One thing that should not be a priority for Halo 4

Graphics.
Let me start off by saying the Reach engine is good enough for the 7-year-old piece of hardware that is the XBox 360. Yes, things such as Battlefield 3 and Crysis 2 may have better engines, but graphics are not a priority. They are nice, but I’m sure much more of you including myself would like to play a game at a steady 30+fps with no random framerate drops. Aesthetic is also what defines a game, visually - not just graphics. In my opinion, Minecraft and Portal 2, for example, look great, and they’re not using very needy graphics engines. I’m sure others would agree, and if so, this is because of aesthetic.

> Graphics.
> Let me start off by saying the Reach engine is good enough for the 7-year-old piece of hardware that is the XBox 360. Yes, things such as Battlefield 3 and Crysis 2 may have better engines, but graphics are not a priority. They are nice, but I’m sure much more of you including myself would like to play a game at a steady 30+fps with no random framerate drops. Aesthetic is also what defines a game, visually - not just graphics. In my opinion, Minecraft and Portal 2, for example, look great, and they’re not using very needy graphics engines. I’m sure others would agree, and if so, this is because of aesthetic.

I actually agree with this.

Reach looked amazing, the sheer scope of the background scenery, the level of detail and the skyboxes were the best for any game in 2010, that is why it won awards for graphics.
(Did you know Forge World Sky Box is made of thousands of angles??)

I would be happy with slightly improved Reach graphics, with a different art style to suit the game.

Not sure about other people.

Well hopefully the next Xbox is being worked on with Crytek, maybe that’s something for some hope.

Reach has terrible graphics. Horrible Anti-aliasing, motion blur, dull colours, tons of obvious texture pop in, etc.

Also lots of bad design decisions in regard to basic things like field of view and the size of the Spartans.

And on top of that the framerate is terrible in splitscreen and while playing complex forge maps.

Halo 3 was better in almost every regard from a graphical standpoint.

Aye, I agree. Although I do want the graphics to improve over Reach in some way (or at least be different to give us a change), they should definitely focus more on having good solid gameplay that will make us want to keep playing the game over and over again for 3 years.

> > Graphics.
> > Let me start off by saying the Reach engine is good enough for the 7-year-old piece of hardware that is the XBox 360. Yes, things such as Battlefield 3 and Crysis 2 may have better engines, but graphics are not a priority. They are nice, but I’m sure much more of you including myself would like to play a game at a steady 30+fps with no random framerate drops. Aesthetic is also what defines a game, visually - not just graphics. In my opinion, Minecraft and Portal 2, for example, look great, and they’re not using very needy graphics engines. I’m sure others would agree, and if so, this is because of aesthetic.
>
> I actually agree with this.
>
> Reach looked amazing, the sheer scope of the background scenery, the level of detail and the skyboxes were the best for any game in 2010, that is why it won awards for graphics.
> (Did you know Forge World Sky Box is made of thousands of angles??)
>
> I would be happy with slightly improved Reach graphics, with a different art style to suit the game.
>
> Not sure about other people.

I agree with everything said above. Reach graphics are totally amazing and a huge improvement on Halo 3’s graphics which were amazing at the time.

Agreed

> Reach has terrible graphics. Horrible Anti-aliasing, motion blur, dull colours, tons of obvious texture pop in, etc.
>
> Also lots of bad design decisions in regard to basic things like field of view and the size of the Spartans.
>
> And on top of that the framerate is terrible in splitscreen and while playing complex forge maps.
>
> Halo 3 was better in almost every regard from a graphical standpoint.

Are you kidding me? Halo 3 is nowhere near the height of Reach in graphics, and that is a fact.

Anti Aliasing is miles ahead in Reach. Motion blur is in many other games, and is designed as a benefit for graphics.

I think you may be more annoyed with the art direction, that is something different.

It is true, the framerate takes a hit when doing high intensity scenarios, but there is a limit to every console’s graphical capacity. Xbox games wont look much better than they already are, wait for the next console.

There are more polygons in an Halo Reach AR than there are in a Halo 3 marine.

