Tech Analysis: Halo: Reach

By Richard Leadbetter Published 18 September, 2010

Noble.

Page 1 of 4

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.

Halo: Reach is that game, an enormous technical leap over its predecessors and competitors on 360 and an exciting example of a first-party exclusive that genuinely pushes the console into new technological territory - something we don't see so often on the Microsoft platform.

First things first - let's cover the basic building blocks of the game's visuals. Native resolution for the game remains as per the alpha and beta code we previously analysed - 1152x720, with just a mild horizontal scaling up to 1280 pixels wide that is extremely difficult to detect by eye in most circumstances.

This setup, along with the lack of hardware anti-aliasing support (Bungie goes for a custom solution) should mean that the entire framebuffer can sit within the 10MB onboard eDRAM attached directly to the 360's Xenos GPU, allowing Bungie mammoth amounts of bandwidth without the need to tile the framebuffer out to the main RAM - a sometimes performance-sapping operation.

dynamic-1
dynamic-2

The new Halo engine is superbly equipped for dealing with a vast array of dynamic lights. Set up Firefight with infinite ammo and invulnerability, then enjoy the light show.

In producing Halo 3, Bungie opted for a number of technical decisions that defined the very look of the game, leading to both good points and bad points in the overall presentation. The game implemented HDR lighting by rendering the whole scene twice at different light levels and combining the two images (a process similar to some forms of proper HDR photography). This meant that the lighting in the game was absolutely sublime for its time, but it also meant that the game itself operated at a sub-HD resolution in order to fit those two render processes into the eDRAM, plus there was no room for hardware MSAA support.

Reach manages to up the resolution to nigh-on full 720p, while retaining HDR and employing an inordinate amount of dynamic lights - every needle from the needler is a bespoke light source, for example. It strongly suggests that another major innovation is the implementation of some form of deferred rendering - something we can confirm for certain if our planned tech interview with the Reach team comes to fruition.

In the meantime, let's drill straight down into the performance. Similar to the previous Halo engine, Reach double-buffers - it displays one frame while rendering the next before flipping the framebuffer. It's also effectively v-synced, though on the odd occasion some frames go over-budget very slightly, resulting in a small, unnoticeable tear at the very top of the screen. The upshot of this is that so long as each frame is rendered in less than 33ms or thereabouts, you have a super-smooth 30FPS shooter.

motionblur-1
motionblur-2

Reach is capped at 30FPS, just like its predecessors, but impressive motion blur effects make the game feel significantly smoother.

Problems arise when the rendered frame is significantly over-budget. In this case, the game waits for the next vertical refresh before flipping the framebuffer. The upshot of this is that if the frames are consistently over-budget you get a sustained 20FPS frame-rate. It's most noticeable during the cut-scenes, but it can happen during gameplay too, numbing response. That's the unfortunate disadvantage of sticking to v-sync, the plus point being that the game doesn't tear in any noticeable way whatsoever.

In this 10-minute montage of action vignettes from across Reach's single-player campaign, you can get some idea of the overall performance level. The occasional frame-drop doesn't impact the experience at all (there's a slight pause when you cross a checkpoint for example), but fill-rate seems to be the culprit when a particular scene consistently exceeds budget. Masses of smoke and explosions all competing for GPU resources can occasionally cause issues.

Multiple Halo: Reach combat scenes analysed with Digital Foundry tools.

In comparison with Halo 3 and ODST, there's the sense that for the vast majority of the duration, Reach is the smoother game. While frame-rates in optimal conditions are identical, the new game's implementation of motion blur - both camera and per-object based - is markedly superior to what we saw in the old engine. Put simply, the game just looks that much more fluid in motion.

However, on the odd occasion where frame-rate drops, there's the definite sense that performance lags behind both Halo 3 and ODST at their worst. The question is why? Fill-rate is the likely culprit, as opposed to bandwidth or geometry concerns.

Bungie is really pushing out the boat with Reach, featuring scenes that are crammed with enemy opponents. The Legendary Edition developer documentary targets the shipyard scene as one of the most intensely packed firefight scenes in the entire game, which allows us the opportunity for an interesting experiment - we can measure performance in his sector to ascertain whether this mammoth AI load maxes out the CPU and slows the game down. The video below is the result of that experiment, and it seems that the game holds its own extremely well in these conditions, suggesting that any frame-drops are more likely down to the graphics load.

Analysis of Reach's most AI-intensive campaign firefight area.

With a framebuffer setup ideally suited to living entirely within the GPU's attached eDRAM, Bungie can enjoy optimal processing conditions, allowing it to really go to town. The very first campaign level is an effective showcase for the key revolutions that Bungie has made on a technical level. As Noble Team first touches down, you're treated to the richness of the terrain, and the sheer scale offered by the mammoth draw distance - which Bungie reckons to be four times higher than Halo 3.

Page 1 of 4

Comments (143) Latest comment 1 year ago

Comments for this article are now closed, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • flanker22 #1 2 years ago

    woo first!!

    gametrailers also had a comparison. i cant believe people actually doubted reaches graphical improvement over halo3...
    Edited by flanker22 at 18/09/10 @ 08:24

  • fergal_oc #2 2 years ago

    loves it

  • Deckard1 #3 2 years ago

    One of the best looking games this gen for me - its astonishing how much is going on at times. As someone who was disappointed with halo 3 I'm pretty shocked how well bungie have done with reach to be honest.

  • coolbritannia #4 2 years ago

    Should have been 10 :-)

    Good to see the graphical improvements highlighted for those that said it looks the same as Halo 3. Trolls.

  • d00dl #5 2 years ago

    I've been totally surprised with Reach. It's got that Halo feel but has the visual 'wow' factor that Halo 2 had for me when I bought that back in 2004. Guess there's plenty of horses in the 360 still. The article is bang on as the draw distance is huge! Bungie have really managed to marry scale and spectacle in this game. Can't tell if the AI has gotten tougher on Heroic or if I've gotten crapper at shooters over the years (probably the latter).

    Got this at Tesco yesterday as they're doing a deal where Reach is £28 when you buy 2100 MS Points for £16. I'm always buying stuff on live so this worked well for me, I hope as it was an impulse buy and haven't double checked the cost of points!

    Edited to correct typos. Why did someone neg Flanker22? He did actually have a relevant comment after 'Woo First!'. Lots of people (mostly certain sony fanbois) were questioning if reach looked any better than halo 3.
    Edited by d00dl at 18/09/10 @ 09:05

  • Keivz #6 2 years ago

    It's definitely a looker. But I think I'll wait for the PC version to drop in 2020 or so.

    /me

  • PoundHound #7 2 years ago

    The graphical difference between Reach and ODST is huge and, for me, the gameplay is back to the level set by the original game. It's a win/win. I really disliked 3 and ODST, but love Reach. Well done Bungie.

  • DDevil #8 2 years ago

    It's safe to say Reach has pleasantly surprised me a great deal while playing through the campaign. It's a beautiful game, and what's especially nice is it's still very colourful which is what puts it over the Killzone games for me.

  • bladdard #9 2 years ago

    Come on DF tell the audience what it really wants to know, is reach technically superior to KZ2?

