely human while the other is mostly Forerunner. You'd be better off comparing multiplayer, but the only problem is that people here were debating about single player, not multiplayer.[/quote] Forerunner constructs are definitely not the focal point of the picture I posted of Requiem. Again, I'm just comparing [i]colors[/i], not overall visual language.
-
Late reply, but I was busy this week. [quote]You can be bright while being "nitty gritty dirty and chipped." The two aren't mutually exclusive. Just look at, say, Battlefield 4. The colors are extravagant in the game, whilst still maintaining grit.[/quote] Debatable. It looks desaturated to me. The most I see is blue and orange. [quote]How does the above refute that? He directly mentioned that it was the color scheme, and you said it wasn't.[/quote] He himself pointed out how the characters aren't very colorful by calling them nitty gritty dirty and chipped. It was the landscape he liked. He was supposed to talk about how Winter Contingency was brighter, color wise, than any Halo 4 mission, but talks about its landscape. [quote]Which is exactly why I chose them- they have the same color scheme.[/quote] They aren't the same scheme. One green is bright, one's sage with some red and purple plants all over the place, with some trees. [quote]Which is exactly my point? Reach's color palate in similar conditions is far less bright than 4's. [b]You're basically saying that the color palate's can't be compared as they're not the same.[/b][/quote] That's what I said later in this post. It isn't your fault your comparison for the single player levels sucked. It's because one planet is Forerunner while the other is Human. Some of the Human levels in 4 could be compared well with some of Reach's, Winter Contingency was a lost cause. [quote]A) How is that building bright and colorful in any way? It's a monotonous gray color from what we can see here- thought still brighter than Reach's Forerunner objects.[/quote] Really? There's a bright blue beam right down the middle of it. [quote]B) No, Requiem didn't have trees. Regardless the comparison wasn't the shacks- it was the color scheme of the terrain.[/quote] Shouldn't have showed a picture from Reach where a shack takes up most of it. I typed "Winter Contingency" into Google and found much better images of open land. That's all I'm going to type. I am going to have trouble getting online again, so my replies would be days apart. I didn't respond to every counter point you made, so it didn't seem like I was trying to get the last word. You can still reply, if you want. I'll probably read it in a few days, but don't expect a response.
-
That's fine, this conversation's long overdue and I'm typing up other stuff atm :/. Let's just meet in the middle and say that Halo 4 was indeed more vibrant than Reach.
-
I feel like you could have had another example for Halo 4 but whatever :P
-
BRIGHT ENOUGH FOR YOU?
-
No, that one part on Requim where you see that blue stuff is the brightest thing I have ever seen.
-
Huh, I remember the campaign being [b]ALOT[/b] brighter than that. Especially the first mission. Maybe it was just my brightness.
-
Definitely a possibility.
-
Edited by ch33zy burrito: 9/19/2013 2:12:04 AMHow was it brighter in anyway? Thats literally not possible. Even halo 4 haters agree for the most part that Halo 4s lighting was the best and it really was. Reach lacked color and good lighting alike.
-
Have you sir, read the rest of the comments on this post? It literally disproves you on the spot.
-
[b][u]Most[/u][/b] but youre right. Anyway halo 4 haters are ignorant and arrogant, so they could care less, they just want to spread the hate. Its pretty obvious that Halo 4s lighting and colors are better than Reach's.