That is how much the graphical quality has changed since 3.

> Reach has terrible graphics. Horrible Anti-aliasing, motion blur, dull colours, tons of obvious texture pop in, etc.
>
> Also lots of bad design decisions in regard to basic things like field of view and the size of the Spartans.
>
> And on top of that the framerate is terrible in splitscreen and while playing complex forge maps.
>
> Halo 3 was better in almost every regard from a graphical standpoint.

The engine to run the graphics is fine, the designs for maps are bad. Condemned looks great, Boardwalk is a single color.

I get laggy framerate only when a forger puts too many object in the field of view and uses color effects and lights. It wouldn’t be as bad if they would block players from seeing areas of high concentrated objects when they don’t need to.

As for Halo 3 having better graphics, the last time I went back to play it I developed a headache from the blur and poor quality. Back when I played Halo 3 I was on a tube TV so I was used to that quality but now that I can see it in 720 it looks like crap.

> > Reach has terrible graphics. Horrible Anti-aliasing, motion blur, dull colours, tons of obvious texture pop in, etc.
> >
> > Also lots of bad design decisions in regard to basic things like field of view and the size of the Spartans.
> >
> > And on top of that the framerate is terrible in splitscreen and while playing complex forge maps.
> >
> > Halo 3 was better in almost every regard from a graphical standpoint.
>
> Are you kidding me? Halo 3 is nowhere near the height of Reach in graphics, and that is a fact.
>
> Anti Aliasing is miles ahead in Reach. Motion blur is in many other games, and is designed as a benefit for graphics.
>
> I think you may be more annoyed with the art direction, that is something different.
>
> It is true, the framerate takes a hit when doing high intensity scenarios, but there is a limit to every console’s graphical capacity. Xbox games wont look much better than they already are, wait for the next console.

I wouldn’t expect a NEW console until 2014-2015. I read the next Xbox will still be a 360 such as the Pre-Arcade, Arcade, Elite and Slim. There will be a minor hardware increase, it will be smaller, use less power and run quieter while outperforming. But it won’t be near a good gaming PC. I don’t remember if the next model will be DX10 capable but I would assume it is.

Graphics are (IMO) half technical and half design. Compare the console version of Oblivion to Skyrim, outside of the lighting engine they are from a technical standpoint very similar. That being said Skyrim looks about a 100 times better then Oblivion due to better designed models, textures, and animations. My hope is with Halo 4’s massive team, some really impressive art will result in the game being much more graphically appealing then Reach, even if it’s not miles ahead technically.
Besides, no Halo game has taken that big of a leap in graphics since Halo CE -> Halo 2 (IMO).

> > > Reach has terrible graphics. Horrible Anti-aliasing, motion blur, dull colours, tons of obvious texture pop in, etc.
> > >
> > > Also lots of bad design decisions in regard to basic things like field of view and the size of the Spartans.
> > >
> > > And on top of that the framerate is terrible in splitscreen and while playing complex forge maps.
> > >
> > > Halo 3 was better in almost every regard from a graphical standpoint.
> >
> > Are you kidding me? Halo 3 is nowhere near the height of Reach in graphics, and that is a fact.
> >
> > Anti Aliasing is miles ahead in Reach. Motion blur is in many other games, and is designed as a benefit for graphics.
> >
> > I think you may be more annoyed with the art direction, that is something different.
> >
> > It is true, the framerate takes a hit when doing high intensity scenarios, but there is a limit to every console’s graphical capacity. Xbox games wont look much better than they already are, wait for the next console.
>
> I wouldn’t expect a NEW console until 2014-2015. I read the next Xbox will still be a 360 such as the Pre-Arcade, Arcade, Elite and Slim. There will be a minor hardware increase, it will be smaller, use less power and run quieter while outperforming. But it won’t be near a good gaming PC. I don’t remember if the next model will be DX10 capable but I would assume it is.

