Unplayable on backwards compatibility

I just played this about a week ago, for nostalgia’s sake, on my wife’s somewhat busted up 360 and it ran smooth and looked great…just as it always has. This version runs ROUGH, with hitching, really bad pop-in textures, and audio crackles for me when the game gets to its slowest. If you want to experience Reach, definitely do so on the 360 at all costs, or you will not be getting a good experience at all. This version tends to hit what I would guess to be 18-20FPS, frequently. I have tried this on both my internal Xbox One HDD, and also on my external USB 3.1 SSD and while it’s slightly better at handling the pop-in textures on the SSD, it’s still much worse than the Xbox 360 experience, where I don’t notice pop-in at all. It still runs slow(FPS-wise), however.

I agree. The Halo series has been disappointment after disappointment lately.

Same for me. Microsoft has some work to do here.

Guess I have to keep my 360 to play Reach.

> 2811398874529013;2:
> I agree. The Halo series has been disappointment after disappointment lately.

Yeah…a lot of waiting around and anticipation, all just to arrive at the conclusion that I may just end up buying a cheap 360 again lol Just so I can play Reach. I was going to do so anyway, months back, but then I heard they were going to do BC and so, waited. I see I can get a decent 360 Slim on Ebay for about 89.99.

> 2533274891115609;3:
> Same for me. Microsoft has some work to do here.
>
> Guess I have to keep my 360 to play Reach.

Yeah, it’s amazing how the other BC games have never experienced this issue. It’s kind of suspicious. Mass Effect, for instance, looks and runs better than it did on 360. Same with the Rare Replay games, which are essentially BC and using the BC system.

You should appreciate that it’s available at all. When games are run on next gen systems, that stuff happens. When you play Halo 2 on the 360, weird screen shadows appeared, and plenty of other things. Except unlike HR on the One, H2 on the 360 had no access to Live, 360 menu, or most importantly, the same playability as it had before.

> 2533274926527272;6:
> You should appreciate that it’s available at all. When games are run on next gen systems, that stuff happens. When you play Halo 2 on the 360, weird screen shadows appeared, and plenty of other things. Except unlike HR on the One, H2 on the 360 had no access to Live, 360 menu, or most importantly, the same playability as it had before.

H2 on the 360 absolutely did have access to Live. It couldn’t use the 360’s dashboard, but you could still sign in and play on Live in-game, just like it worked on the original Xbox. That is, until they shut the servers down in, I think, 2009.

> 2533274926527272;6:
> You should appreciate that it’s available at all. When games are run on next gen systems, that stuff happens. When you play Halo 2 on the 360, weird screen shadows appeared, and plenty of other things. Except unlike HR on the One, H2 on the 360 had no access to Live, 360 menu, or most importantly, the same playability as it had before.

I appreciate its available, but not that it’s not playable. Everyone’s eyes sees things differently. To me, the slowness and frames are far too hampering to enjoy. I’m actually rebuying a 360 today, to enjoy it natively. It’s much smoother on the wife’s Xbox 360. I shouldn’t have ever gotten rid of mine in the first place. Still kicking myself.

I see no problem with the issues you guys have. Halo Reach runs all fine for me, just like I’m playing it on my 360…

I am glad I kept my 360. Have been reading about a lot of issues with the Reach backward compatibility. I recently bought O.D.S.T for the XB1 and graphic wise, it sucks. I don’t expect much for Reach.

Conspiracy theory:

343 has been purposefully degrading the quality of experiences with previous halo games to make theirs look better.

Evidence:
The first things they did when they took over was change how halo reach MP worked and split the MP population in half with an odd TU that some liked but others didn’t. Next they removed the DLC playlist (why would they care map purchases $ goes to bungie). Next they release HCEA The anniversary treatment is decent, but does not conform to the game physics. They used the already lower quality PC port as the source for the game. When you switch back to the original graphics you see what you would see playing the game on a low end PC. They removed the MP and instead included another reach playlist further fragmenting reach population.

Next they release halo 4 and try to have it be as different as possible from previous Halo games with ordinance and some other things. I liked it okay. It was interesting. Not as good as reach in my opinion, but 343 had left reach a mess so it was the best option at the time.

Next they release the MCC. It is a collection of all the old games and all the old MP. Halo 2’s anniversary treatment is almost perfect with the exception of the lighting bloom being far too much obscuring shots with the carbine. However the game does not work. It crashes to dashboard. Both halo ce and halo 2 classic modes are the low quality PC ports and Halo 3 is oddly different. Halo 4 however has some bugs removed and it’s MP is actually improved.

Next is halo 5 good product overall.

Next is re release of Reach and it is kinda low quality again :stuck_out_tongue:

Reality and truth:
It’s hard to make games work on new systems especially when many working at the company didn’t make the games to begin with. 343 tried to cater to what fans wanted, but it didn’t work out well for re releases. Each attempt has been an improvement. But 343 had nothing to do with the BC release of halo reach.

