I don’t get it. Reach had the most amazing, detailed and realistic graphics, incredible for it’s time. How did 343 look at Halo 5 and think to themselves that this was an improvement?! The graphics are objectively worse in every single way, and not only in art style. Textures are very low res, and don’t have enough detail. The lighting is very wonky, everything has this weird back light, like there are no real shadows. Edges are smooth and rounded instead of sharp. All materials look like they have a layer of paint, which makes both metal and rocks look like plastic, whereas in Reach you could actually tell the difference between different materials. Nothing in Halo 5 looks like it could be real, it all looks very plastic and animated. To make it even worse, they made the colors super bright and saturated, probably to compensate for the otherwise bland graphics. Overall it looks like this weird blend between cartoon and realism. It astounds me they couldn’t come up with something better having access to 5 years worth of new tech and the added processing power of the Xbox One.
I really hope they revamp the graphics and art style for Halo 6 to make it more like Reach. That game really did it right.
I notice huge differences between H4 and H5 with H4 having way better graphics, but I’m pretty sure it is because H4 is 30fps while H5 had 60fps as a priority.
The jump from 30-60 fps is no small feat. Not to mention H5 had to be ready for 4k support. High resolution textures such as that are a huge drain on GPU memory, and thus negatively impact performance. Certain graphical processes such as volumetric lighting, draw distance, and MS Anti aliasing had to be dialed back to meet system requirements and be optimized for the xbox one. Honestly it’s a wonder to me that console devs make games look as good as they do with the hardwear limitations present. It has to be more of an art than a science.
Halo 5 is much better than reach (to an extent). Personally, sometimes Halo 5 just looks like plastic imo. I do think H2A’s graphics are much better than Halo 5’s.
> 2535454274494335;1:
> Textures are very low res, and don’t have enough detail.
Can you show a comparison picture of this, because I don’t know what you’re referring to. I have yet to find textures in Halo 5 that have a lower resolution that comparable textures in any previous game.
> 2535454274494335;1:
> The lighting is very wonky, everything has this weird back light, like there are no real shadows.
The rest of your complaints sound like they relate more to the artistic style of the game, rather than the graphical fidelity itself.
> 2535431933064458;4:
> I notice huge differences between H4 and H5 with H4 having way better graphics, but I’m pretty sure it is because H4 is 30fps while H5 had 60fps as a priority.
Any chance you can show me what you mean? I’ve seen people say this, and have asked them to explain. I’ve gone to take screenshots of both games to compare (particularly the texture resolution, which many people complain about). However, I just cannot figure out what would make someone arrive to the conclusioon that Halo 5 has worse graphics. It uses higher resolution textures than Halo 4. (See the close-ups of ground and rock faces in my screenshots. Also, pay attention to the small details in the Spartan’s hands). The environments have much more complex geometry than in Halo 4. The lighting is much more realistic than in Halo 4. As far as I can tell, Halo 5 has higher graphical fidelity all across the board. So please, show me what part of Halo 4 is graphically superior to Halo 5.
It really depends on one’s definition of “better graphics”, but Reach is definitely one of the most beautiful Halo games (visually my favourite). I’d say the more “plastic” look in Halo 5 comes from both the art direction and the tech limitations they had in order to push a steady 60 fps and higher quality textures. (Also, the lighting)
If we’re talking about how the game looks, from an artistic point of view, Reach has “better graphics” (more visually appealing, immersive and fascinating)
If we’re talking about how the game looks, from a tech point of view, H5 has “better graphics” (higher resolution output, higher resolution models and textures, higher frame rate…)
It’s like comparing a beautiful 10 inch wide painting with a less beautiful, but more detailed, 20 inch wide painting. The later is bigger and has more detail, but no matter how you look at it it’s just not as visually appealing.
I really like how 60 fps feels in H5, but while 4k looks good on the One X, it doesn’t really mean much when parts of the game look distracting (like those tech hiccups when enemies are running at 2 fps in the distance) or just plain ugly (mixing super high resolution models and textures with other objects that look like they’re visually from Halo 2 tech). It creates a visual disconnection and breaks the immersion of the game.
Having the best of both worlds is what I’d love seeing with H6. With the power of the One X I’d take 60 fps 1080p with more realistic lighting, less tech hiccups and better art direction over having 60 fps 4k with H5 style tech and art style.
Halo 5’s graphics are objectively better. More polygons, higher resolutions etc. The materials could be improved in some places, though I’d argue they’re mostly based on making more modern versions of the kinds of things seen in 3.
As for art-style, they’re very different games. All of the numbered games tend to fit into a grander, more fantastic space opera, with less of a focus on realism. Reach was meant to be a more gritty, personal war story. It downplayed a lot of the more out there elements of the series. Reach has always been the outlier, and the only way there’ll be another Halo with those kinds of visuals is if they make one with the same sort of intentions, which won’t happen in a numbered/Master Chief game.
Would definitely be more of the art style.