  • flanker22 #10 2 years ago

    ^there are things that both games does well and it both takes advantage of the strengths of their respective platforms, thus it makes it impossible to compare them directly. apples to oranges.... kz2 doesnt touch the scale of the types of levels halo has or input latency or the lack thereof but then kz2 has some nice effects like volumetric smoke, deferred lighting and higher poly models.
    Edited by flanker22 at 18/09/10 @ 09:54

  • fknetwork #11 2 years ago

    I'm loving Reach so far!

    I never got into Halo 3, I think I was a bit slow at buying it as it felt really dated when I did, I bought Reach on Tuesday and have only played it for a short time as my dad was taken in to intensive care so been at the hospital since, really classy game though and look forward to playing it again when I can.

    Easily one of the most impressive games (graphically too) I have seen/played this gen, lighting and draw distance, wow!
    Edited by fknetwork at 18/09/10 @ 09:55

  • bladdard #12 2 years ago

    Flanker I totally agree but the last halo DF article was a halo vs killzone and I was expecting more of the same. Halo vs halo doesn't get the fanboys frothing quite so much and there's nothing EG loves more than frothy fanboys.

  • Geordiemp #13 2 years ago

    Best 360 engine yet until Crytek come along. Its still not full 720p and it dips to 20 FPS on occasion.

    Woulld rather they scaled back siomething and went 720P and 30 FPS all the time...but thats the trend nower days....

    Who mentioned KZ2 or UC2, I am sure if it was in a similar league DF would have touted it as so.

    Bungie is not known for cranking out super tech engines, so seem they have done well.

  • Pirotic #14 2 years ago

    Game deserves the 9/10 it got. Finally Bungie delivered the graphics to match any other game this gen.

    From 4 years ago maybe , It doesn't stand up well against UE3 games.
    Edited by Pirotic at 18/09/10 @ 10:20

  • Windypops #15 2 years ago

    "... should mean that the entire framebuffer can sit within the 10MB onboard eDRAM attached directly to the 360's Xenos GPU, allowing Bungie mammoth amounts of bandwidth without the need to tile the framebuffer out to the main RAM..."

    *nods vigorously*

  • Darren #16 2 years ago

    Great article.

    I have to admit that despite not being blown away by the screenshots and videos in the beta tech feature (I thought then that it looked only OK), I've been very impressed by what I've seen of the game so far. It looks fantastic despite the odd framerate jitter and at-times weird motion blur effect. It's everything I hoped a Halo game would look like on the Xbox 360 and a noticeable improvement on Halo 3 and ODST.

    Well done, Bungie.

  • coolbritannia #17 2 years ago

    For those asking for a Killzone 2 comparison, I'd say Reach slaughters it gameplay wise, which is what counts. Pretty graphics do nothing for you if you're too bored of a game to even switch it on...

  • rotmm #18 2 years ago

    @Geordiemp, "Who mentioned KZ2 or UC2, I am sure if it was in a similar league DF would have touted it as so."

    You're right. It makes no sense to compare a sandbox-type game like Reach, with it's huge levels against cramped corridor shooters like KZ2 and UC2, as the comparison wouldn't be fair on either side.
    Edited by rotmm at 18/09/10 @ 10:17

  • Dizzy #19 2 years ago

    It looks great... but the AI is the star for me. I am having to fight for my life... something most other FPSes seem to forget.

  • Clover4ever #20 2 years ago

    So what's the resolution and AA this time ? It's good the game still supports HDR (unlike most 360 games).
    Edited by Clover4ever at 18/09/10 @ 10:23

  • Geordiemp #21 2 years ago

    Rottm, you really need both consoles.

    Sorry, but this is not in the same league graphic or animation wise as UC2, and calling it a corridor shooter is kinda ignorant.

    DF would not mentio UC2 and much else in same sentence as it would not be taken seriously, except for fanboys who still think Gears 2 looks good. Can you tell between stiff few frame animations of Halo and fluid mo-cap animations. thought not....

    Still a great game, much better than ODST and more of the fun I had with 3.

  • coolbritannia #22 2 years ago

    Gears 2 doesn't look good? What?!

  • harshahorizon #23 2 years ago

    This game is ugly as hell

  • MiniAmin #24 2 years ago

    I bought Reach on Tuesday and have only played it for a short time as my dad was taken in to intensive care so been at the hospital since, really classy game though and look forward to playing it again when I can.

    I wish your dad a healthy recovery.

  • CaptainQuint #25 2 years ago

    Another day, another brainless idiot compares the visuals of a HEAVILY SCRIPTED corridor shooter (Uncharted 2) to a vast sandbox shooter...

    There's reason Uncharted 2 looks incredible you brainless buffoons, and it's all about scale (or lack of). Smoke and mirrors, darling. Smoke and mirrors.

    I say this as someone who friggin' LOVES Uncharted, too. Still play it all the time. But I'll always favour sandbox over scripted.

    Edited by CaptainQuint at 18/09/10 @ 10:55

  • bladdard #26 2 years ago

    Comparing reach visually with it's best of breed counterpart is what EG did with halo 3 so I was expecting this article to do the same. KZ2 is a very average game and doesn't offer anywhere near the same online experience reach does but that doesn't mean they cannot show how good a job bungie has done and if they've exceeded the previous console best of breed from a technical perspective. That's what I expected from the article not reach is better than halo 3, what's the point?

  • Geordiemp #27 2 years ago

    ^^ UC2 story is scipted, the fights happen different each time. If you play tyhe survival you would know enemies react and approach different each game.

    Halo also has good AI, they are both good, neither has scripted or telegraphed AI....

    Halo could do witha few more animations for enemies which run the same way every time and not fluid, does not bother me as its a game, but calling it tech superior to UC2 is LOL.

    You can tell people with both consoles, they post and react even handed and enjoy both consoles, and the ones who want to make it sound as though PS3 / 360 / Wii is the only answer...

    Edited by Geordiemp at 18/09/10 @ 11:01

  • Clover4ever #28 2 years ago

    Even in open areas (some of them are huge), Uncharted 2 still looks incredible. And the game supports native 720p resolution, MSAAx2, HDR, triple buffering, nice animations...Not even comparable. And what about Infamous 2 ? It almost looks as good and it's a sandbox game.

  • Geordiemp #29 2 years ago

    ^^ Just enjoy Halo for what it is, great game, great COOP through campaign, enjoy driving vehicles, graphics up to date.

    But its not exactly pushing any tech noteworthy is it, its still approaching 700 P or whatever and 20 FPS when busy...Not a critisism but hardly worth 4 pages and comparing against Halo 3 which is SD...

  • TRUTH #30 2 years ago

    Now played the game - and admittedly slaged it off as it looked just like Halo 3...Now experienced Reach, and boy was I wrong. The scale of battles, AI and effects simply surpass all other fps on consoles; inc Killzone 2 (which was a very simplistic corridor, fixed AI respawn fps)...The graphics seem even more stunning when you compare the amount of action/enemies/vehicles/explosions all happening right infront of your eyes. The AI is what make Halo stand above other fps, and it does not disappoint here - esp on harder levels. Halo battles will never play the same.

    Just replayed Killzone 2, COD MW 2 and you realize how simplistic the AI is. The battles are no more then few characters onscreen which respawn to give the illusion of more - when there's more then 10, it's usually on rail gunning from a distance The games are built around set-pieces - not open spaces with a sandbox nature of Halo, esp Reach. This is best singleplayer, mulitplayer and co-op fps on console...Reach I salute you!

