The GameInformer Halo: Reach Screens *56k Insert Witty Saying Here*

[QUOTE="Stats_"]

Looks Like Halo 3. :|

KrunkMastaX

[QUOTE="Stats_"]

Looks Like Halo 3. :|

KrunkMastaX

I'm yet to play it so i can't really say "It looks like Halo 3, BUT IT PLAYS AMAZING!!!!!" Im just commenting on what's been shown, dude.

[QUOTE="inertk"]"Games like UC2 and Killzone 2 benifit from being based in corridors. Even Far Cry 2 is mainly based in small paths." I can see what you're trying to say about the first two games, but from my understanding isn't FC2 open world? I've never really understood the corridors comment anyway, it's not as if Halo is any different. I'm also being funneled from one area to another, usually through tunnels or doors. I mean, the game is hardly as expansive as say - Assassins Creed 2. Even then, it's not as if the first two games don't demonstrate large environments. Wait a minute, going back to Assassin's creed. Shouldn't the game be butt-ugly, having lots of AI, massive open world areas -- aren't these the reasoning behind Halo's lackluster presentation? Stats_

Far Cry 2 is a sneaky little game. It draws you in and pretends to be open world, but have you seen the world map? Most of the paths have one thign in common, being inclosed by mountains. So it gives you the illusion that it's as open as say Crisis, but in reality it's just a more open corridor.

Also, Assassins Creed is a great game both technically and artisticly. Probably my graphics king, although there is far less going on then games like Killzone and Halo.

[QUOTE="Stats_"]

[QUOTE="inertk"]"Games like UC2 and Killzone 2 benifit from being based in corridors. Even Far Cry 2 is mainly based in small paths." I can see what you're trying to say about the first two games, but from my understanding isn't FC2 open world? I've never really understood the corridors comment anyway, it's not as if Halo is any different. I'm also being funneled from one area to another, usually through tunnels or doors. I mean, the game is hardly as expansive as say - Assassins Creed 2. Even then, it's not as if the first two games don't demonstrate large environments. Wait a minute, going back to Assassin's creed. Shouldn't the game be butt-ugly, having lots of AI, massive open world areas -- aren't these the reasoning behind Halo's lackluster presentation? inertk

Far Cry 2 is a sneaky little game. It draws you in and pretends to be open world, but have you seen the world map? Most of the paths have one thign in common, being inclosed by mountains. So it gives you the illusion that it's as open as say Crisis, but in reality it's just a more open corridor.

Also, Assassins Creed is a great game both technically and artisticly. Probably my graphics king, although there is far less going on then games like Killzone and Halo.

I'm not really trying to defend Halo 3 here. It was the most linear of the three. Although the draw distance was very, very impressive, especially since you could literally effect battles happening FAR on the other side of a map, by shooting and killing enemies.

Still though. Halo mixed this semi-openworldness (Made up word) with large scale battles (compared to UC2 Killzone and FC2)

I'm expecting Reach to look better, and be on a larger scale.

There's nothing wrong with a game being linear, in fact i dislike openworld games. I'm just saying that it's easy(more easy) for a game like UC2 which is as lineara s it gets full of scripted set peices to look as nice as it does, compared to games on a far larger scale, even if they're not fully openworld.

Wow this thread passed the 600 post mark already? It's almost as if it were yesterday. Oh wait....SpiritOfFire117

Then more things change, the more they stay the same. :?

This is ludicrous. The only ones talking "graphics king" are the sonyfans claiming that 360fans are calling it GK. NO actual halo/360 fans are making this claim. You can't create an argument that others made :roll:

AdobeArtist

It was already posted in this thread, but I guess you never saw it.

Here you go.

[QUOTE="inertk"][QUOTE="Stats_"]

Far Cry 2 is a sneaky little game. It draws you in and pretends to be open world, but have you seen the world map? Most of the paths have one thign in common, being inclosed by mountains. So it gives you the illusion that it's as open as say Crisis, but in reality it's just a more open corridor.

Also, Assassins Creed is a great game both technically and artisticly. Probably my graphics king, although there is far less going on then games like Killzone and Halo.

Stats_

I'm not really trying to defend Halo 3 here. It was the most linear of the three. Although the draw distance was very, very impressive, especially since you could literally effect battles happening FAR on the other side of a map, by shooting and killing enemies.

Still though. Halo mixed this semi-openworldness (Made up word) with large scale battles (compared to UC2 Killzone and FC2)

I'm expecting Reach to look better, and be on a larger scale.

There's nothing wrong with a game being linear, in fact i dislike openworld games. I'm just saying that it's easy(more easy) for a game like UC2 which is as lineara s it gets full of scripted set peices to look as nice as it does, compared to games on a far larger scale, even if they're not fully openworld.

Haters seem to forget that the guys from UK Edge magazing (who actually played the demo) said in their 8 page preview that the game looks absolutely fantastic.

[QUOTE="HerzogJan"]

[QUOTE="Vadamee"] Since when is PS3 capable of 16xMSAA? Those are bull shots I'm afraid. lol

Vadamee

The power of PS3 mesmerizes and surprises, trust me the game looks like this and this is a ugly shot imo.

I haven't mentioned anything about 4d, retort with arguments or play the game....or if you have play the game, buy a decent tv.

lol Halo 2.6? Come on Bungie, you can do better than this.Messiahbolical-

Wasn't that the same tired arguement for Halo 3?

Oh wait it's you. Nevermind. I forget who the hell I was talking to.

lol Halo 2.6? Come on Bungie, you can do better than this.Messiahbolical-

It is quite obvious that Halo: Reach will be no console graphics king but it will have more larger scale battles and more enemies on screen compared to Uncharted 2 which most believe to be current console graphics king. I think that most people would prefer bigger battles in Halo with inferior graphics than smaller scale battles with better visuals. The game still looks good in my opinion.Supafly1

[QUOTE="Messiahbolical-"]lol Halo 2.6? Come on Bungie, you can do better than this.SecretPolice

Haters seem to forget that the guys from UK Edge magazing (who actually played the demo) said in their 8 page preview that the game looks absolutely fantastic.

