Halo: Reach - Halo 3 Comparison HD

Have the graphics improved in Reach? Decide for yourself with this Halo 3/Halo: Reach comparison!

Courtesy of GameTrailers

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
PtRoLLFacE2950d ago

lol the waterfall, damm halo 3 was ugly

Windex2949d ago

lets be honest here. there is a significant difference, but still not really that good.

rezzah2949d ago

The change isnt eye catching, but its still there.

Biggest2949d ago

The video shows that the cutscenes are vastly improved in Halo: Reach. But the gameplay looks fairly similar. Both waterfalls were ugly, pukeface.

2949d ago
Arnon2949d ago

The differences between the two are night and day. Not only are the maps larger, but the environments have much more detail to them. There's a lot more dynamic lighting going on, and the ambient occlusion on certain details such as character faces is phenomenal. Not to mention there's zero aliasing and screen tearing.




The tiniest details shine pretty well in this game.

Aquanox2949d ago

THe difference is almost a generation worth. Can't believe some guys say it's not that much.,

nickjkl2949d ago

i dont get it are we being sarcastic

Computersaysno2949d ago (Edited 2949d ago )

Yeah 3 wasnt exactly a looker in the first place and reach is only a mild massage of the engine, they have had three whole years to improve it so im not exactly blown away. All those high scores for graphics are a bit stupid really, its a nice colourful game but not one of the best looking games this generation.

Cut scenes just dont count, because you can lock theier framerate low and add better effects even if they are rendered locally. In gameplay the difference is not dramatic

+ Show (5) more repliesLast reply 2949d ago
vhero2949d ago

Significant?? Your mad its not that much plus it just proves that reviewers are biased as Halo 3 got 10s for graphics and since they got beat well.. You cant get better than a 10 right? The comparison vid also proves your practically paying for the same game over again. With a new story which is probably gonna be as bland as Halo 3's was.

jetlian2949d ago

a 10 in 2007 is not the same as 2010!!! the game looks better by far. Most the upgrades were to backgrounds and landscape and explosions.

Method2949d ago

2007 was the same year that Crysis & Uncharted came out. Halo 3 in no way deserved a 10 for graphics then.

jetlian2949d ago

came out before them. but its also a style thing too. gears looked better than halo 3 and it came out a year before it.

DigitalAnalog2949d ago (Edited 2949d ago )

Rather, the TEXTURES are more DETAILED. Because Halo 3 looks like the Halo: Reach bleached with "Mr. Clean". Regardless, this definitely shows that texture improvement can bring SUCH significance even if if the poly-count is pretty much the same. Throwing in more polygons does not guarantee better graphics (Lara Craft in TR7 has more polys than Nathan Drake in UC1 but guess which looks better). Hopefully more devs can utilize more details like this to save more resources for their games.

-End statement

jetlian2949d ago

what would you call it? better textures is better graphics. textures are higher more particles, more filters.

DigitalAnalog2949d ago

Let's put it this way. You can put 1 color in 10,000 poly's or 10 colors in 1,000 poly's. Which one would be more "detailed"?

-End statement

jetlian2949d ago

depends on what your making. also unless you have the wire frames you don't know weather its the same or not.

you said "look better" doesn't really matter how it was achieved. so i don't have a clue what your statement even means.

Are you saying just lower polys to get better textures?

Redlogic2949d ago

the games look night and day to me. i'm having much more fun with reach so far. granted i liked halo 3's campaign until that stupid board with nothing but flood.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 2949d ago
poopface12950d ago

It has alot more detail on everything.

iamnsuperman2950d ago (Edited 2950d ago )

Yer I Know...... I noticed the most was that there is more terrain detail/ textures which makes it look better....I would have been surprised if it didn't look better considering Halo 3 came out in 2007

DelbertGrady2950d ago

Anyone who's played both on a HDTV will know which the difference though. Reach is leaps and bounds ahead of Halo 3.

IcarusOne2949d ago

It's a facelift, but not a "leaps and bounds" redesign. I'm not very far into the game, but so far I'm a little disappointed. It's not really a new, never-before-seen Halo. It's just more Halo.

I guess that's fine if you're a Halo fanatic, but my enthusiasm for this franchise seems to have lessened over the years.

reaferfore202949d ago

Honestly I've never really liked any of the Halo games since CE. But I love the shit out of this one. Graphics are better and the gameplay is solid. It's mainly the scale of the levels and the texture detail, but I agree that Reach is leaps and bounds ahead of 3.

poopface12949d ago

but I have both the games.

