There's no way the could make a new Halo resemble any past Halo we've played without using elements from the past Halo engine architecture.
But it's good that they are building/have built their own proprietary engine. Not really concerned about how they'll do things though. The engine technology they're running for Halo: Anniversary is incredible. I've no doubt they'll pull off something equally incredible, if not more so, with Halo 4.
Can't wait for the VGAs for the next Halo 4 trailer ;) and the imminent Game Informer reveal as well.
Can we actually get reflective visors for once?! Bungie in essence lied about it in Halo 2 and outright lied about that in Halo 3 (see the first Halo 3 teaser trailer).
Really excited about Halo 4. New enemies, new vehicles, new multiplayer. Can't wait!
Cryengine 3 holds no fundamental Halo tech. What would be the point of switching to a third party engine after a decade of tech development leading up to Reach and Anniversary? Daft decision.
And what is Reach doing that CE3 couldn't do?Whats point of changing the tech?Same reason why people want IW to drop MW3 engine. Reach engine is modified Halo 2 engine btw, Cryengine 3 shits all over it.
@Shaman: It isn't just about graphics. There is a reason Halo: CA is keeping ALL the original code from 10 years ago. It's all about feel. Not graphics.
Why the hell would they use the CryEngine 3? They'd have to rework in all the elements that make Halo, Halo.
Non-fans of the game shouldn't speak about what they pretend they don't understand. The Halo engine has been doing marvelous things on a technical scale (I've yet to see a game best the Halo 3 battle against TWO SCARABS, banshees in the air and ghosts on the ground, fighting against UNSC ground and air forces) and is widely recognized and awarded in the professional coding community.
What are you saying? What elements? I really don't understand you. There are two sides of engine, technical and tool set. Halo engine is surely nothing to brag about in technical sense, it probably has good tools and their artists are used to work with it, thats why they are keeping it, not because it gives "special feel". Same thing with IW.
" Reach engine is modified Halo 2 engine btw, Cryengine 3 shits all over it."
And by that measure, Cryengine 3 is a modified Cryengine as is Dhunia. So the hell what?
Reach is highly modified halo 3 engine that is a highly modified Halo 2 engine. That's how engines generally progress. Halo 4 will likely have a highly modified Reach engine with new features and performance.
And it shits all over Reach how exactly? I could see mentioning better lighting but there is a HELL of a lot more to an engine that just rendering. Why would switching to Cryengine 3 be worth anything? Why wouldn't a modified Reach engine be a better choice for 343? Sounds stupid to me.
All engines, when compiled, runs under the same "machine code" on xbox 360. Physics and A.I. are properties. The methods for instructions for calculating a function is the same regardless of said engine. Basically, IF the Cryengine 3 engine provides wrappers and plug-ins for physics API and A.I. support... then yes, the Cryengine 3 DOES shit all over the Halo said engine :)
Why license Cryengine 3 when it proved to be subpar to the Halo Reach engine on the console?
I mean, don't get me wrong: Cryengine 3 *ON THE PC* is probably the best looking engine to date (still waiting to see the UE improvements on the new Batman and obviously how Frostbyte 2.0 looks on battlefield 3), and on the consoles it's still a lovely looking game - but Crysis 2 falls behind Halo Reach.
I really wanted it to be the new benchmark, but they cut out quite a lot of stuff from the console build, like the promised real time global illumination which is part of what makes the game unique on the PC. Pre-baked global illumination is already employed by Halo Reach, together with a feature set that probably puts cryengine 3 to shame: better textures, better models, more polygons pushed in a scene coupled with a much better AI (with a staggering number of units in a battle sequence - which is what halo is all about), near zero pop-ins thanks to the imposter tech (Crysis 2 on console has quite a lot of pop in), etc... It's almost a year since Reach was out and I have yet to see another FPS engine pulling such grand scale combat where everything still looks good from close. On the aging console, Reach remains the benchmark IMHO.
Its weird how I should get excited about detailsof a new graphics engine for Halo 4, but with the Halo universe i'm realy interested in details about the story. I'm so interested where the story is going to go with Halo 4 and beyond.
People don't play Halo for amazing life-like graphics. Halo has highly unique worlds and is visually impressive in its own way that can't be matched. They can't really use any other engine without re-doing all of the resources. This is a fact. Any real Halo fan would want them to use their own engine or create a new one...I don't want to see Halo use the Unreal Engine or CryEngine...
I thought Reach was impressive graphically. Halo 4 will certainly surpass Reach. I have faith that 343 will really impress people with this one. Especially if they are using Mass Effect-style music in their game and going for a more spacey-feel like from what I gathered from that alpha trailer (if it is legit).
