With Halo 4 more than likely being shown for the first time in a few weeks, I was wondering how high most of you have set your standards for the graphics. I know graphics are not the most important aspect from the game, but lets be honest its the first thing everyone will talk about.
For me if they can create wide open areas with a solid art style then I’ll be happy. Reach made that promise but it never quite delivered, as you were always blocked from far off areas.
> With Halo 4 more than likely being shown for the first time in a few weeks, I was wondering how high most of you have set your standards for the graphics. I know graphics are not the most important aspect from the game, but lets be honest its the first thing everyone will talk about.
>
> For me if they can create wide open areas with a solid art style then I’ll be happy. Reach made that promise but it never quite delivered, <mark>as you were always blocked from far off areas.</mark>
This last part has nothing to do with graphics.
Anyway, OT: I don’t really care if they’re the best, all I want is something on-par or better than Reach’s.
Although the number of games that I’ve played over the previous two years has dropped dramatically, I still haven’t found any that feature water as lifelike as that in Halo 3. I remember being assassinated (in the original sense of the word) more than once during the beta as I was marvelling at the creeks on Valhalla. And the so-called “God rays” on Arrival were equally mesmerising.
I’m rather happy with the graphical quality of Reach. Graphically, only thing Halo 4 needs to improve is the lighting and possibly the amount of geometry. Otherwise the game already has some of the best graphical capabilities on the 360. But we’ll see what the future brings. I’ll actually be surprised if the graphics of Halo 4 are noticeably better than the graphics of Reach. Then the game would definitely exceed my expectations graphically.
> Although the number of games that I’ve played over the previous two years has dropped dramatically, I still haven’t found any that feature water as lifelike as that in Halo 3. I remember being assassinated (in the original sense of the word) more than once during the beta as I was marvelling at the creeks on Valhalla. And the so-called “God rays” on Arrival were equally mesmerising.
I would definitely agree with you on that. While PC games like Crysis have water physics console game developers can only dream of, Halo 3 easily had the best water physics I have seen on a console. It always felt peaceful getting killed in the river on Valhalla and seeing your body slowly floating downstream.
Should be on-par with Reach, have a better artistic/visual style, better lighting effects…Than I’ll be happy.
Oh yes, better character modelling and geometry.
I think some of you really take Reach’s graphics for granted. I know a lot of it was linear, but it still looked amazing! Go play long night of solace, and when you land on the covenant cruiser, look at what an amazing job Bungie did depicting deep space. The death of the savannah, the lighting, earth, it all looks amazing.
> I’m rather happy with the graphical quality of Reach. Graphically, only thing Halo 4 needs to improve is the lighting and possibly the amount of geometry. Otherwise the game already has some of the best graphical capabilities on the 360. But we’ll see what the future brings. I’ll actually be surprised if the graphics of Halo 4 are noticeably better than the graphics of Reach. Then the game would definitely exceed my expectations graphically.
>
>
>
> > Although the number of games that I’ve played over the previous two years has dropped dramatically, I still haven’t found any that feature water as lifelike as that in Halo 3. I remember being assassinated (in the original sense of the word) more than once during the beta as I was marvelling at the creeks on Valhalla. And the so-called “God rays” on Arrival were equally mesmerising.
>
> I would definitely agree with you on that. While PC games like Crysis have water physics console game developers can only dream of, <mark>Halo 3 easily had the best water physics I have seen on a console</mark>. It always felt peaceful getting killed in the river on Valhalla and seeing your body slowly floating downstream.
Hydrophobia & Bioshock 2 prove that line wrong.
Give me Halo Anniversary with better effects (motion blur, head bob, etc.) and animations and I’ll be happy.
> > I’m rather happy with the graphical quality of Reach. Graphically, only thing Halo 4 needs to improve is the lighting and possibly the amount of geometry. Otherwise the game already has some of the best graphical capabilities on the 360. But we’ll see what the future brings. I’ll actually be surprised if the graphics of Halo 4 are noticeably better than the graphics of Reach. Then the game would definitely exceed my expectations graphically.
