Graphics king 2010: Halo: Reach (56K? Seriously?)

Here is a Beta screenshot, showing how much the game has improved.

i can not understand why people find this game graphically impressive at all.

It's sooooo pretty. I don't think it's technically the best though. It's not even better than Crysis.

i can not understand why people find this game graphically impressive at all.

ferret-gamer

I agree... the textures are just really bad, the physics don't add much, the size isn't all that impressive, and the player count is very low. Halo games may have somewhat decent gameplay but their graphics have never been a standout quality.

i can not understand why people find this game graphically impressive at all.

ferret-gamer

yeah, looks like an N64 game.

It looks worse than average.gamebreakerz__

Halo is known to have large areas with large amounts of people unlike many of the hallway shooters now so it will be interesting to see Reach considering Bungie has said they have doubled the amount of enemy AI and vehicles on screen at once. I think graphically what Reach is doing will be better then many of the so called graphic kings. It is MUCH harder to pull off what bungie is doing with 40 enemy AI and in a large area then 3-4 enemy AI in a small area.

I am glad Bungie did not feel pressure to buckle and make a hallway shooter to compete for the graphics king title and instead make the type of game that made them legands.

Looks nice...not amazing

Considering the beta honestly looked no better then Halo 3 and was also a jagfest I'm calling bullshots. Unless the campaign is sigificantly better looking then the Reach beta I've played then Halo Reach is no graphics king.

With that said I do believe Reach is a good looking game and I think the scale that bungie is going after is impressive... I think the texture work, geometry, and effects are good, they just need to add AA to make the game look great. However if the beta is any indication of Reach's graphics then it will remain a jagfest like the others before it and should not even be considered to be in the top 10 best looking console games.

[QUOTE="ferret-gamer"]

i can not understand why people find this game graphically impressive at all.

I agree... the textures are just really bad, the physics don't add much, the size isn't all that impressive, and the player count is very low. Halo games may have somewhat decent gameplay but their graphics have never been a standout quality.

[QUOTE="arto1223"]

[QUOTE="ferret-gamer"]

i can not understand why people find this game graphically impressive at all.

karasill

I agree... the textures are just really bad, the physics don't add much, the size isn't all that impressive, and the player count is very low. Halo games may have somewhat decent gameplay but their graphics have never been a standout quality.

Just shows how much XBOX sucked then

Halo is known to have large areas with large amounts of people unlike many of the hallway shooters now so it will be interesting to see Reach considering Bungie has said they have doubled the amount of enemy AI and vehicles on screen at once. I think graphically what Reach is doing will be better then many of the so called graphic kings. It is MUCH harder to pull off what bungie is doing with 40 enemy AI and in a large area then 3-4 enemy AI in a small area.

I am glad Bungie did not feel pressure to buckle and make a hallway shooter to compete for the graphics king title and instead make the type of game that made them legands.

[QUOTE="karasill"][QUOTE="arto1223"]

I agree... the textures are just really bad, the physics don't add much, the size isn't all that impressive, and the player count is very low. Halo games may have somewhat decent gameplay but their graphics have never been a standout quality.

P-vs-P

Just shows how much XBOX sucked then

yeah, it sucked so bad it had the best looking console games all gen. gg.

its not bad just nothing impressive. if this was say 2005 or 06 you may have a case

you know i just realized something, halo and starcraft 2 share the same art style :O

[QUOTE="ferret-gamer"]

i can not understand why people find this game graphically impressive at all.

I agree... the textures are just really bad, the physics don't add much, the size isn't all that impressive, and the player count is very low. Halo games may have somewhat decent gameplay but their graphics have never been a standout quality.

[QUOTE="karasill"][QUOTE="arto1223"]

I agree... the textures are just really bad, the physics don't add much, the size isn't all that impressive, and the player count is very low. Halo games may have somewhat decent gameplay but their graphics have never been a standout quality.

Just shows how much XBOX sucked then

dude that doesn't look better then MW2 graphically

Not impressed at all.

[QUOTE="karasill"][QUOTE="arto1223"]

I agree... the textures are just really bad, the physics don't add much, the size isn't all that impressive, and the player count is very low. Halo games may have somewhat decent gameplay but their graphics have never been a standout quality.

linkin_guy109

looks pretty good but not graphics king though.

dude that doesn't look better then MW2 graphically

ZarbonX

Really?

It's good, but unfortunately MW2 sucks.

[QUOTE="ZarbonX"]

dude that doesn't look better then MW2 graphically

mr_poodles123

Really?

It's good, but unfortunately MW2 sucks.

Considering the beta honestly looked no better then Halo 3 and was also a jagfest I'm calling bullshots. Unless the campaign is sigificantly better looking then the Reach beta I've played then Halo Reach is no graphics king. With that said I do believe Reach is a good looking game and I think the scale that bungie is going after is impressive... I think the texture work, geometry, and effects are good, they just need to add AA to make the game look great. However if the beta is any indication of Reach's graphics then it will remain a jagfest like the others before it and should not even be considered to be in the top 10 best looking console games.karasill

[QUOTE="ZarbonX"]

dude that doesn't look better then MW2 graphically

mr_poodles123

Really?

It's good, but unfortunately MW2 sucks.

Yes, really.

Try posting a proper picture next time.

[QUOTE="karasill"]Considering the beta honestly looked no better then Halo 3 and was also a jagfest I'm calling bullshots. Unless the campaign is sigificantly better looking then the Reach beta I've played then Halo Reach is no graphics king. With that said I do believe Reach is a good looking game and I think the scale that bungie is going after is impressive... I think the texture work, geometry, and effects are good, they just need to add AA to make the game look great. However if the beta is any indication of Reach's graphics then it will remain a jagfest like the others before it and should not even be considered to be in the top 10 best looking console games.mayceV

[QUOTE="mr_poodles123"]

[QUOTE="ZarbonX"]

dude that doesn't look better then MW2 graphically

Really?

It's good, but unfortunately MW2 sucks.

wow dude u used a screenshot from a one mission vehicle that prolly wasn't worked on much of course that snowspeeder doesn't look good MW2 wasn't snowspeeder realism game

and Its my opinion that i thing graphically the scenery and the character an guns look more realistic and graphically enhanced then halo reach an thats my opinion do whatever uw atnt with it just dont post snowspeeder screenshots

[QUOTE="mr_poodles123"]

[QUOTE="ZarbonX"]

dude that doesn't look better then MW2 graphically

Really?

It's good, but unfortunately MW2 sucks.

Yes, really.

Try posting a proper picture next time.

[QUOTE="NotTarts"]

[QUOTE="mr_poodles123"]

Really?

It's good, but unfortunately MW2 sucks.

mayceV

Yes, really.

Try posting a proper picture next time.

I know MW2 doesn't look as good as Reach (especially in motion), but the screenshot he posted was just ridiculous.

i just like the art style of halo

[QUOTE="mayceV"][QUOTE="NotTarts"]

Yes, really.

Try posting a proper picture next time.

NotTarts

I know MW2 doesn't look as good as Reach (especially in motion), but the screenshot he posted was just ridiculous.

[QUOTE="mayceV"][QUOTE="NotTarts"]

Yes, really.

Try posting a proper picture next time.

I know MW2 doesn't look as good as Reach (especially in motion), but the screenshot he posted was just ridiculous.

Looks like Halo Ce pc version. Only halo can get aways with xbox 1 level graphic, in 2010 and stil score 9.5 lol sad.

It looks fantastic but not console graphics king. That goes to RDR