Let me guess... its a new engine, completely written from the ground up (like Halo: Reach), and... basically looks exactly like Halo: Reach. But! Now Master Chief's fingernails have shadows or something, which is something "every Halo player" always wanted.
Okay so now I read the article... its even less interesting/more vague.
343 better understand Halo. If they rewrite they graphics engine, I don't care much, it just better not break Halo. That's all I'm sayin'.
Considering what they're now doing with halo waypoint, atlas, etc, I'm extremely happy to hear this.
Halo reach might not be crysis, or gears of war, or uncharted, but those games don't have half of the feature set that reach has.
Graphics aren't everything, and they'll only become less and less important the more technology advances. Visuals have diminishing returns, subdivision is harder to notice, texture resolution is harder to notice, etc. Even things like AA becomes harder to notice the higher the IQ gets.
Art direction and good visual design beats graphics any day, valve and blizzard understand this, bungie does too, maybe crytek will learn it as they mature.
40°
120°
30°
50°
Ad 
30°
30°
10°
20°
10°
20°
But it's good that they are building/have built their own proprietary engine. Not really concerned about how they'll do things though. The engine technology they're running for Halo: Anniversary is incredible. I've no doubt they'll pull off something equally incredible, if not more so, with Halo 4.
Can't wait for the VGAs for the next Halo 4 trailer ;) and the imminent Game Informer reveal as well.
Really excited about Halo 4. New enemies, new vehicles, new multiplayer. Can't wait!
Non-fans of the game shouldn't speak about what they pretend they don't understand. The Halo engine has been doing marvelous things on a technical scale (I've yet to see a game best the Halo 3 battle against TWO SCARABS, banshees in the air and ghosts on the ground, fighting against UNSC ground and air forces) and is widely recognized and awarded in the professional coding community.
And by that measure, Cryengine 3 is a modified Cryengine as is Dhunia. So the hell what?
Reach is highly modified halo 3 engine that is a highly modified Halo 2 engine. That's how engines generally progress. Halo 4 will likely have a highly modified Reach engine with new features and performance.
And it shits all over Reach how exactly? I could see mentioning better lighting but there is a HELL of a lot more to an engine that just rendering. Why would switching to Cryengine 3 be worth anything? Why wouldn't a modified Reach engine be a better choice for 343? Sounds stupid to me.
I mean, don't get me wrong: Cryengine 3 *ON THE PC* is probably the best looking engine to date (still waiting to see the UE improvements on the new Batman and obviously how Frostbyte 2.0 looks on battlefield 3), and on the consoles it's still a lovely looking game - but Crysis 2 falls behind Halo Reach.
I really wanted it to be the new benchmark, but they cut out quite a lot of stuff from the console build, like the promised real time global illumination which is part of what makes the game unique on the PC. Pre-baked global illumination is already employed by Halo Reach, together with a feature set that probably puts cryengine 3 to shame: better textures, better models, more polygons pushed in a scene coupled with a much better AI (with a staggering number of units in a battle sequence - which is what halo is all about), near zero pop-ins thanks to the imposter tech (Crysis 2 on console has quite a lot of pop in), etc...
It's almost a year since Reach was out and I have yet to see another FPS engine pulling such grand scale combat where everything still looks good from close. On the aging console, Reach remains the benchmark IMHO.
crysis 2,crysis 1, gears of war 2, battlefied 3 and RAGE(which runs 60fps) LOOK way better than reach in every way
I thought Reach was impressive graphically. Halo 4 will certainly surpass Reach. I have faith that 343 will really impress people with this one. Especially if they are using Mass Effect-style music in their game and going for a more spacey-feel like from what I gathered from that alpha trailer (if it is legit).
I've never heard Halo fans complaining about graphics.
So unless they're adding destruction or something huge, a new engine is unnecessary.
Okay so now I read the article... its even less interesting/more vague.
343 better understand Halo. If they rewrite they graphics engine, I don't care much, it just better not break Halo. That's all I'm sayin'.
Halo reach might not be crysis, or gears of war, or uncharted, but those games don't have half of the feature set that reach has.
Graphics aren't everything, and they'll only become less and less important the more technology advances. Visuals have diminishing returns, subdivision is harder to notice, texture resolution is harder to notice, etc. Even things like AA becomes harder to notice the higher the IQ gets.
Art direction and good visual design beats graphics any day, valve and blizzard understand this, bungie does too, maybe crytek will learn it as they mature.
The AI is so good in Reach so I don't care that much - best A.I. in a console FPS which has allowed me to constantly replay the campaign.