  • Dizzy #31 2 years ago

    YOu can tell a game is great when the SDF is out in full force.

  • CaptainQuint #32 2 years ago

    Someone mentioned Infamous a moment ago. A game I though looked dull as dishwater. Seriously bland. Sequel looks far nicer, though.

  • mtb2k #33 2 years ago

    I have to disagree with some things in this article to a great degree. Some of the back drops are amazing with the distance and scale. There is also a lot going on at times, with some nice lighting effects. However, the aliasing in this game is absolutely HORRENDOUS. I've never seen aliasing so badly in a game before as some of the scenes and objects in this game produce. The graphics in general are very inconsistent at times, with some areas and objects having nice textures, and others just horrible. Some of the textures, in a few cases, were worse than the original halo on similar objects. Bump mapping quality is really bad on some objects and surfaces. This game didn't even come close to making me feel the same as the first game when it was released, probably due to the original artists leaving after the first game. Or maybe it was just the art director. Anyway, they lost that special touch with visual presentation after the first game.
    Also, not once did I see the chance to even fly a banshee in the game. I finished it tonight, and the sandbox element just isn't the same as the first game.
    I would much rather have seen sacrifices in other areas in order to get some real AA or at least a true 720p resolution. It really hurts the game and is very noticeable if you are playing the game on a sharp, good quality LCD. There are also plenty of graphical glitches within the game. The quality just isn't there aside from the great back drops, nice color and some nice lighting effects.
    If you take Halo1 out of the equation, this game is great standing on its own. If you are expecting it to make you feel like the first game did with that game's visual perfection at its time of release, and the superior sandbox and vehicle play, then Reach falls short.

  • NightAntilli #34 2 years ago

    @N@ (#28): You're confusing art style with technical achievements.
    Edited by NightAntilli at 18/09/10 @ 11:19

  • coolbritannia #35 2 years ago

    You missed the multiple chances to jack a banshee? The game even dive bombs them into the ground so you can nab one. You noob. Everyone, point and laugh at the noob.

  • Negotiator #36 2 years ago

    I would this game up against any PS3 exclusive in terms of graphics, I own both KZ2 and Uncharted 2 and Reach to me has that wow factor that those games do not. The size of the enviroments and the huge battles, which are unlike anything seen on a console to date. Throw in the brilliant animation which is leaps and bounds better than other Halo games and the best particle effects in a console game that I've seen. The charactor models are not quite up to Uncharted 2 level, and it lacks the insane level of post processing effects of Killzone 2, but the sheer scale and level of graphical fidelity in this game is unmatched in console gaming.

  • T3TSUO #37 2 years ago

    I really wouldn't go comparing Reach to Uncharted 2, I really wouldn't. You'll embarrass yourselves. Uncharted is on another planet graphically. Some of those levels are huge with an enormous polygon count to boot. Sure Reach is better looking over its predecessors' but it's still way down on what I'd want from a modern day shooter.

  • NotSoSlim #38 2 years ago

    Everything always turns into a fanboy argument...so boring.

    One thing i will say is the game has a issue with fast moving objects in the cutscenes which was pointed out and should of been sorted before release.

  • Negotiator #39 2 years ago

    mtb2k you must own a crap television, or your ok with making yourself look real stupid.

  • coolbritannia #40 2 years ago

    The SDF are really embarassing themselves in this one. Reach is a great game, much like Uncharted 2 is a great game, pretty much without rival on their respective consoles. Anyone trying to diss either game is going to look pretty damn retarded.

  • NightAntilli #41 2 years ago

    @Negotiator (#35):
    The character models in Halo: Reach are better than UC2 in my opinion. UC2 characters look like mannequins. Aside from that, you never get a good look at the characters in UC2 in-game. Only in cut-scenes (which are pre-rendered), so the in-game models are probably not nearly as detailed as the cut-scene models, while in Reach.. Well, you know the story. I don't know the amount of polygons etc, however, considering the amount of characters on-screen at any given time in Reach, whether they are higher poly or not, I think it's safe to say it trumps UC2 in that department also.

    I could be wrong.

  • rotmm #42 2 years ago

    @Geordiemp, "Rottm, you really need both consoles.

    Sorry, but this is not in the same league graphic or animation wise as UC2, and calling it a corridor shooter is kinda ignorant."

    Firstly, I have both consoles. And a PC too. How lucky am I?

    Secondly, I didn't say Reach was in the same league in graphics or animation as UC2. But then, the animation in Assassins Creed 2 is better than both (if you exclude the FMV's in UC2) and does that make either of them bad graphically? Nope.

    Lastly, UC2 is a corridor shooter. Yes, the corridors that Drake gets to run down are very pretty, but corridors they are. Trying to pretend otherwise is just ignorant.

  • karooo #43 2 years ago

    I love you bungie.

    :)

  • Negotiator #44 2 years ago

    Uncharted 2 has static 3D mixed with 2D back drops, Reach has full 3D skybox's if you look into the distance you can see battles going on, no other game can do that. Also Uncharted 2 levels are not huge at all in terms of playing space, it makes you feel like they are with 2D back drops in the far distance but the player is confined within the smaller playing space. Uncharted 2 has high level graphics because it never has to deal with massive battles, advanced AI, emergent gameplay its all very scripted with average AI, but the game is amazing and has the best acting in a game to date.

  • bladdard #45 2 years ago

    rotmm have you played UC2 because I wouldn't describe some of the vast open environments as corridors. Maybe the whole world is one vast corridor. It is set piece scripted and not sandbox like reach but it's definitely not a corridor shooter.

  • Goodfella #46 2 years ago

    I totally agree with coolbrittania on this, slating either game is ridiculous, they're are clearly both at the top of their game, so to speak.

    I have to address one point though, Uncharted 2 may have it's fair share of corridor type areas but it also has a lot of large, very open areas for both combat and platforming.

  • Negotiator #47 2 years ago

    I just think alot of people have been selling Halo Reach short in terms of graphics, and I'm just glad DF has made those people look very silly. Confirming what I thought ever since playing the beta, that this game is up there with the very best in graphics on consoles.

  • Tonasaurus #48 2 years ago

    I finished this last night and had an absolute ball. To be honest the only problems I noticed were the ones on the cutscenes which was a bit annoying but that's about as far as I'd go. I think Combat Evolved will always hold a place in my heart, as will the MP in Halo2, but Reach really is a fitting end to an amazing series. The only thing I would change is having to fight those annoying flying bug things. What a pain in the arse they are.

  • Rack #49 2 years ago

    If Reach looks as good as Red Steel 2 then that's an enormous leap forward for the franchise, comparing it to stuff like Uncharted 2 is missing the point with a Halo graphical analysis you're just hoping it looks tolerable. Reach seems to have just about managed this for the most part which is an incredible step forward but no-one's ever going to call Bungie out for being "graphics over gameplay"

  • fknetwork #50 2 years ago

    @MiniAmin

    Thank you, my dad just wouldn't wake up one morning (he has had liver problems for years) so was taken into hospital by ambulance, within 2 hours he was on life support in intensive care where he stayed for 4 days, he then started to come around slowly, he is now awake and much better but they still need to stop a slow bleed he has in his intestine, he is on a normal ward now but maybe going to kings college in London.