> >
> >
> >
> > > Although the number of games that I’ve played over the previous two years has dropped dramatically, I still haven’t found any that feature water as lifelike as that in Halo 3. I remember being assassinated (in the original sense of the word) more than once during the beta as I was marvelling at the creeks on Valhalla. And the so-called “God rays” on Arrival were equally mesmerising.
> >
> > I would definitely agree with you on that. While PC games like Crysis have water physics console game developers can only dream of, <mark>Halo 3 easily had the best water physics I have seen on a console</mark>. It always felt peaceful getting killed in the river on Valhalla and seeing your body slowly floating downstream.
>
> Hydrophobia & Bioshock 2 prove that line wrong.
No, they don’t. I was only talking about my experiences. But now that you said it, isn’t the whole point of Hydrophobia water? Therefore I’d expect the physics to be on par with that. And now that I’ve seen gameplay of both, I admit they have better water physics than Halo 3. Well, at least that line was right for a few minutes.
> Give me Halo Anniversary with better effects (motion blur, head bob, etc.) and animations and I’ll be happy.
Please, no. The graphics of the game are horrible. The texture resolution is low, so is the geometry, and the game has very little anti-aliasing. I don’t claim that I didn’t like the art style, but there is absolutely no reason to have such bad graphics when 343i has a much better engine, the Reach engine, to work with.
> but lets be honest its the first thing everyone will talk about.
Speak for yourself.
I’m expecting a bloomy, blurry, grainy eye-slaughter of a game like most games are nowadays -_-
Give me back my WATER!
> Hydrophobia & Bioshock 2 prove that line wrong.
I haven’t played either game, but if Bioshock 2’s water is anything like Bioshock’s water, then I still think Halo 3 has the edge.
I also can’t help but feel that you’ve picked two games in which water plays a very prominent rule and may therefore have simply equated this with an impressive visual depiction of that water. I could be wrong, of course, but I think your argument would hold more water (horrible pun intended) if you cited games in which water was not expected to look good, and therefore interpreted as doing so.
Disclaimer: I fully realise that I am making no sense.
> > Give me Halo Anniversary with better effects (motion blur, head bob, etc.) and animations and I’ll be happy.
>
> Please, no. The graphics of the game are horrible. The texture resolution is low, so is the geometry, and the game has very little anti-aliasing. I don’t claim that I didn’t like the art style, but there is absolutely no reason to have such bad graphics when 343i has a much better engine, the Reach engine, to work with.
Gameplay > Graphics. The 360 can only handle so much, so if you want super awesome textures and anti-aliasing (which doesn’t matter) go play PC games.
I don’t care about super high textures, I’ll take cel-shading for all I care. If visual effects and animations are god-tier, that overpowers textures in my eyes.
> > Hydrophobia & Bioshock 2 prove that line wrong.
>
> I haven’t played either game, but if Bioshock 2’s water is anything like Bioshock’s water, then I still think Halo 3 has the edge.
>
> <mark>I also can’t help but feel that you’ve picked two games in which water plays a very prominent rule</mark> and may therefore have simply equated this with an impressive visual depiction of that water. I could be wrong, of course, but I think your argument would hold more water (horrible pun intended) if you cited games in which water was not expected to look good, and therefore interpreted as doing so.
>
> Disclaimer: I fully realise that I am making no sense.
Yes, I just realised that…LOL.
If you’re talking about water effects where it ISN’T the major factor, than Halo 3’s is just downright gorgeous!
I don’t expect anything mind blowing; Halo games have never been on the forefront of console graphics. However, they are not bad looking games and are in fact pretty clean. Just not anything that stands out from the crowd and won’t win awards (though anything looks better than MW). To be fair, the current gen tech is pretty old now, only so much you can do with it nowadays because of the limited disk space.
I would like to see the game run off both graphics and art rather then just art like the past Halo games did. Take away the good art direction and Halo looks that much worse IMO but since Bungie did a good job in that department, the games held their own. I hope 343 changes this tradition however.
Still, i think Halo 4 will look great, i am just being nit picky. My expectations are in check. Less disappointment that way :P.
> > > Give me Halo Anniversary with better effects (motion blur, head bob, etc.) and animations and I’ll be happy.