343 chose an almost cartoon-y / plastic style with their games, the anniversary edition of Halo 2 showed that the original art style can be modernized without looking “off” like with Halo 4 / 5.
Armour customization & looks took a step back for sure. You nailed it with the cartoon look & feel. You certainly cant argue that. I dont understand why some maps have a huge glare. At times i feel i have to squit or put sunglasses on to play lol. Maybe this was on purpose for sniping at long ranges? seems doubful tho.
> 2533274825830455;7:
> > 2535454274494335;1:
> > Textures are very low res, and don’t have enough detail.
>
> Can you show a comparison picture of this, because I don’t know what you’re referring to. I have yet to find textures in Halo 5 that have a lower resolution that comparable textures in any previous game.
>
>
>
>
> > 2535454274494335;1:
> > The lighting is very wonky, everything has this weird back light, like there are no real shadows.
>
> Again, not entirely sure what you mean. Halo 5 has plenty of shadows.
>
> The rest of your complaints sound like they relate more to the artistic style of the game, rather than the graphical fidelity itself.
>
>
>
>
> > 2535431933064458;4:
> > I notice huge differences between H4 and H5 with H4 having way better graphics, but I’m pretty sure it is because H4 is 30fps while H5 had 60fps as a priority.
>
> Any chance you can show me what you mean? I’ve seen people say this, and have asked them to explain. I’ve gone to take screenshots of both games to compare (particularly the texture resolution, which many people complain about). However, I just cannot figure out what would make someone arrive to the conclusioon that Halo 5 has worse graphics. It uses higher resolution textures than Halo 4. (See the close-ups of ground and rock faces in my screenshots. Also, pay attention to the small details in the Spartan’s hands). The environments have much more complex geometry than in Halo 4. The lighting is much more realistic than in Halo 4. As far as I can tell, Halo 5 has higher graphical fidelity all across the board. So please, show me what part of Halo 4 is graphically superior to Halo 5.
For halo 4 having better graphics, I sorta agree subjectivey.
To me, halo 4 looks more “real” and artistically seems better. I realize h5 has better textures, and all that. But 4 just has a sense of depth and realism that halo 5 lacks. Artistically h4 looks better. raw graohics, yeah h5 is better.
Maybe a matter of taste though as I think h2a is the best looking halo game to date, followed by reach.
> 2533274818470226;9:
> It really depends on one’s definition of “better graphics”, but Reach is definitely one of the most beautiful Halo games (visually my favourite). I’d say the more “plastic” look in Halo 5 comes from both the art direction and the tech limitations they had in order to push a steady 60 fps and higher quality textures. (Also, the lighting)
>
> If we’re talking about how the game looks, from an artistic point of view, Reach has “better graphics” (more visually appealing, immersive and fascinating)
> If we’re talking about how the game looks, from a tech point of view, H5 has “better graphics” (higher resolution output, higher resolution models and textures, higher frame rate…)
>
> It’s like comparing a beautiful 10 inch wide painting with a less beautiful, but more detailed, 20 inch wide painting. The later is bigger and has more detail, but no matter how you look at it it’s just not as visually appealing.
>
> I really like how 60 fps feels in H5, but while 4k looks good on the One X, it doesn’t really mean much when parts of the game look distracting (like those tech hiccups when enemies are running at 2 fps in the distance) or just plain ugly (mixing super high resolution models and textures with other objects that look like they’re visually from Halo 2 tech). It creates a visual disconnection and breaks the immersion of the game.
>
> Having the best of both worlds is what I’d love seeing with H6. With the power of the One X I’d take 60 fps 1080p with more realistic lighting, less tech hiccups and better art direction over having 60 fps 4k with H5 style tech and art style.
>
> I’d love to see other people’s thoughts, though.
Agreed. You have to admit though that 4k, 60fps in a box is a big leap forward.
> 2533274809890894;14:
> > 2533274825830455;7:
> > > 2535454274494335;1:
> > > Textures are very low res, and don’t have enough detail.
> >
> > Can you show a comparison picture of this, because I don’t know what you’re referring to. I have yet to find textures in Halo 5 that have a lower resolution that comparable textures in any previous game.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > 2535454274494335;1:
> > > The lighting is very wonky, everything has this weird back light, like there are no real shadows.
> >
> > Again, not entirely sure what you mean. Halo 5 has plenty of shadows.
> >
> > The rest of your complaints sound like they relate more to the artistic style of the game, rather than the graphical fidelity itself.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > 2535431933064458;4:
> > > I notice huge differences between H4 and H5 with H4 having way better graphics, but I’m pretty sure it is because H4 is 30fps while H5 had 60fps as a priority.
> >
> > Any chance you can show me what you mean? I’ve seen people say this, and have asked them to explain. I’ve gone to take screenshots of both games to compare (particularly the texture resolution, which many people complain about). However, I just cannot figure out what would make someone arrive to the conclusioon that Halo 5 has worse graphics. It uses higher resolution textures than Halo 4. (See the close-ups of ground and rock faces in my screenshots. Also, pay attention to the small details in the Spartan’s hands). The environments have much more complex geometry than in Halo 4. The lighting is much more realistic than in Halo 4. As far as I can tell, Halo 5 has higher graphical fidelity all across the board. So please, show me what part of Halo 4 is graphically superior to Halo 5.