PAL360

[QUOTE="SecretPolice"]

[QUOTE="Messiahbolical-"]lol Halo 2.6? Come on Bungie, you can do better than this.Messiahbolical-

this looks duller than mgs4 scenery...

[QUOTE="R3FURBISHED"]

[QUOTE="Shad0ki11"]

Just what the hell is this vehicle doing here?! It's totally out of place....much like the Warthog vehicles in the previous games. I want vehicles with some goddamn imagination! Same thing goes with the Mjollnir armor and a number of the alien species. Halo games are great quality, but from a design standpoint it's like "wtf were they thinking??!"

Shad0ki11

That's not my point. That vehicle is totally out of place in a sci fi fantasy game; it's too plain.

Are there no civillian vehicles in the Halo universe?

LOL at anyone who actually believed a 360 game can outdue a ps3 game....halo reach looks terrible. gears 2 looks way better

Revolution316

[QUOTE="Revolution316"]

LOL at anyone who actually believed a 360 game can outdue a ps3 game....halo reach looks terrible. gears 2 looks way better

SpiritOfFire117

So now I'm reading that the Game Informer article said that the engine is just a modified one, not brand new. That explains a lot.II-FBIsniper-II

Link?

LOL at anyone who actually believed a 360 game can outdue a ps3 game....halo reach looks terrible. gears 2 looks way better

Revolution316

Hahahahahahaha, I feel bad for you man, I do.

[QUOTE="II-FBIsniper-II"]So now I'm reading that the Game Informer article said that the engine is just a modified one, not brand new. That explains a lot.topgunmv

Link?

[QUOTE="topgunmv"]

[QUOTE="II-FBIsniper-II"]So now I'm reading that the Game Informer article said that the engine is just a modified one, not brand new. That explains a lot.II-FBIsniper-II

Link?

I hope that's not true. I'm losing confidence in MS' ambition.

[QUOTE="II-FBIsniper-II"][QUOTE="topgunmv"]

Link?

Stats_

I hope that's not true. I'm losing confidence in MS' ambition.

[QUOTE="Stats_"]

[QUOTE="II-FBIsniper-II"] I closed the tab a while ago, but I'll look for it. It was just a forum post, not sure if it was true.II-FBIsniper-II

I hope that's not true. I'm losing confidence in MS' ambition.

So was the Halo 3 engine and it didn't look too different to Halo 2.

[QUOTE="II-FBIsniper-II"][QUOTE="topgunmv"]

Link?

Stats_

I hope that's not true. I'm losing confidence in MS' ambition.

[QUOTE="R3FURBISHED"]

[QUOTE="Shad0ki11"]

Just what the hell is this vehicle doing here?! It's totally out of place....much like the Warthog vehicles in the previous games. I want vehicles with some goddamn imagination! Same thing goes with the Mjollnir armor and a number of the alien species. Halo games are great quality, but from a design standpoint it's like "wtf were they thinking??!"

Image

Shad0ki11

That's not my point. That vehicle is totally out of place in a sci fi fantasy game; it's too plain.

I'm going to tell you a little Halo fiction - Reach has over one billion inhabitants. And only 385,421,100 of that is military [Bnet] so that means that the vast majority of the Reach populace is civilian.

No my rebuttal to your statement: Bungie wants the player to feel like they are on Reach. The first mission of Reach - you are not even fighting the Covenant, you are fighting humans in a human settlement.
Expanding on that, and from personal experience having lived on military installations for the past two years, there is a LOT of construction everywhere. That vehicle, to me, looks like a truck used in construction.

All of this is so Bungie can pull you into their game and make the player believe they are fighting on a doomed world, fighting a battle that they know will end in ultimate destruction.

[QUOTE="II-FBIsniper-II"][QUOTE="topgunmv"]

Link?

Stats_

I hope that's not true. I'm losing confidence in MS' ambition.

HERE YoU GO

[QUOTE="Stats_"]

[QUOTE="II-FBIsniper-II"] I closed the tab a while ago, but I'll look for it. It was just a forum post, not sure if it was true.Brownesque

I hope that's not true. I'm losing confidence in MS' ambition.

It's not so much Bungie i'm worried about. MS have been claiming they will produce better visuals then PS3 exclusives for some time, Halo would have been the perfect game to showcase the 360's power, especially as sales are slowing and the PS3 is picking up the pace.

Besides, the Halo 3 engine wasn't a new engine, it was another upgrade. That'd mean it's been the same core engine since Halo's conception. It's showing its age.

Link to halo reach being built on Halo 3 engine

Link

Link to halo reach being built on Halo 3 engine

Link

stereointegrity

Looks good enough for me. All I know Bungie games are fun to play.

[QUOTE="stereointegrity"]

Link to halo reach being built on Halo 3 engine

Link

SparkyProtocol

[QUOTE="SparkyProtocol"][QUOTE="stereointegrity"]

Link to halo reach being built on Halo 3 engine

Link

stereointegrity

So where did all the reports that said it was using the x-engine or whatever come from?

[QUOTE="stereointegrity"]

[QUOTE="SparkyProtocol"] I have the GI and nowhere does it say that they're using the old engine.topgunmv

So where did all the reports that said it was using the x-engine or whatever come from?

Halo fanboys drunk on their own stupidity?

This X-engine needs to be implemented as soon as possible. MS need to make a game that just looks spectacular. It will draw in a lot of the more casual gamers. Not Wii type gamers, i mean people who play games casually.