    Been a hell of a roller-coaster ride though hence no time at all to do anything including playing reach.
    Edited by fknetwork at 18/09/10 @ 12:27

  • Yossarian #51 2 years ago

    I just think alot of people have been selling Halo Reach short in terms of graphics, and I'm just glad DF has made those people look very silly. Confirming what I thought ever since playing the beta, that this game is up there with the very best in graphics on consoles.

    It's not that it's a 'great' game graphically (and the framerate, especially in cutscenes, is a blemish), it's how it spends it budget on AI, draw distance, etc. to give a sense of scale. And the art is the best in a Halo game, the skyboxes beautiful, etc. That bit about the explosions shows Bungie are more interested in giving a complete, robust, large-scale experience that people can hammer from every angle in the theatre than they are in laying on more immediately impressive smoke and mirrors. When a Pelican dropship lands in the distance in Halo, you can fly out there with a camera and examine the harnesses inside. Other games don't bother with that level, and so save on their budget, but Bungie make the world of the game as solid and fleshed-out as necessary.

  • NightAntilli #52 2 years ago

    @Goodfella (#45):

    True, however, you can't really compare those in my opinion. You can look far in UC2, but your path is still linear. Even when you're platforming, there's one way only (jump from spot A to spot B, run to C, etc), otherwise you're stuck and you won't go further. The popular scenery with the mountains etc when that chopper attacks you, you can look far away, but you never interact with that environment. You can never say that UC2 is as open as Far Cry for example. Neither is Halo Reach btw, but, Reach is simply larger in scale and has more freedom in its environments, in the sense to where the player can get, not only what you see visually. You can easily call Reach a sandbox shooter, where that is definitely out of the question with UC2.

    Now, I'm not trying to bash UC2. It's simply that way by design. UC2 is supposed to be a combination between action and puzzle games, and you can't really have puzzle games combined with open space. Also, people need to be reminded that the tech will reflect what the game is supposed to do. Depending on what you want, you will have some restrictions. If Reach had less enemies, smaller (and less organic) environments and no vehicles, it would look much better than it does now, but, the scale of the gameplay would suffer. In UC2, they chose for the exact opposite path, which is smaller environments, less enemies and (almost) no vehicles. But, because of this they could have a better presentation, a better story, and (arguably) nicer visuals.

    Bashing a good looking game for being linear is ignorant, and it's the same story as bashing a game with less appealing visuals that is less restrictive.

  • darkmorgado #53 2 years ago

    the plus point being that the game doesn't tear in any noticeable way whatsoever.

    I beg to differ, to be honest. In more hectic firefights I've notice quite a bit of tearing. I think the game drops v-sync to try and maintain framerate.

    Completely agree about stuttering cutscenes, though, although it doesn't affect the overall package much.

    EDIT: I'm not slagging Reach, it's an amazing game and I am thoroughly enjoying it. And it is also a stunning graphical spectacle. It's just that I definitely HAVE noticed screen tearing, and it makes a bit confused that DF have stated a completely opposite opinion to something I have witnessed with my own eyes.
    Edited by darkmorgado at 18/09/10 @ 14:18

  • HokutoNoKen #54 2 years ago

    Frame buffer data for those that are interested in such things:

    1152x720 with 0xAA = 6.3Mb (No problem to fit this in the 10Mb eDRAM).

    / Ken

  • GamesConnoisseur #55 2 years ago

    SDF trying to slag Reach is pointless and so is Xbot trying to do same for UC2!

    I owns both like others, and recognises that these two are pinnacles of the gaming, sure there are smokes/mirrors and decisions made to budgets one area to exploits another.

    Ie greater graphic effects for closed small area with fixed numbers of enemies onscreen or greater scale, sandbox world with lots of AI going on but budgeted graphic.

    I challenge both set of gamers to image next gen, what the next gen Halo and Uncharted will be like and this is certainly something that the whole gaming community will benefits from.

    However right now, we should be thankful and appreicative that Reach and UC are the creams of the crops we can enjoy right now.

  • Goodfella #56 2 years ago

    @NightAntilli

    Indeed, it's all about making compromises to present the game the way the devs want it. UC2 wouldn't benefit at all from a Reach presentation, and vice versa.

    I haven't played Reach and even as someone who isn't a fan of Halo it sounds good.

  • T3TSUO #57 2 years ago

    Well it only took 'em how long to get some sort of graphical umpff out of it. Wait till you play 3D on PS3. My bloomin' God it's amazing. Have it set up at my local PC World. Want, Want , Want.

  • Geordiemp #58 2 years ago

    I like Halo, however, when respected sites start talking about it raising the bar or competing with UC2 detail and animations in 720 P and not a drop in frame rate, then I will take note.

    Fanboys in a forum is not convincing. Where in the article does it elude to special grapics comparible with the best, it does not go there.

    Does not mean its a good game and a big step up from Halo 3, but get real.

    Wyhen I play hirise in survival UC2, its a open large level and you can jump and climb anywwhere at multiple heights. Comments suggesting otherwise have not played the game to any degree.
    Edited by Geordiemp at 18/09/10 @ 13:44

  • Pikol #59 2 years ago

    Better than Halo ?

  • orangpelupa #60 2 years ago

    from the gameplay trailers i have see, Reach graphic effects is really marvelous. i really dont like the art style of all Halo game, but in Reach, even i dont like the art, the effects still make it looks marvelous.

    when i finally can buy xbox again, i will get Reach. (my old one died)

    @Keivz
    yeah, i want Reach to reach PC too.
    Still hoping Microsoft not just giving empty promise when said that they still not forget, support pc gaming.
    Edited by orangpelupa at 18/09/10 @ 13:57

  • MiniAmin #61 2 years ago

    @fknetwork

    I'm really sorry to hear that, but i'm glad he's doing okay. When he recovers you should play Reach with him, it's brilliant :)

  • Zappa #62 2 years ago

    sub hd again? LOL

  • darkmorgado #63 2 years ago

    @Zappa

    It's not sub-hd. The article makes it crystal clear. It runs in 720p which, incidentally, is the same resolution as the vast majority of games on the PS3.

  • Geordiemp #64 2 years ago

    At Dark Morg read 3rd paragraph, Zappa is correct but its nit picking

    Native resolution for the game remains as per the alpha and beta code we previously analysed - 1152x720, with just a mild horizontal scaling up to 1280 pixels wide that is extremely difficult to detect by eye in most circumstances.

    its sub full 720 P as its horzintal resolution is lower and scaled up, but its close enough to be as good as.

    Dont get why they would gimp on that and the 20 FPS in places instead of cutting back on some HDR or alphas...?

    Edited by Geordiemp at 18/09/10 @ 15:47

  • bloodflowers #65 2 years ago

    Meanwhile the CoD games continue to offer the fluid movement of 60fps gaming, and are a lot more pleasant to play as a result.
    Edited by bloodflowers at 18/09/10 @ 16:21

  • Negotiator #66 2 years ago

    I have not noticed any screen tearing at all, but have seen some slowdown on occasion but that was few and far between. Geordiemp it does elude to this game competing with the very best in graphics on consoles so I don't know what article you were reading. Just in case you missed it, " Evolutionary in many respects, sure, but where it counts Halo: Reach is the revolution we've been waiting for: a genuinely superb game with a combined feature set that pushes Xbox 360 performance to the bleeding edge."