Yeah for the Next Box I think Microsoft plans making a profit this time…

> Graphics are (IMO) half technical and half design. Compare the console version of Oblivion to Skyrim, outside of the lighting engine they are from a technical standpoint very similar. That being said Skyrim looks about a 100 times better then Oblivion due to better designed models, textures, and animations. My hope is with Halo 4’s massive team, some really impressive art will result in the game being much more graphically appealing then Reach, even if it’s not miles ahead technically.
> Besides, no Halo game has taken that big of a leap in graphics since Halo CE -> Halo 2 (IMO).

This. The CE Chief´s textures were so outdated compared to the Halo 2 Master Chief, definitely.

> Reach has terrible graphics. Horrible Anti-aliasing, motion blur, dull colours, tons of obvious texture pop in, etc.
>
> Also lots of bad design decisions in regard to basic things like field of view and the size of the Spartans.
>
> And on top of that the framerate is terrible in splitscreen and while playing complex forge maps.
>
> Halo 3 was better in almost every regard from a graphical standpoint.

Dull colours is part of the art style, not the graphics. Don’t get Art style (aesthetics) and graphics confused, they’re two different but related things.

I see what youre saying,OP.I would be more pleased if we have amazing maps,environment,campaign,and forge than a graphics update. Reach’s graphics were the best(not talking aesthetics)out of every other Halo game preceding it.I would be fine if there are minor upgrades,but if they do,then I’ll embrace it with open arms.

> > Reach has terrible graphics. Horrible Anti-aliasing, motion blur, dull colours, tons of obvious texture pop in, etc.
> >
> > Also lots of bad design decisions in regard to basic things like field of view and the size of the Spartans.
> >
> > And on top of that the framerate is terrible in splitscreen and while playing complex forge maps.
> >
> > Halo 3 was better in almost every regard from a graphical standpoint.
>
> Are you kidding me? Halo 3 is nowhere near the height of Reach in graphics, and that is a fact.
>
> Anti Aliasing is miles ahead in Reach. Motion blur is in many other games, and is designed as a benefit for graphics.
>
> I think you may be more annoyed with the art direction, that is something different.
>
> It is true, the framerate takes a hit when doing high intensity scenarios, but there is a limit to every console’s graphical capacity. Xbox games wont look much better than they already are, wait for the next console.
>
> There are more polygons in an Halo Reach AR than there are in a Halo 3 marine.
>
> That is how much the graphical quality has changed since 3.

^ this man is smart, we should listen to him.

> Reach has terrible graphics. Horrible Anti-aliasing, motion blur, dull colours, tons of obvious texture pop in, etc.
>
> Also lots of bad design decisions in regard to basic things like field of view and the size of the Spartans.
>
> And on top of that the framerate is terrible in splitscreen and while playing complex forge maps.
>
> Halo 3 was better in almost every regard from a graphical standpoint.

This. Halo 3 even looks better.

> Reach has terrible graphics. Horrible Anti-aliasing, motion blur, dull colours, tons of obvious texture pop in, etc.
>
> Also lots of bad design decisions in regard to basic things like field of view and the size of the Spartans.
>
> And on top of that the framerate is terrible in splitscreen and while playing complex forge maps.
>
> Halo 3 was better in almost every regard from a graphical standpoint.

Nokterne has a point here.

Not only is the art design in Halo 3 better (as well as the first three points made), the game could perform what it was built to do very well.

Whereas Reach has tons of framerate drop, excess blurring, etc, etc. Halo 3 did not have these problems and for the standard of 2007, performed better than Reach.

> Reach has terrible graphics. Horrible Anti-aliasing, motion blur, dull colours, tons of obvious texture pop in, etc.
>
> Also lots of bad design decisions in regard to basic things like field of view and the size of the Spartans.
>
> And on top of that the framerate is terrible in splitscreen and while playing complex forge maps.
>
> Halo 3 was better in almost every regard from a graphical standpoint.

Let’s not forget hitboxes and collisions. When meleeing allies, I have to have the reticle on them or the melee won’t affect them. If it weren’t for lunge, this would be the case with enemies.

Reach had a great engine, bad art direction. Fix that for Halo 4