I notice that many new games try to show off their engine as part of their marketing. For example, BF3 and MoH are all like “OMG Frostbite 2!” I never hear anything about the Halo engine. What’s it called? Is the Halo 4 engine the same as the Reach one or did 343 use something different?
Halo 4 is running on a heavily modified Reach engine. It’s basically still the same engine they used for all the previous titles just modified.
It’s an in-House graphics engine. The engine itself isn’t very special. It’s a 08/15 tbh.
“Frostbite” and the “Unreal Engine”, both stand for innovations in gaming development. Halos not. That’s why you mostly won’t hear anything about Halos engine.
For a tweaked Engine that’s been around for a while… my god it looks pretty.
Looks so good I thought it was entirely new.
Agreed even Assassins creed 3 Anvil engine looked really good but Halos engine is just a tweaked version nothing completely Brand new about it.
Games only really marked their engines if they intend to license them out. I.e Unreal, CryEngine.
Halo doesn’t market the engine because it’s in house and doesn’t really have an official name other than “the Halo engine.” and doesn’t get rented out.
> Agreed even Assassins creed 3 engine looked really good.
The AnvilNext engine looks pretty good. I find it amazing at what 343i can do with their engine. It deserves more support.
Couldn’t care less what engine a game is built on so long as it works and looks good.
LOL and yet Halo 4 looks better than Crysis 2 did with its so much touted cryengine 3
> LOL and yet Halo 4 looks better than Crysis 2 did with its so much touted cryengine 3
Assuming you’re only talking about the Xbox version of Crysis, it’s not a surprise. I’d expect a game specifically made for the hardware of the 360 look better than a multiplatform one ported to the hardware from PC. But in the end, it’s the weak hardware and lack of optimization for the 360 that makes Crysis 2 look “bad” on the 360. The CryEngine 3 itself is far better than the Halo engine.
I heard the reach engine was havok. I also believe its on the back of reachs cover.
> > LOL and yet Halo 4 looks better than Crysis 2 did with its so much touted cryengine 3
>
> Assuming you’re only talking about the Xbox version of Crysis, it’s not a surprise. I’d expect a game specifically made for the hardware of the 360 look better than a multiplatform one ported to the hardware from PC. But in the end, it’s the weak hardware and lack of optimization for the 360 that makes Crysis 2 look “bad” on the 360. The CryEngine 3 itself is far better than the Halo engine.
well of course I mean specifically in the 360. But then again Halo 4 outshines also GOW3 on the 360 and that is a dedicated game with a much touted engine
and I am sorry to say it beats Crysis 2 on any platform when it comes to Art Direction but that is just a matter of tastes
> I heard the reach engine was havok. I also believe its on the back of reachs cover.
Havok is only the physics part of the engine. It’s robust solution to do your all your game physics and is used by probably most games out there. However, it’s not the whole engine. The engine used by all Halo games is completely built by Bungie. They probably changed their physics solution from an in-house one to Havok during the development of Halo 2, or at least my copy of Halo CE does not have the Havok logo on the back of the cover.
> Halo 4 is running on a heavily modified Reach engine. It’s basically still the same engine they used for all the previous titles just modified.
I’m pretty sure it was called the “Blam!” engine by Bungie.
> well of course I mean specifically in the 360. But then again Halo 4 outshines also GOW3 on the 360 and that is a dedicated game with a much touted engine
>
> and I am sorry to say it beats Crysis 2 on any platform when it comes to Art Direction but that is just a matter of tastes
I’ve never played GoW, so I can’t say. But what I can say is that this late into the hardware’s life, making graphics that look better is mostly a matter of clever resource management. In other words, I wouldn’t really make a comparison between the graphics of GoW3 and Halo 4 without having the expertise and research to really compare themk. Heck, I wouldn’t even compare Halo 4 and Reach because both games are just so different. Reach, for example, seems to have higher texture details than Halo 4, but Halo 4 has better lightning and anti-aliasing. Reach didn’t just magically have four times the geometry count than Halo 3 did. Halo 3 had proper water physics with the water surface consisting of polygons. Reach took those polygons and added them elsewhere. That’s what I meant by clever resource management.
But when going to which game really looks the best, Halo always wins for me because of its art style. No matter how much better Reach might have been graphically, I still prefer Halo 3 over it because it looked better. So, I agree with you on that, Halo has the best art style I’ve seen in a game.
lol, there is nothing very spectacular about any engine running on the xbox 360. The xbox 360 is years behind the PC in terms of graphics and processing power.
Halo’s engine is called Havok, and is featured in many other games.
> Halo’s engine is called Havok, and is featured in many other games.
No, Havok is a physics engine. The graphics and gameplay are both part of an in-house engine that’s been in use for multiple Halos.
> > well of course I mean specifically in the 360. But then again Halo 4 outshines also GOW3 on the 360 and that is a dedicated game with a much touted engine
> >
> > and I am sorry to say it beats Crysis 2 on any platform when it comes to Art Direction but that is just a matter of tastes
>
> I’ve never played GoW, so I can’t say. But what I can say is that this late into the hardware’s life, making graphics that look better is mostly a matter of clever resource management. In other words, I wouldn’t really make a comparison between the graphics of GoW3 and Halo 4 without having the expertise and research to really compare themk. Heck, I wouldn’t even compare Halo 4 and Reach because both games are just so different. Reach, for example, seems to have higher texture details than Halo 4, but Halo 4 has better lightning and anti-aliasing. Reach didn’t just magically have four times the geometry count than Halo 3 did. Halo 3 had proper water physics with the water surface consisting of polygons. Reach took those polygons and added them elsewhere. That’s what I meant by clever resource management.
>
> But when going to which game really looks the best, Halo always wins for me because of its art style. No matter how much better Reach might have been graphically, I still prefer Halo 3 over it because it looked better. So, I agree with you on that, Halo has the best art style I’ve seen in a game.
I don’t know about the texture detail but I agree on the rest…and I played GOW and I can tell you Hali 4 just looks better.
Here’s to hope Euclidion delivers tho
> lol, there is nothing very spectacular about any engine running on the xbox 360. The xbox 360 is years behind the PC in terms of graphics and processing power.
I wouldn’t say so. The amount of optimization for the hardware is always impressive on consoles. I don’t think a PC with the same amount of power as the 360 could run Halo 4 at steady rate of 30 fps. But of course PCs will always shine in the brute force processing power.