So I know this is a stupid post, but which one do you prefer more. (not talking about which one is in which game just talking about the aesthetics of the maps.) I like Regnerock because it’s grass was not dark green and the graphics were improved over Valhalla.
I don’t really notice a differnce unless I look at the Forerunner structures. It’s a very faithful port with a fresh coat of paint. And the most popularly chosen big map in Halo 4… 
The graphics are slightly improved but that’s what happens after five years. The problem is that the maps are exactly the same and the Halo 4 one was basically ripped straight from Halo 3 and crapped into 4 with little care. Also, Ragnarok has the same problem almost every Halo 4 map has, awful lighting. Valhalla, easily.
DEFINITELY Valhalla. The DMR destroyed Ragnarok, same way it did to Haemorrhage.
Well, definitely Ragnarok because you know, Wagnerok in Ragnarok!!! 
> The graphics are slightly improved but that’s what happens after five years. The problem is that the maps are exactly the same and the Halo 4 one was basically ripped straight from Halo 3 and crapped into 4 with little care. Also, Ragnarok has the <mark>same problem almost every Halo 4 map has, awful lighting.</mark> Valhalla, easily.
We must have very different TVs.
imo valhalla was terrible. The BR played like doo doo because you couldn’t hit jack with it anywhere outside 50 feet. Whoever got control of the middle and the laser usually won because there was nothing you could do with a BR that can’t cross map.
At least in Halo 4, your bullets actually register. Ragnarok plays infinitely better than valhalla.
> > The graphics are slightly improved but that’s what happens after five years. The problem is that the maps are exactly the same and the Halo 4 one was basically ripped straight from Halo 3 and crapped into 4 with little care. Also, Ragnarok has the <mark>same problem almost every Halo 4 map has, awful lighting.</mark> Valhalla, easily.
>
> We must have very different TVs.
Must because the lighting in Halo 4 hurts my eyes.
> > > The graphics are slightly improved but that’s what happens after five years. The problem is that the maps are exactly the same and the Halo 4 one was basically ripped straight from Halo 3 and crapped into 4 with little care. Also, Ragnarok has the <mark>same problem almost every Halo 4 map has, awful lighting.</mark> Valhalla, easily.
> >
> > We must have very different TVs.
>
> Must because the lighting in Halo 4 hurts my eyes.
I will admit, it’s a bit overwrought, but I like it quite a bit (even though the TV thing was a joke, make sure you got it set to “game” and not “vivid” … you never know.)
Valhalla. You can’t beat the originals. Ragnarok gets a special mention though. It’s the only good Halo 4 map.
Ragnarok. Why? Because unlike Valhalla, you’re not forced to play it 4v4 or 5v5!
Apart from that, I hate them both.
Ragnarok is basically just Valhalla with new graphics. Seeing as that’s the only difference, that would be my vote.
If we’re talking aesthetics, then obviously Ragnarok is better. I wish 343 would have made a more accurate remake though (they screwed up Red team’s sniper perch).
The only difference between the two is the graphics and the Mantis in Halo 4.
> The only difference between the two is the graphics and the Mantis in Halo 4.
which is why you must go with Valhalla, since Ragnarok was an uninspired copy of it. Pretty sad that the best map in the game is one 343 didn’t even come up with…
> imo valhalla was terrible. The BR played like doo doo because you couldn’t hit jack with it anywhere outside 50 feet. Whoever got control of the middle and the laser usually won because there was nothing you could do with a BR that can’t cross map.
>
> At least in Halo 4, your bullets actually register. Ragnarok plays infinitely better than valhalla.
This.
It comes down to being frustrated with the inconsistent BR in Halo 3 or not being able to move around the map because of the mini sniper DMR in Halo 4.
I never really liked Valhalla, it’s an unpopular opinion I know but I just didn’t like the map. I thought it was a step down from Coagulation.
I prefer Valhalla in a match up of aesthetics. Its lighting was less burdening to my eyes. At least Ragnarok’s lighting was subdued compared to other maps in H4. I still have cornea burn from the lens flare on Wreckage.
You misspelled “Ragnarok”; but that would be the one I prefer, it looks so much cooler than Valhalla… hopefully Halo 4 matchmaking is more enjoyable in Halo:MCC.
Valhalla looks prettier, it has more grass and the ilumination is better, but I like more Ragnarok’s gameplay, it’s the best CTF map of Halo 4 (and I Play A LOT of CTF) and Heavies matches (mostly King of the hill) in Ragnarok are really fun.
I have no idea how (based only on looks) anyone can vote Ragnarok.
Look at Valhalla. Look at how bright and colorful everything is. Just look at Valhalla’s sky compared to Ragnarok’s.
This was not only the problem with Ragnarok but with Halo 4 in general - there was this hideous brown filter over everything.