> >
> > Please, no. The graphics of the game are horrible. The texture resolution is low, so is the geometry, and the game has very little anti-aliasing. I don’t claim that I didn’t like the art style, but there is absolutely no reason to have such bad graphics when 343i has a much better engine, the Reach engine, to work with.
>
> Gameplay > Graphics. The 360 can only handle so much, so if you want super awesome textures and anti-aliasing (which doesn’t matter) go play PC games.
Since you mentioned textures, I must say that Halo is a game that really doesn’t skimp in texture quality. Halo 3 was phenomenal, Halo: Reach was also pretty good but for some reason I found 3’s to be much better.
> Should be on-par (or better) than Reach, and have a better artistic/visual style, better lighting effects…Than I’ll be happy.
>
> Oh yes, better character modelling and geometry.
> > > > Give me Halo Anniversary with better effects (motion blur, head bob, etc.) and animations and I’ll be happy.
> > >
> > > Please, no. The graphics of the game are horrible. The texture resolution is low, so is the geometry, and the game has very little anti-aliasing. I don’t claim that I didn’t like the art style, but there is absolutely no reason to have such bad graphics when 343i has a much better engine, the Reach engine, to work with.
> >
> > Gameplay > Graphics. The 360 can only handle so much, so if you want super awesome textures and anti-aliasing (which doesn’t matter) go play PC games.
>
> Since you mentioned textures, I must say that Halo is a game that really doesn’t skimp in texture quality. Halo 3 was phenomenal, Halo: Reach was also pretty good but for some reason I found 3’s to be much better.
You kidding? I found the texture resolution of Reach to be absolutely amazing. Just go to Reflection or Zealot to look at the walls, on Reflection you can actually see small patters on the wood and on Zealot you can see lots of small scratches on the walls. Same thing goes for all the glass on Forge World objects, they look very clean from a distance, but when you zoom you can see very small scratches on them. And the best thing is, the textures don’t look blurred when standing next to like in every other FPS game
I never thought about the graphical resolution of Reach as amazing until I played Battlefield 3 and realized how low it was in all other FPS games. It’s actually amazing how much detail Bungie managed to cramp on their textures. Just look at the detail on the player models and the Assault Rifles.
> > > > > Give me Halo Anniversary with better effects (motion blur, head bob, etc.) and animations and I’ll be happy.
> > > >
> > > > Please, no. The graphics of the game are horrible. The texture resolution is low, so is the geometry, and the game has very little anti-aliasing. I don’t claim that I didn’t like the art style, but there is absolutely no reason to have such bad graphics when 343i has a much better engine, the Reach engine, to work with.
> > >
> > > Gameplay > Graphics. The 360 can only handle so much, so if you want super awesome textures and anti-aliasing (which doesn’t matter) go play PC games.
> >
> > Since you mentioned textures, I must say that Halo is a game that really doesn’t skimp in texture quality. Halo 3 was phenomenal, Halo: Reach was also pretty good but for some reason I found 3’s to be much better.
>
> You kidding? I found the texture resolution of Reach to be absolutely amazing. Just go to Reflection or Zealot to look at the walls, on Reflection you can actually see small patters on the wood and on Zealot you can see lots of small scratches on the walls. Same thing goes for all the glass on Forge World objects, they look very clean from a distance, but when you zoom you can see very small scratches on them. And the best thing is, the textures don’t look blurred when standing next to like in every other FPS game
>
> I never thought about the graphical resolution of Reach as amazing until I played Battlefield 3 and realized how low it was in all other FPS games. It’s actually amazing how much detail Bungie managed to cramp on their textures. Just look at the detail on the player models and the Assault Rifles.
I know, it’s amazing. And that’s from the beta!
> Since you mentioned textures, I must say that Halo is a game that really doesn’t skimp in texture quality. Halo 3 was phenomenal, Halo: Reach was also pretty good but for some reason I found 3’s to be much better.
I can agree with that, but I wouldn’t be bothered if the textures were a little lower than normal. Reach’s textures were a little weird to me. I’m sure every inch of a Spartan/Elite’s armor isn’t covered in scratches.
I guess my point is, textures shouldn’t matter, because games aren’t meant to sit and stare at when you’re being shot at. I’d sooner see beautiful lighting and scenery that I can glance at and admire, then move on as usual.
