Im not sure how much but, the HCEA graphics seemed to be improved from reach’s. What did you guys think?
It’s about time.
I don’t think they’re as good as Reach, but they’re pretty good (taking into account what the game used to look like).
I think some of it is better than Reach and some of it is not. There are certain parts of the campaign where they just spam bright lights in your eyes to emphasize the difference.
Overall, though, I love CEA’s graphics. Amazing game.
In some respects they are better and in some respects worse, but considering you can toggle back and forth on the fly, they are better in that respect.
It is overall better than Reach’s because it fits CE’s gameplay, story, landscapes, and skyboxes beautifully! I honestly wouldn’t mind it being used for Halo 4 if it had to be… as long as Halo 4 isn’t dull like Reach, it should fit perfectly!
> Im not sure how much but, the HCEA graphics seemed to be improved from reach’s. What did you guys think?
Completly agree since Reach’s graphics were just bad, even the CEA maps look a bit better than the one’s Bungie made.
The quality of the graphics isnt as good but the art style is way better. Reach had awesome graphics but the art style was so dull and boring.
CEA’s Campaign uses the Reach models, right? Well remember those dead Ultra Elites back in the Classic version? I was actually surprised that 343i decided not to use the Ultra Elite’s model in the remastered version, but instead opted to use the Minor.
I honestly don’t see any difference. Which is a good thing.
You can’t be serious. Compare Installation 04 with the final area of the level Halo. You’ll be surprised how much better Reach looks.
> The quality of the graphics isnt as good but the art style is way better. Reach had awesome graphics but the art style was so dull and boring.
Yea, this. Reach has a more “gritty” environment, while CEA has a more bright and exciting environment and therefore I think CEA has better graphics.
> > Im not sure how much but, the HCEA graphics seemed to be improved from reach’s. What did you guys think?
>
> Completly agree since Reach’s graphics were just bad, even the CEA maps look a bit better than the one’s Bungie made.
Ignorance if i heard it. Reach is one of the most impressive 360 games graphically. Why? It’s one of the only games that looks as good far away as it does close up. You zoom into the majority of the textures in reach they are all high resolution.
In Halo CEA there was room to push alot more of the 360’s resources onto the Graphics, because it was using a 10year old engine under the bonnet.
How Reach looks so impressive, yet is still able to sustain 30+ AI onscreen at once with hundreds of particle effects is pure amazing.
I hate ignorent people who go “YUUR REACH AM BAD”, gameplay wise? I have to agree. Technically. Bungie did it again pushing a console to it’s limits.
I think the time and effort made by 343i to remaster Halo CEA shows really well within the game, Its great to see how far they could go with it, But its also great to look back at how it originally was by just a simple click of a button, For me thats genius.
PeacE
ShadEO9
They look great aside from some rendering issues (especially on the covers for the engine vents in The Maw).
The environments certainly are more enjoyable than Reach. A few things hold it back, though; namely:
-Facial animation - it was great in Reach, it is horrible in Anniversary
-Motion capture - it was great in Reach, it is horribly overdone in Anniversary
-Character skeletons - They definitely look dated, as they are the originals from Combat Evolved
-First-person hands - Master Chief’s joints on his hands are horrible in first person; mostly noticeable on the Shotgun. When he melees, his hand completely comes unattached from his arm
-Texture popping - this happens frequently in Anniversary; I’ve never seen it in Reach
-No moving parts - the implements were ripped right from Reach, but they don’t have the same dynamic feel; for example, when you fired and then pumped the shotgun in Reach, the entire barrel moved to pump out that shell. This doesn’t happen in Anniversary. Similarly, the Banshee just kind of glides around, instead of dynamically looking like it’s causing that flight. Also, when it’s about to be destroyed, the tips of its wings simply spark.
Other than those things, the game is pretty good. If you disregarded them and focused mainly on some of the game’s lighting and environments, I wouldn’t hesitate to call it better visually than Reach. However, I couldn’t do that, so I’ll just say, Reach is better mainly because of these glitches.
Heck yeah they are waaaaaay better. Reaches cut-scenes looked like paintings and the landscape was not as detailed.
The reason CEA looks so good is the Saber 3d engine. Sabre created TIMESHIFT one of the best looking games on 360, particularly the begining sections in the rain. Has to be seen to be beleived.
The Graphical style is a bit odd but the rendering is the best I’ve ever seen. Full screen anti-aliasing(no jaggies whatsoever)not even Reach does that.Bump mapping everywhere.
The multiplayer is excellent: There is even a Timeshift Multiplayer Demo on the Xbox marketplace. Just make sure you download the right one(theres a singleplayer demo also).
It has 2 maps, a large outdoor and a small indoor.
Time powers are in the form of proximity grenades ,bubbles with localized time effects like Pause,Slow and Reverse.
Its way ahead of its time…
CEA’s graphics in my opinion were better then Reach’s. Especially on Truth and Reconciliation the sky was real pretty.
> > > Im not sure how much but, the HCEA graphics seemed to be improved from reach’s. What did you guys think?
> >
> > Completly agree since Reach’s graphics were just bad, even the CEA maps look a bit better than the one’s Bungie made.
>
> Ignorance if i heard it. Reach is one of the most impressive 360 games graphically. Why? <mark>It’s one of the only games that looks as good far away as it does close up. You zoom into the majority of the textures in reach they are all high resolution.</mark>
>
> In Halo CEA there was room to push alot more of the 360’s resources onto the Graphics, because it was using a 10year old engine under the bonnet.
>
> How Reach looks so impressive, yet is still able to sustain 30+ AI onscreen at once with hundreds of particle effects is pure amazing.
>
>
> I hate ignorent people who go “YUUR REACH AM BAD”, gameplay wise? I have to agree. Technically. Bungie did it again pushing a console to it’s limits.
Yeah… I’d agree with you accept for this little thing called impostering.