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.
PtRoLLFacE2529d ago

lol the waterfall, damm halo 3 was ugly

Windex2528d ago

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

rezzah2528d ago

The change isnt eye catching, but its still there.

Biggest2528d ago

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

2528d ago
Arnon2528d 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.

Aquanox2528d ago

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

nickjkl2528d ago

i dont get it are we being sarcastic

Computersaysno2527d ago (Edited 2527d 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 2527d ago
vhero2528d 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.

jetlian2528d 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.

Method2528d ago

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

jetlian2528d 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.

DigitalAnalog2528d ago (Edited 2528d 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

jetlian2528d ago

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

DigitalAnalog2527d 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

jetlian2527d 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?

Redlogic2528d 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 2527d ago
poopface12529d ago

It has alot more detail on everything.

iamnsuperman2528d ago (Edited 2528d 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

DelbertGrady2528d ago

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

IcarusOne2528d 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.

reaferfore202528d 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.

poopface12528d ago

but I have both the games.

Dance2528d ago

environments in halo reach are enormous

rezzah2528d ago

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

squelchy152528d ago

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

Imperator2528d 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)

lowcarb2528d 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.

mrcash2528d 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.

Imperator2528d ago (Edited 2528d 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 2528d ago
Shoko2528d 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.

Shoko2528d 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.

kaveti66162528d 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.