<mark>Do not bump threads.</mark>

Bump

You spent all that time typing out that long winded conspiracy theory for what again? You do realize 343i didn’t do the Backwards Compatibility of Halo:Reach, right? Microsoft makes the Backwards Compatibility software that is included in each title bundled in it to make it run, that’s why you have to download a new version from the internet of each game when you want to play it. Emulators often suffer framerate problems, especially when you are taking something that was running on a much different technology architecture from a recent generation of the X360 & try to get it to run on a completely different set of hardware. Most of these framerate drops were to be expected & it was unrealistic to think that these games would be running exactly like the X360 versions early on. Some people were even saying “with the power of the Xbox One it was going to upscale all X360 games to 1080p/60FPS!” Yeah, keep dreaming. Sony has offered some improvement in their games running on PS4, but that’s only because they are bring back PS2 games, something from two generations ago. There’s still a glimmer of hope as Microsoft does update the Backwards Compatibility software from time-to-time, but Microsoft at some point will stop doing updates. The majority of the reason they want to get X360 games running on Xbox One isn’t because of the “kindness of their hearts,” it’s because they are down over 2.5:1 in console sales to Sony. Part of their strategy right now is to try to get people who are still on X360 to come over & get an Xbox One with the marketing strategy being, “You can play all your old games over here, no need for your 360 anymore!” so they can make up some of the difference in the huge lead Sony has over them right now.

It’s easy enough to ahem reach a conclusion for some that this is running fine but it clearly isn’t. It’s not a case of running fine for some only. It dips into lower than 30 frames which while was the case also for Reach on 360, it wasn’t to the extent that it appeared to average around 20. A little strange as some of the bc titles do indeed run well but this can be the nature of emulation for certain titles. Truth is xbox one probably has barely enough power to do this and that means for now at least some games will suffer, with maybe performance increases to certain aspects incorporated when and if they can

One thing I notice is that all the games I’ve tried that used to have screen tear, well it’s no longer there. Reach had the tiniest almost unnoticeable amount at the very top of the screen that would happen when frames dipped

Exactly, the BC version is god awful and can’t play it.

I got another 360 on the way. I should be up and running next week lol
I just can’t handle this sluggish nonsense, it’s makes want to rip my eyeballs out. My wife was smart and kept her 360, so we’ll be able to co-op once again lol
I initially traded mine in for my Xbox One games, bad idea considering the horrible trade-in value at the time.

> 2533274849645270;11:
> Conspiracy theory:
>
> 343 has been purposefully degrading the quality of experiences with previous halo games to make theirs look better.
>
> Evidence:
> The first things they did when they took over was change how halo reach MP worked and split the MP population in half with an odd TU that some liked but others didn’t. Next they removed the DLC playlist (why would they care map purchases $ goes to bungie). Next they release HCEA The anniversary treatment is decent, but does not conform to the game physics. They used the already lower quality PC port as the source for the game. When you switch back to the original graphics you see what you would see playing the game on a low end PC. They removed the MP and instead included another reach playlist further fragmenting reach population.
>
> Next they release halo 4 and try to have it be as different as possible from previous Halo games with ordinance and some other things. I liked it okay. It was interesting. Not as good as reach in my opinion, but 343 had left reach a mess so it was the best option at the time.
>
> Next they release the MCC. It is a collection of all the old games and all the old MP. Halo 2’s anniversary treatment is almost perfect with the exception of the lighting bloom being far too much obscuring shots with the carbine. However the game does not work. It crashes to dashboard. Both halo ce and halo 2 classic modes are the low quality PC ports and Halo 3 is oddly different. Halo 4 however has some bugs removed and it’s MP is actually improved.
>
> Next is halo 5 good product overall.
>
> Next is re release of Reach and it is kinda low quality again :stuck_out_tongue:
>
> Reality and truth:
> It’s hard to make games work on new systems especially when many working at the company didn’t make the games to begin with. 343 tried to cater to what fans wanted, but it didn’t work out well for re releases. Each attempt has been an improvement. But 343 had nothing to do with the BC release of halo reach.

This. Do not ascribe to malice what can be easily explained by incompetence.

It runs well for me…

Nintendo consoles emulate the previous systems games perfectly. There is no excuse for this.

The Wii U can run Wii games perfectly and the Wii can run Gamecube games perfectly.

This is just lazy work done by Microsoft, they really need to fix this if this is going to be a selling point for their console.

Also, multiplayer runs fine, firefight lags when theres lots of enemies on sceeen in co-op.

It’s not laziness though, emulating PPC architecture on the X1 is very different from the Wii and the Game Cube. Nintendo consoles all run on IBM PowePC, so it’s much easier to keep things compatible between generations. Xbox architecture has changed vastly over each generation. There will be updates made to smoothen things out