• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Halo Reach Beta's Graphics

prism

prism

Senior member
I know this is a beta, but I'm assuming the graphics will remain [relatively] unchanged between now and the retail release. If this holds true, I am seriously disappointed.

IMO, the graphics aren't even on par with Halo 3. I get a horrible blur effect on my TV when my character reloads, akin to all of Fable 2, and I never saw this in Halo 3. I'm also not seeing the "massive increase in detail" websites are talking about; the detail level looks the same as Halo 3 to me.

Does anyone else share my sentiments?
 
I think the graphics are a little better than Halo 3 (like ODST), however I'd have to see them side by side.

I feel Halo has always done a good thing by pursuing some other gameplay advancements besides raw graphics power.... Saved films and the theater are a great example of this. It's one feature I wish more games had and I think it adds a lot more to the table than a few extra polygons.
 
I'm not one to be particular about graphics but I spent about a week or so playing Halo 3 to get back into the play style, and I feel like there is a definite improvement from H3 to Reach. That said, its definitely not one of the most graphically impressive games to come out in the last 2 years, but I don't recall it being advertised as such either so I'm not worried.
 
prism said:
IMO, the graphics aren't even on par with Halo 3. I get a horrible blur effect on my TV when my character reloads, akin to all of Fable 2, and I never saw this in Halo 3. I'm also not seeing the "massive increase in detail" websites are talking about; the detail level looks the same as Halo 3 to me.
Click to expand...

Bungie has already addressed the blur you talk about and has said they've already fixed it in the retail build they are working on, it just didn't make it into the beta in time.

The massive increase in detail, to me, has been the texture work.
 
prism said:
I know this is a beta, but I'm assuming the graphics will remain [relatively] unchanged between now and the retail release.
Click to expand...

That's one hell of an assumption. I think it's pretty unfair to compare a beta to a finished product.
 
Bryf50 said:
That's one hell of an assumption. I think it's pretty unfair to compare a beta to a finished product.
Click to expand...

From what I heard the Halo 3 beta's graphics were reflective of the final product. If this is untrue, then I rescind my assumption 🙂

I've always been a HUGE Halo fan, and have played every core game (not Halo Wars) to death, with the exception of ODST which didn't hold my attention past my initial playthrough of the campaign. I absolutely love the series, I am just not impressed with the graphics thus far in Reach. Halo 3 looked really good in 07, I can excuse ODST for not having improved graphics as it was an overpriced expansion pack, but I was just expecting much more from Reach after seeing screenshots online and in magazines and hearing about all the improvements.

Gameplay is always more important than graphics for me too; unfortunately for me I'm just not that big a fan of Reach's gameplay either so far, so I'm hoping things change between now and the retail release. Maybe it's the fact that I feel like I'm playing as a watered-down Spartan (which I know the backstory proves is the actual case); ODST I could handle since you really felt like a human and it forced you to play the game in a different way.
 
Last edited:
I doubt the graphics they have now will be the same as the graphics on release. They're using what they have now for people to test the game on, so the focus is on finding bugs and giving feedback on gameplay, not how pretty everything is. I'm sure once the game is released and you check out the campaign to have time to enjoy the graphics, you won't be disappointed.
 
I think it is obviously better. I'm not sure what resolution it is running at but it looks improved and you can tell there is more going on in terms of objects/particles flying around.
 
I believe Digital Foundry did an analysis of the beta and determined that Reach was running at 720p.
 
I'm with the "graphics are improved" crowd. Graphics look similar to ODST, which was an improvement over H3.
 
peritusONE said:
I like how a ton of games out there are upscaled in such a way and nobody cares, but Halo gets completely reamed over it. I guess that's the price of being on top of the heap.
Click to expand...

yea i dont understand it either. to me its a non issue, game looks great on a large high def TV, yes technically its not 720p but FFS its not like it looks like crap, also it is fun a hell and its still a beta.
 
zerocool84 said:
Halo 3 wasn't even 720. I hope they at least make Reach 720p.
Click to expand...
Why, so it could look worse? On fixed rendering power, every additional bit of resolution comes out of sophisticated rendering techniques and detail that are far more important for lifelike image. (Just compare a compressed 480p DVD video to anything rendered by a game engine in HD.) If anything, the devs are still not going low enough on resolution. I'd like to see them try 540p. It would have the added bonus of scaling without any degradation to 1080p which is the de facto standard - no one besides projector owners actually have 720p gear.
 
SR1729 said:
Yeah, but the Halo series sucks by either measure as far as I'm concerned.
Click to expand...

I mean I can see people not appreciating the specific gameplay aspects of Halo, but things like saved films and the forge can add improvements to any game. I appreciate that halo games can still render very well even when running in fast forward in theater mode. This tells me Bungie's engine can run well, but they put some limitations to prevent slow downs in the crazy situations that Halo games seem to facilitate.

My point: you may not agree with the gameplay mechanics, but the underlying technology is the best there is.
 
Pia said:
Why, so it could look worse? On fixed rendering power, every additional bit of resolution comes out of sophisticated rendering techniques and detail that are far more important for lifelike image. (Just compare a compressed 480p DVD video to anything rendered by a game engine in HD.) If anything, the devs are still not going low enough on resolution. I'd like to see them try 540p. It would have the added bonus of scaling without any degradation to 1080p which is the de facto standard - no one besides projector owners actually have 720p gear.
Click to expand...

No. Just no. Higher resolution is almost always preferable to increase in game detail. Why don't you just run all your games in 480p since you can't seem to notice the difference anyway.

540p are you serious. I ran at a higher resolution in 1998 with my 3DFX card.

The quality loss is tremendous when decreasing resolution because you lose clarity, even more so when it's upscaled into a blurry mess. A decrease in the texture quality or losing a few minor effects has nowhere near the effect that a lower resolution does.
 
Drako said:
That's why nobody plays Halo 3 anymore, it sucked so bad. Oh wait ... never mind 🙂
Click to expand...

Which is why I terminated my statement with AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED. IN MY OPINION, it's a shitty game with shitty graphics and its guns were colored with the eight basic Crayolas.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top