Are the graphics actually better than Reach?

Even though CEA is just CE with Reach’s graphical engine, are the graphics actually better than Reach? I’ve been looking at the gameplay of CEA and it looks improved. Could Sabre have tweeked up the graphics within the year or so?

Whole new graphics engine, bro. Nothing to do with Reach.

And I think it looks much, much better than Reach.

Judging from the sound comparison vids I just saw, I’d say yes. Though the animations will probably be not up to speed, because the it’s essentially a new graphics engine over the original 10 year old ce engine.

Hawtness Evolved!

The graphics really do look nice in CEA. I think The Silent Cartographer looks better than Reach. Can’t wait to see the other levels, I hope they live up to TSC’s standard! :smiley:

Possibly. Nice work Saber Interactive!

> Whole new graphics engine, bro. Nothing to do with Reach.
>
> And I think it looks much, much better than Reach.

No no, You cannot have a graphics engine, You have a game engine and the graphics engine as you call it is a bolt on actually called a renderer. Its a graphics layer running over the top. What I believe to be a updated version of the system used in Halo Reach.

So yes they maybe an improvement from Reach.

They probably are an improvement on Reach’s graphics, but I can’t stand the color pallet. I had no problem with the vivid colors when I first played CE 10 years ago, but after becoming accustomed to the darkness and grittiness of ODST & Reach, anything brighter than that seems like Mario Kart to me >_<

> They probably are an improvement on Reach’s graphics, but I can’t stand the color pallet. I had no problem with the vivid colors when I first played CE 10 years ago, but after becoming accustomed to the darkness and grittiness of ODST & Reach, anything brighter than that seems like Mario Kart to me >_<

The color pallet is defined by the textures used in game, They have definitely been swapped out for upgraded textures.

> > They probably are an improvement on Reach’s graphics, but I can’t stand the color pallet. I had no problem with the vivid colors when I first played CE 10 years ago, but after becoming accustomed to the darkness and grittiness of ODST & Reach, anything brighter than that seems like Mario Kart to me >_<
>
> The color pallet is defined by the textures used in game, They have definitely been swapped out for upgraded textures.

As somebody who has no idea about any of this stuff I’m just gonna assume you know what you’re talking about.

I do, however, prefer a darker, grittier feel…I might just adjust my TV’s color settings :\

I dunno, I’ll have to play it.

It’s a game engine that is made for a system with a 1/4th the power requirements. From there, the physics and AI aren’t changing. That massive GPU and at least 4 times more processing power of the 360 can easily help render more lavish visuals than Reach and its 10x more (min) happening at once with a -Yoink- load of polygons and particles.

I’ll also have to see how the transitions occur as I approach a Covie-wall. Reach is freaking smooth as hell and puts to shame the previous games for textures in every regard but 1. That would be Sidewinder’s ice. It just sounds, feels and looks the best ice of any game yet. And that’s from 10 years ago.

> Whole new graphics engine, bro. Nothing to do with Reach.
>
> And I think it looks much, much better than Reach.

To me its the best graphics of the series.

Since most video games have turned into a graphics race I would assume every game would have better graphics than it’s predecessor.

Considering the in-game environments and art, yes.

Yes Indeed. However some animation… meh.

To me Texture-wise Halo goes like this:
Halo Anniversary >> Halo Reach >> ODST = Halo 3 >> Halo CE >> Halo 2

Halo Anniversary does an AMAZING job on updating the quality of Reach, but to say its MUCH MUCH BETTER is an overstatement. It’s nice, but it’s like only 1.2x more amazing, not exactly Crysis 2 quality.

And the reason why I feel that Halo CE had better textures of Halo 2 is simply because it does. Halo 2 greatly improved upon animation and model design but facial textures were poor compared to Halo CE along with some surfaces looking too plain, or too shiny, or waxy.

I felt that ODST had a bit better designs and some shading, but the engine is identical to H3’s so its not too different, or atleast not enough to be considered an upgrade.

Cant wait for graphics to be as awesome as the CGI cutscenes from Halo Wars though.

I’m just glad 343i did away with the horrendous over-the-top motion blur as seen in halo reach.

> Whole new graphics engine, bro. Nothing to do with Reach.
>
> And I think it looks much, much better than Reach.

This. And I agree, in my opinion, this game blows Reach out of the water.

I’d be shocked if it weren’t using the existing engine from Halo Reach.
I think it’s pretty obvious it has some modifications, but it’s probably based off of the Bungie engine.

It looks more modifed than the Halo 3 engine was for ODST, and it has all new assests where as most environmental things besides the actual locations in ODST were reused from Halo 3 (think weapons, creates, etc.).

It looks like they put quite a bit of effort into the game. The result seems to be quite good, especially considering the game seems like it was done in a relatively time period. Reusing as much as possible was probably quite tempting.

But yea, CEA > Reach > Halo 3 = ODST
The one thing about CEA i notice though is that it has a certain level of smoothness that Halo 3 had, but was lacking in Reach.

Of course, when I talk about the engine I’m also referencing the fact that UE is seperate from the CE. ue3, for example, is most likely based on ue2.

the plasme rifle video looks better but its hard to say without playing it

They are just about the same (realism wise), but I prefer the CEA version because the style is much more Halo-y than in Reach.