  • Grayfox32 #67 2 years ago

    Wait a minute, did someone just call halo reach an open world game with these graphics???? ROFL
    it's a first person shooter like killzone or call or duty
    Fallout 3 is an open world game
    xbots creating lies again, Im not making fun of reach but calling it an open world game is ridiculous, so killzone 3 has levels 4 times if not bigger than killzone 2, so is it an open world game too???
    halo reach is one of the best looking 360 exclusives, but dont compare it to killzone 2/3 or uncharted 2
    Edited by Grayfox32 at 18/09/10 @ 17:35

  • darkmorgado #68 2 years ago

    @Grayfox23

    In fairness, it's all about freedom of movement. Halo gives you large, open spaces. You need to get to a predetermined point, but how you reach that point is up to you.

    By contrast, a game siuch as Killzone funnels you to that point - and needs to due to its reliance on scripting. So while its environments may be large, one person's journey through those environments will be identical and there is very little freedom of movement.

    I believe that is what is being meant.

  • Retroid #69 2 years ago

    Not actually played this to its best in single player yet - just started a split-screen co-op playthrough with Mrs Retroid. Even though it's obvious its dialed back a bit for that, it still looks much nicer than Halo 3 - which I thought looked quite rough and definitely not up to the standards set by other games around at the time.

    When watching the cutscenes, though - well, they're a league ahead of Halo 3 without a doubt, and work much better due to mocap and avoiding ODST's horrible exaggerated Disney-like animation. All that talk of the clips released nearly a year back being pre-rendered were blown out of the water when Noble Six stepped out of the carrier wearing my chosen purple armour and PimpCat emblem! :D

    All in all, this looks to be as big a leap over Halo 3 as Halo 2 was over the engine of the original Combat Evolved.

    Very impressed with what they've managed.
    Edited by Retroid at 18/09/10 @ 17:53

  • Grayfox32 #70 2 years ago

    For the record here, no one is tearing down reach, it's just that some ppl were bringing down uncharted 2/killzone 2 with their own agenda
    I dont have an xbox 360 but I will admit reach looks nice, its the best looking halo game, I think it's the artstyle that gives the impression that it isnt that great looking because the more realistic a game looks, the more praises it gets, halo is more art than technical prowess
    Edited by Grayfox32 at 18/09/10 @ 17:59

  • darkmorgado #71 2 years ago

    For the record here, no one is tearing down reach, it's just that some ppl were bringing down uncharted 2/killzone 2 with their own agenda

    I never said you were, and accede to your point. In fairness, I read those comparisons and I thought "wtf?". I can broadly understand comparisons with Killzone in that they are within the same genre - though their approaches to that genre are completely different. One relies on scripting and funneled progress (which is completely fine by the way - after all, Half Life did the same thing). The other relies on open environments and emergent AI.

    The comparisons with UC2 however were a true WTF moment. These games do not share genre, approach, premise, or anything whatsoever. It is, quite frankly, no different to comparing Doom with Tomb Raider. Uncharted 2 is an amazing game. Halo Reach is an amazing game. But to compare the two in terms of design, genre, gameplay etc is sheer lunacy.

  • RedSparrows #72 2 years ago

    'Meanwhile the CoD games continue to offer the fluid movement of 60fps gaming, and are a lot more pleasant to play as a result. '

    Of course they do - a shooting range is hardly gonna be an intensive project, is it?

  • CaptainQuint #73 2 years ago

    Playing CoD is a similar experience to riding a Ghost Train. Good, harmless fun, but ride it twice and the surprises are spent. No need or desire to have another ride.

  • IIIvirusIII #74 2 years ago

    did u review this game blind folded ? it looks shit plays shit and feels like it 3 years behind other big launch games . Halo died after halo 2 which was by far the best online shooter of its time , now reach feel dated ,old and behind time . how anyone can give this a 10/10 is insane or they must be just getting back handers by bungie . waste of money and time .

  • Retroid #75 2 years ago

    This isn't a review. The clue is in the title.

  • captainrentboy #76 2 years ago

    Like a few others, I just wanted to praise the fantastic A.I in Reach. With regards to console gaming it's easily the most impressive I've ever seen. (The Elites sidestepping grenades as they run at you always gets me) It really makes other shooters, with their respawning enemies and scripted attack patterns, look positively old school in comparison.
    Whilst mucking about on level 9 yesterday, I was impressively flanked by three effin Grunts, (I thought they had wandered off elsewhere, whereas they actually got the upper hand, snuck up behind me, and killed me before I could turn around and react) rather embarrasinglly Grunts are the more retarded enemies of the lot :/

  • the_sas_man #77 2 years ago

    A lot of people are commenting on graphics (which are great btw) but forget the CPU needed to calculate all of the AI. That for me is where Bunhjie hit the nail on the head.

    Of cousre COD looks better than Halo, but I bet the AI of Halo trounces that of COD. I guess its a matter of preference, but give me gameplay over graphics anyday.

  • coolbritannia #78 2 years ago

    I don't agree. I think Reach looks better than MW2. That has some nasty textures to it in places.

  • Dizzy #79 2 years ago

    "Meanwhile the CoD games continue to offer the fluid movement of 60fps gaming, and are a lot more pleasant to play as a result. "

    If you can live without AI.

  • benfresh76 #80 2 years ago

    @d00dl: did the Tesco deal myself...FYI there's also a coupon for 15% off entertainment orders available online- I managed to get Reach and 2100 Microsoft points for 38 quid! BTW ,absolutely loving the game, haven't played a Halo title since the woeful disappointment that was '2', but this takes me back to the pure, viscetal excitement of the first one. And jetpacks? The new best fun you can have with your clothes on :-)

  • Smoped #81 2 years ago

    So, um, I see no mention about the gsmps rate here. What gives? And for the benefit of the uninformed, GSMPS stands for "gay space marines per second".

  • man.the.king #82 2 years ago

    Very interesting article!

    While I appreciate RL's comparison of Halo - Reach against earlier Halo titles, in my opinion, it was to be expected that H:R would have been an improvement over other Halo titles; however, it would also have been interesting to see how H:R stacks up against other 360 titles that have been commended for superlative performance, e.g. Gears 2, Mass Effect 2.

  • oldfruit #83 2 years ago

    Love Reach, Love EG, Like DF but wish you would stick to your excelllent objective analysis rather than mix it up with your subjective views of the game. Of course you have a view, but I don't feel it's warranted in these articles.

    /runs for cover

  • Badassbab #84 2 years ago

    More gushing praise from Mr Leadbetter but an excellent article nonetheless. Reach is the best game I've played this year along with GOWIII and perhaps Heavy Rain. The campaign was excellent but I thought the characters were kinda flat. Still think the lack of proper AA hurt the look of the game but it is a big improvement over Halo 3 & ODST even though it's essentially the same engine albeit a vastly improved one. Love the big battles over wide terrain Halo games seem to do so well. Shame about some of the framerate drops that hardly ever featured in previous Halo games.

