Arguably Halo 4 has fewer content than Halo 3/Reach. So why did we have to download an additional second disc?
The advanced new lighting system and many other graphical advantages are probably the reason for this.
So…
The question is, would you rather have the beautifulness that is Halo 4’s graphics, or all the content that was removed from previous titles?
> Arguably Halo 4 has fewer content than Halo 3/Reach. So why did we have to download an additional second disc?
>
> The question is, would you rather have the beautifulness that is Halo 4’s graphics. Or all the content that was removed from previous titles.
Content over graphics IMO.
I still go back to the original CE and Halo 2 for gameplay.
> > Arguably Halo 4 has fewer content than Halo 3/Reach. So why did we have to download an additional second disc?
> >
> > The question is, would you rather have the beautifulness that is Halo 4’s graphics. Or all the content that was removed from previous titles.
>
> Content over graphics IMO.
>
> I still go back to the original CE and Halo 2 for gameplay.
Agreed 
On one hand, Having the extra stuff was fun. On the other hand, I didn’t really care since I hardly ever have a full team to enjoy them.
Plus Halo 4 has more problems than just "Lack of Content ", like 343 thinking its a good idea to leave behind old stuff in favor of the new and then slowly start making their way back to them.
Games need a good balance of both BUT Gameplay will make you enjoy a game more besides graphics or story.
Hopefully with the Xbox One, it won’t be too much to ask for both.
Well, in a way, graphics drive gameplay. It holds all of the physics and stuff (correct me if I’m wrong).
But if I could choose, I would choose gameplay, obviously.
Title is kinda misleading. Content ≠ gameplay.
Honestly, neither. There has to be a balance. Good graphics with low content makes for a game that’s fun for a while, but gets boring due to lack of variety. Lots of content but poor graphics makes for a game that’s fun for a while, but gets boring due to ugliness or difficulty on the eyes.
> Games need a good balance of both BUT Gameplay will make you enjoy a game more besides graphics or story.
Thing is, at times, Reach actually has better graphics than Halo 4, imo.
> Hopefully with the Xbox One, it won’t be too much to ask for both.
Fingers crossed xD
> Title is kinda misleading. Content ≠ gameplay.
>
> Honestly, neither. There has to be a balance. Good graphics with low content makes for a game that’s fun for a while, but gets boring due to lack of variety. Lots of content but poor graphics makes for a game that’s fun for a while, but gets boring due to ugliness or difficulty on the eyes.
Thread renamed
I actually agree with that. A big problem with Reach was the fact 50% of the maps were eye sores, it got old fast.
> > Arguably Halo 4 has fewer content than Halo 3/Reach. So why did we have to download an additional second disc?
> >
> > The question is, would you rather have the beautifulness that is Halo 4’s graphics. Or all the content that was removed from previous titles.
>
> <mark>Content over graphics IMO</mark>.
>
> I still go back to the original CE and Halo 2 for gameplay.
Exactly that. Graphics maybe great to have, but contents have more “goodies” as i like to say for customization purposes, extra maps, features, etc.
I only wish Halo 4’s graphics were actually good enough to replace missing content. From a distance, Halo 4 is beautiful, but go go stand next to a Warthog and look at it. Even Halo 3 had better graphics than that!
> > > Arguably Halo 4 has fewer content than Halo 3/Reach. So why did we have to download an additional second disc?
> > >
> > > The question is, would you rather have the beautifulness that is Halo 4’s graphics. Or all the content that was removed from previous titles.
> >
> > <mark>Content over graphics IMO</mark>.
> >
> > I still go back to the original CE and Halo 2 for gameplay.
>
> Exactly that. Graphics maybe great to have, but contents have more “goodies” as i like to say for customization purposes, extra maps, features, etc.
Exactly we need more customization and more features like vehicles and such.
> I only wish Halo 4’s graphics were actually good enough to replace missing content. From a distance, Halo 4 is beautiful, but go go stand next to a Warthog and look at it. Even Halo 3 had better graphics than that!
Well said. The explosions are pretty poor too.
I like graphics but rather have loads more gameplay features after all the hardware of the 360 limited halo 4’s content after all the graphics took most of the memory.
Love the structural art design for halo 4, but for everything else reach’s art style was better.
The same thing said for map design should be aplied to game design.
Gameplay first, details later. In other words, Content before Graphics.
I still play Halo PC every now and then for the content it has, so I’d go with more content any day of the week.
I still play Halo Combat Evolved at LANs and when I’m over friend’s places. Gameplay over graphics always.
I’m not voting because up to halo 4 we have been getting both. Halo has always looked good for its time and has always had the content to go with it. So why should we have to choose between them now
> I’m not voting because up to halo 4 we have been getting both. Halo has always looked good for its time and has always had the content to go with it. So why should we have to choose between them now
Despite halo 4 having good graphics it left out lots of content. In halo 5 the hardware will be able to support it