GameSpot: Halo: Reach vs Halo 3 Graphics Comparison

Bungie went to great lengths to improve upon the graphics engine inside of Halo: Reach. While the game may feature many of the same elements (Warthogs, Covenant, and the trusty assault rifle), they've all been heavily augmented. In comparison to the original Halo 3 engine, the new Reach engine handles many more light sources and has higher-resolution textures wrapped onto models with considerably greater polygon counts. Almost all the art was remade, with influence coming from the concept art generated for the original Halo.

[units]

but much preferred these

http://www.lensoftruth.com/...

http://www.eurogamer.net/ar...

[edoman20]

But eurolamer said that reach looks better than U2, WTF is that

And the sense of the scale of battles awesome?, Serioulsy retarded press comparison is getting worse and worse

[kaveti6616]

Eurogamer said that Reach looks better than Uncharted 2?

Link it, dude. I'm not saying you're lying, but I'd like to see it.

[Cevapi88]

all i got from the link for eurogamer is them knocking the first UC for its explosions against what Reach is able to do with explosions(page 2)

idk why they had to do that, but i guess it was the only way to compare a 360 exclusive to a ps3 one...the rest deal with multiplat games like ME2 and Crysis 2 which has yet to come out

[avengers1978]

Okay I don't actually see a difference

[KingKiff]

I'm with you TBH, the single player in reach has a few small differences that I can notice.

But as for multi player I can see much difference, feels, looks and plays the same to me, just more going on at any one time.

But that is a good thing.

[Orionsangel]

The difference is better seen in a video comparison.

[Soul Train]

http://www.lensoftruth.com/...

http://n4g.com/news/609155/...

and better then these guys.

[phatak]

lol. did u c what 1 comment can do. as soon as some1 mentions killzone. the whole comments section is filled with trolling in fanboyism. its sad really.

[ArthurLee]

For a multi million dollar website you would think they would use HD screen shots! Fuc%in hacks!

I'll stick with Lens of Truth and their H2H done YESTERDAY. They use real terminology and don't say things like "Bungie ditched the shiny purple exterior".
WTF!

http://www.lensoftruth.com/...

[ddurand1]

halo 3 was ugly, damn.

[kaveti6616]

You know why I think Killzone 2 doesn't look as good as people think?

It's because all of the screenshots of Killzone 2 all have the same high-poly gun models dominating the center of the image, like 20 percent of it.

And everything beyond it has poor textures when you look up close, but nobody ever posts any screenshots showing objects up close. If you go up close to crates and walls in various parts of Killzone 2 and look up close, you're going to see the same exact thing as in other shooters. Low rez textures.

But you guys go ahead, and keep posting those KZ2 screens with the high poly gun models taking up most of the image, if it makes you feel better.

Look at how fucking large the scale of Halo Reach is. It's huge, and still maintains a great level of fidelity in most areas. Do you guys think that Bungie couldn't make the game look better if it were small and narrow like Killzone 2?

It's pretty obvious to me that Bungie opted to make a game with large environments to emulate Combat Evolved.

They chose gameplay over graphics.

And you guys know what else? The PS3 is more powerful than the 360, is it not?

What is the purpose of saying, "Ha, KZ2 looks better than Halo."

No shit, you guys. It SHOULD look better if it's designed with more resources available.

What if I bring up some irrelevant Xbox 1 game and lord it over every PS2 game that was ever made, like Shadow of the Colossus or God of War 2? It wouldn't really matter, would it? Because good games are better than just good-looking games.

[REALgamer]

I don't think KZ2 vs Reach is a valid comparison.

Differences:

1) Reach uses very large-scale open environments with dozens of characters and vehicles on screen at once. KZ2 prefers tighter, more enclosed environments which you'd expect to be more detailed.

2) This is echoed in distance detail which Bungie have always been very good at, where the Halo games like to put a lot of background landscape / city detail beyond the boundaries of the playable area. Again, this is simply due to the style of the game, whereas Killzone 2's more narrow playing areas do not require this.

3) Filters. Killzone 2 is going for a very visceral experience, hence the fantastic gun and camera movement and the number of lens and smoke effect. Halo's cleaner look doesn't require this, so of course KZ2 will have it there.

But the most important:

4) Split-screen. Halo Reach supports 2 player splitscreen co-op, and 4 player multiplayer. I find it amazing Bungie were able to do this while maintaining the level of detail. Killzone 2 lacks any form of split-screen, so it technically it should be able to bump up the graphics a lot further.

To me both look incredible for their different circumstances. I personally prefer more open environments so Reach is my pick, but I still loved KZ2.

[CoLD FiRE]

Well said. You deserve a bubble for that.

Also, people seem to forget about all the explosions, lightings, and more importantly PHYSICS. Most other games don't have any physical interaction between objects and environments. For example, in games like Gears of War and Resident Evil 5, there isn't much going on. There's only the main characters which move like tanks and dumb AI. Everything else is static.

For a better picture of what I'm saying, go to firefight, set your damage modifier to invulnerable and have bottomless clip (so you don't have to reload, set the primary weapon to the Fuel Rod Gun. Start the game and keep firing on whatever is moving and enjoy the show.

I bet you there's no other game that could handle all of that as good as Halo Reach.