  • Badassbab #85 2 years ago

    I see some are some calling for a Reach vs KZ2 article. From a purely visual point of view KZ2 would win but Reach would win in every other catergory. If Seth could ride a mongoose in KZ2 the levels would be over in a few minutes.
    Edited by Badassbab at 18/09/10 @ 22:26

  • CHAZBIGPOTATO #86 2 years ago

    Very good write up. Stll haven't got this (money is tight) will be getting it though (D'uh)

  • Shotofen #87 2 years ago

    A lot of people here are calling Halo: Reach a "sandbox." I see were you guys are coming from but I have to disagree. The levels in Reach are very linear (i.e. there is a set path that you cannot move beyond). Sure the environmental backdrops are bigger than some games but most of that is an illusion (the only game where there wasn't that illusion was, for all its faults, Crysis). And that illusion is only maintained by EXCESSIVE blurring -- it's one of the first things that I said to my friend when playing co-op: "Are you noticing lots of blur?" There also doesn't seem to be much detail to the playable areas...none of the Halo environments feel lived in or like they have any purpose other than as elaborate deathmatch arenas.

    In Reach, the Bungie "30 seconds of fun formula" is still very much intact, with AI running all over the place, explosions, projectiles, etc. The thing is, it reminds me of the AI in Half Life 2. Both games have non-scripted AI that react to the player, and the player alone. This can be fun at times but it also feels very artificial to me. Every Halo (or Half Life 2) fight quickly devolves into basic chaos -- that is why the friendly AI can never keep up, because the enemies only react and move around the player. Actually, I preferred the semi-scripted AI in Half Life 1 because, in the end, it felt less gamey, more challenging, and more REAL. And Half Life 1 style AI allows for awesome boss fights, something that both Halo and Half Life 2 lack.

    This is why I would love to see Bungie's post-Halo games innovating along a different path. Have some enemies rush, some enemies provide suppressing fire, some enemies attack allied units, some tanking enemies, some long range bombardment enemies. This could be very interesting and make Bungie's post Halo enemies seem like organized armies instead of a loose collection loose cannon AIs all desperately vying for the player's attention.

  • womble #88 2 years ago

    Thanks for the tech analysis Richard.

    My views:

    - the art direction in this game is awesome. With a few notable exceptions, the overall art quality is very high.

    - the audio design is even better. (I heard a grunt say wort wort wort!)

    - the aliasing is still a big issue for me; or rather, the dot-crawl effect of aliasing thin lines. The outer space scenes in particular were pretty nasty, what with the edges of the space platforms being so jagged.

    - as a SANDBOX shooter, there is no comparison with games like Killzone 2 or Uncharted 2. As others have noted, they're VERY linear games, with all action confined to very small spaces. There is no equivalent game to Reach on the PS3. The closest, which I love, are the Resistance games. (They even look a little bit like Reach, tonally.)

    - some of the cityscapes look as though they were lifted right from ODST; an utterly boring environment. Could have done without these to be honest.

    - the gameplay is sublime. Best Halo yet.

    - the framerate is very variable. It doesn't impact on multiplayer, but there are several moments in the campaign (on Heroic and Legendary) at least where the game is borderline unplayable due to the crashing of the framerate.

    - so far, this is GOTY for me, with RDR a close second.

  • womble #89 2 years ago

    Oh, Richard, if you do get an interview with the Nobel Actual guys, could you please pester them greatly about their voxel-baking-rendering system?

    I'd love to know how they go about the terrain rendering. It's quite astonishing to see the amount and detail of terrain that they mange to pack in to every frame. It's almost as good looking as RDR, except that of course it has a zillion FPS elements on top of that.

  • womble #90 2 years ago

    @shotofen, you are confusing linear with sandbox.

    Yes, Halo missions CAN be very linear, by DESIGN. But the big difference is that the missions take place within a SANDBOX environment. So, technically speaking, if you removed the invisible walls in the editor, you could fly around the entire map, including much of the "background" environments. And that's exactly what happens in the larger, more expansive missions.

    See: Forgeworld. It is a truly massive environment, and yes, you can visit pretty much any part of it, in real-time. That's an astonishing technical (and artistic) achievement.



  • RKOwned #91 2 years ago

    This is without a doubt the best looking halo ever, but Im not sure how blown away I am with it graphicaly. It looks gorgeous, sure, but its not the best looking game out right now. But it is a great looking game. Probaly one of the best on 360.

  • Calgon #92 2 years ago

    Good stuff Richard, I enjoyed reading that.

    This also looks good for 360 devs in general, like Ive said before the work done on the Reach engine will be shared among the 360 Dev community and I expect 343 Industries in particular might even come out with their own engine that pushes the bar even further(from the ground up which short of being able to code to the metal with the hardware might be as good as it gets 1st party wise on 360... Ive given up on seeing Rare come up with something like this since they are now all about Kinect which is a shame).

    GOW3 should be special too, Epic rarely disappoint in raising the bar, Rage and Crysis2 I will reserve judgement on till we can compare.
    Edited by Calgon at 19/09/10 @ 05:47

  • spadandfokker #93 2 years ago

    I dont wanna enter in such a stupid comparation between orange and apples but cutscenes in UC2 arent "prerendered" like someone wrote here. are all relatime rendered using a more detailed model instead the ingame model.

  • BitmapBrother #94 2 years ago

    Let's see, Reach is sub HD, drops frames to as low 20 FPS and xbots are trying to compare it to the native 1280x720p, butter smooth 30 FPS, triple buffered Uncharted 2? Silly xbots. When they can't match the tech used in the PS3 they resort to extolling the virtues of the Halo art style or trying to convince themselves that Halo is a sandbox game when it reality it's pretty much a corridor shooter. Didn't work for Alan Wake and it's not going to work for Reach. Bungie, your best Xbox developer couldn't even deliver a true HD game this generation on the Xbox.

    With their multi-platform project, perhaps we'll see them reach that elusive native HD resolution on the PS3 with their next game.

  • spadandfokker #95 2 years ago

    N@
    nope, are rendered by the engine in real time just like the first uncharted, because if you dress drake with some of the unlockable costumes you will see your character dressed like that.
    you know what means RENDERED? fmv videos are rendered and theres no fmv in uncharted.

    maybe you mean 'scripted' but are rendered on the fly with higher resolution models

  • TRUTH #96 2 years ago

    If only MS pushed the 360 more rather then relying on Unreal engine all the time; The 360 can really hold it's head high at what it truly can achieve. Imagine the next improved Reach engine or using it for different games . The impressive things about Reach are the size and scale of battles - so much larger then any COD game or Killzone 2, the sandbox and freedom in battles - nothing like this on COD or Killzone 2 as there all scripted when reaching certain points (eg: bridge in 1st level), the physics and weight of vehicles - COD and Killzone 2 don't even come close, the onscreen amount of action and explosions with both enemies and vehicles - COD and Killzone 2 again can't compete, some of the best free thinking enemy AI (esp on harder settings) - COD is always dumb while Killzone 2 has fairly set points and scripted x-y routed movements, the amount of characters onscreen at once - this is where COD or Killzone 2 really can't compete. Reach is realtime with battles with up to 40+ onscreen all with individual AI not scripted or cheat by having respawn out of view like KZ 2 or COD, the open space and freedom of movement in Reach - again both COD & KZ use a corridor/boxed room then corridor space.

    This is the reason why Reach is an impressive game on what the engine is capable of doing all at once with it's has sandbox battle nature, realtime non scripted action, huge areas, huge battles, vehicles feel natural, physics, some excellent explosions (realtime), the AI is still the best in fps and all looks great...It's the whole scale that surpass all other fps on console, and I haven't even played multiplayer or co-op yet.

