Have the graphics improved in Reach? Decide for yourself with this Halo 3/Halo: Reach comparison! Courtesy of GameTrailers
lol the waterfall, damm halo 3 was ugly
lets be honest here. there is a significant difference, but still not really that good.
But honestly, not by much...
The change isnt eye catching, but its still there.
The video shows that the cutscenes are vastly improved in Halo: Reach. But the gameplay looks fairly similar. Both waterfalls were ugly, pukeface.
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. Normal: http://i162.photobucket.com... x5: http://i162.photobucket.com... x10: http://i162.photobucket.com... The tiniest details shine pretty well in this game.
THe difference is almost a generation worth. Can't believe some guys say it's not that much.,
i dont get it are we being sarcastic
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
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.
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.
2007 was the same year that Crysis & Uncharted came out. Halo 3 in no way deserved a 10 for graphics then.
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.
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
what would you call it? better textures is better graphics. textures are higher more particles, more filters.
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
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?
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.
It has alot more detail on everything.
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
Anyone who's played both on a HDTV will know which the difference though. Reach is leaps and bounds ahead of Halo 3.
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.
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.
but I have both the games.
environments in halo reach are enormous
thats nice. What does that have to do with the graphics comparison?
Because graphics normally get compromised for bigger non linear environments maybe?
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)
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.
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.
@lowcarb 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.
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.
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.
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.