Dance2949d ago

environments in halo reach are enormous

rezzah2949d ago

thats nice. What does that have to do with the graphics comparison?

squelchy152949d ago

Because graphics normally get compromised for bigger non linear environments maybe?

Imperator2949d ago

Not really. KZ2 maps are HUGE, and they still look amazing. Not to mention all the thing going on in the map (dust, storm, etc)

lowcarb2949d ago

Actually these vids make it hard to tell the huge gaps. Playing Reach and going back to halo3 the difference is night and day.

imperator: I didn't know kz2 was a sandbox game.

mrcash2949d ago

KZ2 maps are not as big as reach, they really aren't not by a long shot. KZ2 campaign is roughly the size of gears 2 slightly bigger areas.

Imperator2949d ago (Edited 2949d ago )


True, Halo games are more open. I'm not bashing Reach though. Finished the campaign and going to go through it again on Legendary (heard it was really tough this time around). Then I'll go into Forge world and see whats up. I've barely scratched the surface and it's been 3 days.

Anyways, all I was saying is that KZ2 maps are pretty big and still look great. Reach looks good to though. Completely different artstyles.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 2949d ago
Shoko2949d ago

Reach looks better (duh), but let's be honest here; it's not that hard to beat Halo 3 when it comes to graphics lol.

Shoko2949d ago

Oh, sorry guys. I forgot that Halo 3 was the graphical king back in the day! It's puts current-day games to shame! Lol.

kaveti66162949d ago

Halo 3 was one of the top graphical games back in 2007, just like COD4. Today we look at Cod4 and it looks like shit, but in 2007 it was praised for having HDR effects and such.

Halo 3 had very good effects. Not the best. Not Uncharted 1.

SnuggleBandit2949d ago (Edited 2949d ago )

Uh ya uncharted 1 stops all over halo 3 and cod4. Thats just the truth...look at screenshots.

Uncharted 1 still looks pretty damn good compared to most games nowadays

STONEY42949d ago (Edited 2949d ago )

"Halo 3 was one of the top graphical games back in 2007,"

Uhh what? 2007... 360 was still VERY early, PS3 had just come out, so there wasn't much to compare, but Halo 3 literally looks like a high-res Halo 2 with bloom. And compared to PC games at that time, it looked awful. Even Half-life 2 Episode 1 and the Half Life 2 Lost Coast demo looked better, and that came out waaay before 2007.

eggbert2949d ago

2007 saw the release of crysis... why are you all talking about COD4 and Halo when it comes to graphics...

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 2949d ago
jony_dols2949d ago

COD4 looked far better than Halo 3 when it was released.

And Uncharted 1 is still one of the best looking games this gen.

Reach's graphics though are excellent. Kudos to Bungie for actually
giving halo decent graphics this time around.

talltony2949d ago (Edited 2949d ago )

But i will never forget the fanboys saying reach looks better than killzone 2 after the first gameplay footage was released. I have reach and it clearly isnt even close.

FACTUAL evidence2949d ago

You must of not owned a PS3 in 07 huh?

kaveti66162949d ago

This comparison doesn't provide the sense of Scale in Reach.

Judging just by the video, the improvements look visible but not mindblowing. There's a lot more detail on everything, including the character models, but there are some things in Halo 3 which seem to jump out in a more appealing way than in Reach.

But again, with Reach Bungie didn't just improve the visuals. They increased the scale of the game by a magnitude of 5 while still adding 4 times as many polygons as Halo 3. So Forge World looks better than Valhalla while still being many times larger than the Valhalla map.

Unicron2949d ago

And yet I still feel their worlds are rather barren and empty. They make it work for their artstyle, but compare it to the density of say.. CoD4? It just feels lacking to me (but again, not bad looking).

kaveti66162949d ago

I can't judge them too harshly. They're working on 2004 hardware.

Reach has a lot of details in the flora and fauna. If the scale of the game were smaller, I'm sure they could have made it look much sharper and impressive, but they decided to make the game more like Combat Evolved, with larger scope.

And they're working with DVD. There's a myriad of reasons why this is not Bungie's fault and is more the fault of the hardware.

Unicron2949d ago

I'd actually be more inclined to blame it on the engine itself before the hardware. Unless of course their new IP shows the same trademark, then it's just "their style."