  • Badassbab #97 2 years ago

    Reach really takes advantage of the eDram....that's 278.4gbs per sec of bandwidth in total. Basically that's loads... To put it into perspective PS3 has a max of 48gbs. But the eDram memory is small...

    MS should programe to the metal and make a linear GOW or UC type of clone so we can see whether the 360 can stack up against the PS3 exclusives in the visual department. I'm still amazed at how good GOWIII and UC look not just because they are easily ahead of any other game out there from a purely visual point of view but because the PS3 tech is 4 years old now.
    Edited by Badassbab at 19/09/10 @ 14:21

  • MegaCadet #98 2 years ago

    @BitmapBrother.

    Halo Reach accomplishes alot more during gameplay than UC2. In UC2, the AI for the most part is scripted and uninspired. In Reach, every enemy has it's unique AI. There are also 20-30 enemies on-screen at certain times. And unlike UC2, the large draw distances in Halo Reach can usually be explored. It also seems like you didn't play the game, because the levels are designed like mild sandboxes. If Halo Reach is a corridor shooter then that is one big-ass corridor. In general, the scope is much bigger. UC2 was a great game though, easily deserved GOTY 2009...I'm just saying.

    And I think it was pretty clear in the article that Reach is "nigh-on" full 720p and has a "super smooth" 30 FPS thanks to Motion Blur.
    Edited by MegaCadet at 19/09/10 @ 15:57

  • Kaminari #99 2 years ago

    I'm a big fan of the Halo series (ODST excluded), but I'm reading a lot of incredible bullshit about UC2's "inferior" technology which really make me laugh -- besides the fact that UC2 is not an FPS and any comparison is bound to sound ridiculous. Well, I suppose there's no point in reasoning excited fanboys.

  • FuzzyDuck #100 2 years ago

    I'm sure if you asked anybody at Bungie what do they think of Naughty Dog's achievements with Uncharted - and vicea versa - they'd give nothing but praise for what the end result is - a highly polished (in many ways, not just the tech) piece of software that is both a testament to the host system and the team that made it.

  • Retroid #101 2 years ago

    As I've said before - different games do different things & require different solutions to different problems, even within the same genres.

    The games look good. This looks substantially better than previous Halo games on 360.

    This is a Good Thing.

  • MegaCadet #102 2 years ago

    @FuzzyDuck

    I strongly agree and I'm sorry if I sounded like I was trying to take shots at UC2. UC2 was meant to be more of a story driven cinematic-type game, so I understand the design decisions.

  • TRUTH #103 2 years ago

    UC 2 had fixed camera views for more dynamic look - not free. Totally different game too. Stop comparing and PS3 owners admit Halo Reach is throwing a hell of a lot onscreen then any other fps on console, also 360 owners admit UC2 is a good looker.

  • FuzzyDuck #104 2 years ago

    @MegaCadet

    Oh, didn't mean to sound like i was having a pop at yourself, i'm just perplexed at the "Xbox/PS3 rulez LOL" crowd.

    I read the article as a comparison with the old Halos but it took no time at all for the PS3 fanboys to jump the comments thread and start gushing about Uncharted et al (i'd like to point out that i only own a PS3 myself and played most of the big exclusives to death because first and foremost i'm a videogame fan; if i had the free time and cash i'd also have a 360 and would have been queueing at midnight last Monday to get my hands on Reach).

    As Retroid said, different games need and do different things, Uncharted is epic for some reasons and i'm sure Reach is equally epic for different reasons.

  • womble #105 2 years ago

    "I played Halo 3 immediately after finishing Reach and to be honest there seems a lot more going on in Halo 3"

    Your home planet is calling, they want you back for checkups.

  • womble #106 2 years ago

    @BitmapBrother "Let's see, Reach is sub HD, "

    Run along, troll.

  • JBlokeUK #107 2 years ago

    I've always hated the Halo games, can't see the appeal in them at all, totally overrated imo.

    But I will say this, Halo Reach is a fantastic looking game in terms of graphics and seems to run smoothly. UC2 is the best looking game so far this gen for me though.

    But then not sure where this Halo Reach vs Uncharted 2 comparison has come from?

  • muscleblade #108 2 years ago

    Reach is without doubt the best FPS to date. Its also one of the best games for a console to date. Only Gears 3 can compete with this awesome package of a game in the near future.

  • carlitoswagon #109 2 years ago

    Rarely do I let AI chase ME around and bitch slap ME with well timed melee attacks. Rarley will I abandon a near dead smoking vehicle and watch some sneaky AI b****rd jump in and gun me down......

    Welcome to Reach. Hats off to Bungie for all the above reasons.

  • muscleblade #110 2 years ago

    "But then not sure where this Halo Reach vs Uncharted 2 comparison has come from? "

    I cant see how its possible to compare them as they are very different. The most impressive part of UC2 is the fantastic graphics. Reach has so much else going for it though. The music is probably the best in any game to date. The machmaking system is incredible. The enemy and coop AI is better than in any game im sure. And on top of this it looks rather nice. Its not the best looking game this gen for sure but looks isnt everything.

  • muscleblade #111 2 years ago

    "MS should programe to the metal and make a linear GOW or UC type of clone so we can see whether the 360 can stack up against the PS3 exclusives in the visual department. I'm still amazed at how good GOWIII and UC look not just because they are easily ahead of any other game out there from a purely visual point of view but because the PS3 tech is 4 years old now. "

    Trust me Gears 3 will put those games to shame in the grapichal department. Now its all about Reach.

  • telboy007 #112 2 years ago

    If you really want to test the engine, load up a custom firefight in the courtyard with infinite shields, jet pack, ammo and get busy with the rocket launchers from the floor and the skies with a(some) friend(s) .

    Yes, it is a cheap way to get that 1 million points achievement in about half an hour but boy is it mental crazy bonkers fun. You'll see the engine strain to keep it all together but it just about gets away with it. :)
    Edited by telboy007 at 20/09/10 @ 10:10

  • Retroid #113 2 years ago

    JBlokeUK: "But then not sure where this Halo Reach vs Uncharted 2 comparison has come from?"

    Because to some people it seems incredibly important that one "side" "wins" against the "other". It's the modern entertainment equivalent to arguing whose dad could beat up someone else's dad.

    Everyone sensible, however, just wants to go down the pub / watch a film together. Metaphorically speaking.

  • Badassbab #114 2 years ago

    Muscleblade-

    I'm not so sure. To get the best out of hardware it needs to be the following-

    Linear
    Single Player

    Gears 3 won't be linear enough and will have to cope with 4 player co-op through the main campaign.

  • chubster2010 #115 2 years ago

    It is a nice looking game...but has anyone else noticed that the flying crows don't flap their wings? Spooky...



  • Sesonic #116 2 years ago

    I got a 360 recently to compliment my PS3 and the fist game i got was Halo 3.
    I was really looking forward to playing this as i hadn't played a Halo game before and it was meant to be great.
    However when i played it I though it was crap, the single player just didn't do it for me. Graphics were ok but the gameplay was rubbish.
    I then bought Mass Effect2, and that was a superb game, one of the best games this generation. It had really intelligent combat/campaign and story, Halo was miles behind.