>
> For halo 4 having better graphics, I sorta agree subjectivey.
>
> To me, halo 4 looks more “real” and artistically seems better. I realize h5 has better textures, and all that. But 4 just has a sense of depth and realism that halo 5 lacks. Artistically h4 looks better. raw graohics, yeah h5 is better.
>
> Maybe a matter of taste though as I think h2a is the best looking halo game to date, followed by reach.
This is an artstyle thing. The thing that made the original trilogy, and by extension Reach and 4 seem real and relatable, was that despite the setting it shared themes we are all familiar with. OD green military paint, projectile based weapons, gritty and believable Marines. It’s very similar to the feel of Alien or Quake. Futuristic enough to have cool crap, but not too far ahead to seem fake. Think of it as one of those not too distant future type deals with Aliens.
5 went wayyy too far into the future in my opinion. It feels like a different universe, and the only thing that even reminds me I’m playing a Halo game(outside of multiplayer) are the enemies.
> 2533274814390441;16:
> > 2533274809890894;14:
> > > 2533274825830455;7:
> > > > 2535454274494335;1:
> > > > Textures are very low res, and don’t have enough detail.
> > >
> > > Can you show a comparison picture of this, because I don’t know what you’re referring to. I have yet to find textures in Halo 5 that have a lower resolution that comparable textures in any previous game.
> > >
> > >
> > > > 2535454274494335;1:
> > > > The lighting is very wonky, everything has this weird back light, like there are no real shadows.
> > >
> > > Again, not entirely sure what you mean. Halo 5 has plenty of shadows.
> > > The rest of your complaints sound like they relate more to the artistic style of the game, rather than the graphical fidelity itself.
> > >
> > >
> > > > 2535431933064458;4:
> > > > I notice huge differences between H4 and H5 with H4 having way better graphics, but I’m pretty sure it is because H4 is 30fps while H5 had 60fps as a priority.
> > >
> > > Any chance you can show me what you mean? I’ve seen people say this, and have asked them to explain. I’ve gone to take screenshots of both games to compare (particularly the texture resolution, which many people complain about). However, I just cannot figure out what would make someone arrive to the conclusioon that Halo 5 has worse graphics. It uses higher resolution textures than Halo 4. (See the close-ups of ground and rock faces in my screenshots. Also, pay attention to the small details in the Spartan’s hands). The environments have much more complex geometry than in Halo 4. The lighting is much more realistic than in Halo 4. As far as I can tell, Halo 5 has higher graphical fidelity all across the board. So please, show me what part of Halo 4 is graphically superior to Halo 5.
> >
> > For halo 4 having better graphics, I sorta agree subjectivey.
> > To me, halo 4 looks more “real” and artistically seems better. I realize h5 has better textures, and all that. But 4 just has a sense of depth and realism that halo 5 lacks. Artistically h4 looks better. raw graohics, yeah h5 is better.
> > Maybe a matter of taste though as I think h2a is the best looking halo game to date, followed by reach.
>
> This is an artstyle thing. The thing that made the original trilogy, and by extension Reach and 4 seem real and relatable, was that despite the setting it shared themes we are all familiar with. OD green military paint, projectile based weapons, gritty and believable Marines. It’s very similar to the feel of Alien or Quake. Futuristic enough to have cool crap, but not too far ahead to seem fake. Think of it as one of those not too distant future type deals with Aliens.
> 5 went wayyy too far into the future in my opinion. It feels like a different universe, and the only thing that even reminds me I’m playing a Halo game(outside of multiplayer) are the enemies.
Though I would say that even the theme that exist in both 4 and 5 that are familiar to the rest of the series (Covenant, UNSC, even just standard static objects) have an art style that pushes far beyond what they need to. Anything made to be “futuristic” looks more “cheap” and “plastic”. While Halo 3 suffered from some plastic-looking textures, that would be more of a limitation of the that era of the Xbox 360 as Reach substantially improved upon that feel, then Halo 2A pushed it far beyond anything, and I would still put that at the top of what the Halo franchise really should strive for.
Even using the Forerunner styling from the original trilogy and comparing that to 343’s take on what it should look like, it just feels “forced” in 343’s version.
Halo 5 was made from the ground up to be a competitive game that worked well for esports. A lot of the graphical decisions made revolved around fulfilling that one goal. So everything you see from animations to lighting has to do with making sure games are focused on competition.
> 2533274824050480;18:
> Halo 5 was made from the ground up to be a competitive game that worked well for esports. A lot of the graphical decisions made revolved around fulfilling that one goal. So everything you see from animations to lighting has to do with making sure games are focused on competition.
Can you give some graphical and lighting examples?
Subjectively, Reach might be better, but I’d say H5 is technically more advanced. I’m not that fond of H5’s art style and the Spartans look too plasticky.
