Tech Analysis: Halo: Reach | Digital Foundry

Digital Foundry: "The long wait is finally over. It's been three years since the mighty Master Chief bowed out in 2007's epic Halo 3, and while last year's ODST exhibited plenty of minor tweaks and improvements to the base tech, there was little doubt that the vast majority of the Bungie engine had remained untouched. While the gameplay delivered, core gamers spoiled by the cutting-edge graphical techniques seen in titles like Killzone 2 really wanted to see what a next-generation Bungie game could deliver."

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
Dance2955d ago (Edited 2955d ago )

reach is technical beast

units2954d ago (Edited 2954d ago )

shame more 360 game werent like this

dgroundwater2954d ago

I'm appreciating the little things more and more after playing longer. Lighting and close-up texture detail almost never fail to impress.

Computersaysno2954d ago (Edited 2954d ago )

Its not the greatest but its not bad. I did however suffer quite a few hiccups and some moments of enormous slowdown in the campaign, never seen that in a halo game before. At the end of the third mission walking up to the top of the building with the banshees the game turned into a slideshow and i mean like 15 frames a second for like 20 seconds. I was wondering what the heck was going on. This wasnt the only incident either where the framerate took a massive hit for an extended period.

SilentNegotiator2954d ago

Sub-HD, no anti-aliasing (temporal, enjoy your blur and jaggies only on MOST objects), dips below 30fps (like EVERY time there is an explosion), motion blur like someone through acid in your eyes, bloom like you TOOK acid....technical beast nothing...

No surprise that this article plays out like a love letter from Eurogamer/digital foundary, despite the fact that it is quite less impressive than several games that they have taken massive dumps on.

kancerkid2954d ago

Tech is great. PS3 fanboys dump on Digital Foundry because they are heretics for calling out Uncharted 1 because it uses opaque smoke for explosions to help rendering costs whereas Reach layers on the alpha textures.

Give me a break. The game looks good, nuff said.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 2954d ago
Chucky20032954d ago ShowReplies(15)
NinjaAssassin2954d ago (Edited 2954d ago )

It is easily one of the best looking games on the 360 and one of the best looking games I have played on any console.

Edit: Yes, it did look crisper. Killzone 2 looked somewhat softer. Are you even familiar with how resolution affects image quality? With too low of a resolution or with poor upscaling the image quality tends to look softer and fine details start to become lost. As I said, I saw none of that in Halo Reach and it did in fact have a crisper look than Killzone 2 when I compared the two games.

dosgrtr2954d ago (Edited 2954d ago )

halo reach looked crisper than killzone 2?sure lol,i like halo but i ain't blind

k let me make this clearer:
halo reach's native res=1152*720
killzone 2's native res=1280*720

so halo reach is upscaled to 720p and killzone 2 is native 720p,anyways reach would look far worse than killzone 2 even if it wasn't for the res

Pistolero2954d ago

Far worse?....yeah right...Reach looks just as good as killzone 2.

DigitalAnalog2954d ago (Edited 2954d ago )

But why are people shooting down Killzone 2 with this? First things first, it's a known fact that any developers are struggling with the PS3's hardware (that includes 1st party studios) and yet GG was able to make an AMAZING game utilizing only 60% of the SPU resources. Put it this way... Killzone 2 is Halo 3 while Killzone 3 is to Halo: Reach. The significance on the sequels would be evident.

First off, Killzone 3 does away with the atrocious Quincunx AA and now uses the more advanced and resource friendly MLAA. The levels in Killzone 3 are now 10 TIMES bigger than what we saw in Killzone 2 while having somewhat same type of graphics on it's predecessor (a fact that would definitely change in the final code). Meaning, this is exceptionally huge considering it's not a "run-n-gun" game (aiming sights and cover taking slows down the momentum of the play hence the so-called "corridor" based design. Open space is more suited to run-n-gun most notably with games like RAGE).

All in all, Bungie has done ALL what they can in Halo: Reach and from what I'm hearing, they're gonna push further now that they're multiplat. I really wonder how they would able to utilize the PS3's hardware this time around. These guys know how to put content in a game.

-End statement

MNicholas2954d ago

It's sub-hd yet 30fps.

The "high-precision HDR rendering" of the previous Halo (which, was actually pretty good) has been replaced by tone-mapping.

Nevertheless it's more technically impressive than Gears yet Gears still looks better.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 2954d ago
Bluemaster772955d ago

Monster of an engine . The 360 is finally done justly

RememberThe3572954d ago

I've always said that all it needs is a strong engine and the system can shine.

poopface12955d ago

if you want to see the difference just look down in both games at your Spartans legs.

NinjaAssassin2954d ago

There are a ton of improvements.

The engine is pushing far more polygons; the characters and gun models are especially improved in that regard.

The engine now supports deferred lighting which allows them to have many different light sources in a scene, all casting their different colored glows onto the environment.

Screen space ambient occlusion has been added to the engine.

Per-object motion blur has also been added.

The engine also supports more characters on screen at once.

Anyway, these are just a few of the things off the top of my head that have been improved in Halo Reach.

Bhai2954d ago

thats exactly what your elaboration said!
Exact same... and it means... NOT MUCH!

palaeomerus2954d ago

It means a lot more than your lame ankle-biting comeback.

units2954d ago

bungie werent kidding about reach

Gitaroo2954d ago

left a good impression when they leave the franchise, that always good.

Show all comments (88)
The story is too old to be commented.