    Is Halo Reach better than Halo 3 or is it more of the same?
    Edited by Sesonic at 20/09/10 @ 14:22

  • Badassbab #117 2 years ago

    If you thought Halo 3 was rubbish than you probably won't like Reach as it's still Halo type of gameplay. Maybe you'll prefer Reach to Halo 3 but doesn't mean you'll like it. Give it a rent and see.

  • telboy007 #118 2 years ago

    Reach is far superior to 3 in terms of campaign, ODST is better than 3 in terms of campaign. I still liked 3 mind you. :)

  • asphaltcowboy #119 2 years ago

    Reach is absolutely beautiful...

  • ronuds #120 2 years ago

    Do people think if UC2 had as many enemies on screen with the size of the environments Reach has that it would still look the same?

    Who actually has any idea what they're talking about here - because it doesn't seem many of you do?

  • TRUTH #121 2 years ago

    UC 2 = Liner and fixed route, fixed camera, small amount of characters at once onscreen, small character size, AI is okayish, small routed maps, not much options in multiplayer, fixed set pieces, routed mapped out A to B route in small areas to explore.

    Reach = Large playing area, sandbox action, realtime camera view, very large amount of characters onscreen, larger character size, individual AI for 30+ characters onscreen - the best, loads of options and styles in mulitplayer and co-op, realtime action, much bigger playing area and freedom.

    It's so much easier to make a liner game with no sandbox or advance AI, with set pieces ttha look great then to have sandbox, large areas to move around freely, with advanced AI and huge realtime battles.
    Edited by TRUTH at 20/09/10 @ 19:35

  • CernaML #122 2 years ago

    Hey TRUTH(settingufree), when you only show some so-called cons and complete BS about fixed cameras in Uncharted 2 and then only list the so-called pros in Halo Reach, your ignorant bias shines like the red glare from rockets in the sky.

    Small/large characters? Realtime camera views? Realtime action? The fuck does that even mean? Pretty sure the poly count in the characters of Uncharted 2 are still higher than Reach's. Pretty sure I can use the right stick to control the camera freely in Uncharted 2. Pretty sure the PLAYER isn't scripted when PLAYING the game thus meaning that everything I do in Uncharted 2 is in real time. Trying playing the game before being a biased jackass clinging to trivial cons of Uncharted 2 just because Halo doesn't look as good as it.

    Here, let me show you how dumb I look when I do the same thing as you.

    Halo Reach has the worst motion blur I have ever seen in a video game. It is still sub 720p. Double buffered frame rate that can tear up here and there. So-called open world environments but still feels as linear as a Call of Duty game. No iron sight aim. Character animations not as fluid. Realtime action that isn't so real time. Camera views that isn't so real time. Rendered polygons in each frame not in real time. Everything is fake, you are all suckers. Halo never existed.

    If it's sooo easy to make such a great looking linear game then why has there yet to be a game on the 360 that actually does look as good as the best looking PS3 game? Why are the 360's heavily scripted, linear up the ass games not as good looking as Uncharted 2? Maybe you should wait for Gears of War 3 and prey that you are able to bring up this debate again.
    Edited by CernaML at 20/09/10 @ 21:23

  • MegaCadet #123 2 years ago

    @CerealML

    You sound very pissed. You need to calm down.

  • TRUTH #124 2 years ago

    I have played it thankyou - took me 6+ hrs to complete. I did enjoy the game, but honestly it felt like your always led by the hand esp the platforming section. The action was enjoyable but was mainly scripted with the same technique to rid of them always working and the AI wasn't very smart - the truck, helicopter action scenes were the best parts of the game,you go to the same area, it will always play the same everytime. The enemies will always play the same, fire the same, follow a routine path all share the same AI;not individual AI. You can go on about the graphics,and yes they are gorgeous - but what I remember (I sold UC2 after completing it twice) you can only follow a fixed path, not adventure and explore the backgrounds Assassins Creed II / Tomb Raider style...The camera was fixed in the game to give a more dynamic look (this looked great in the temple), the free camera only allows to move around a certain area while standing still...All very nice, but easier to look good for programmers. This is difference in Reach the scale of things are much much more complex and larger in every way.

    I don't diss UC2 - but people esp PS3 fans who can't except the scale and size of the battles in Reach singleplayre/co-op/mulitplayer, the AI: read everywhere as the best AI esp when 30+ onscreen + vehicles all fighting, sandbox nature all sort of wham bang going on surpassas all other fps - PS3 fans have justify PS3 with UC2, a platform action game that is no way in scale of the whole package of Reach (online, multiplayer, co-op, map editor, singleplayer (where playing harder increases enemy AI))...a game that can be played for life...a game now the 4th in the series and still highly praised highly by many reviewers and critics, Reach is a dam fine game...COD don't make me laugh!!! - desperation!

    Edited by TRUTH at 20/09/10 @ 22:15

  • Negotiator #125 2 years ago

    You know what I was playing the game tonight and I saw things flying in the distance, I thought they were birds because they were so small. Only when I zoomed in did I notice they were flying vehicles fighting each other, incredible.

  • JBlokeUK #126 2 years ago

    JBlokeUK: "But then not sure where this Halo Reach vs Uncharted 2 comparison has come from?"

    Because to some people it seems incredibly important that one "side" "wins" against the "other". It's the modern entertainment equivalent to arguing whose dad could beat up someone else's dad.

    Everyone sensible, however, just wants to go down the pub / watch a film together. Metaphorically speaking.

    Completely agree Retroid. Except my dad could beat up your dad, any day of the week :p

    I personally don't care who ''wins'' at what. We all make our choices and should be free to enjoy them. Still people compare UC2 to Reach, which is baffling. They are completely different and brilliant in there own ways, and even though I'm not a fan of Halo games, I'm sure they are great fun to those who enjoy them, and that's what it's all about when playing games, having fun with the games you enjoy.

  • CernaML #127 2 years ago

    MegaCadet, yeah I am pissed. When having bad days at work (every day), and getting screwed over by your cell phone company, taking it out on the internet just feels sooo good. :)

  • BitmapBrother #128 2 years ago

    @womble

    Aww, does the truth hurt? Also, shouldn't you be getting back to your hole in the ground before the sun comes up?

  • womble #129 2 years ago

    @BitmapBrother

    My GOTY last year was Uncharted 2. It is sublime.

    My GOTY this year, so far, is Halo Reach. Also sublime.

    Both are stellar games, both have nothing to do with each other.

    Each game has an entirely different rendering/scene technology, with vastly different abilities.

    Anyone seriously comparing the two doesn't know what they're talking about.

    So, run along troll.

  • HokutoNoKen #130 2 years ago

    EDGE review:

    [link url=http://www.next-gen.biz/features/halo-reach-review
    ]http://www.next-gen.biz/features/halo-re...[/link]

    9 / 10

    Gamereactor review:

    [link url=http://www.gamereactor.se/recensioner/24192/Halo%3A+Reach/?sid=437e1af523d69d6e4c9beb575d8888d9
    ]http://www.gamereactor.se/recensioner/24...[/link]

    10 / 10

    / Ken
    Edited by HokutoNoKen at 22/09/10 @ 18:50

  • Clover4ever #131 2 years ago

    In the article, you say the water shader is better...

    What about the water physics ? Isn't this a downgrade compared to Halo 3 ? It was a very nice feature imo.

  • NightAntilli #132 2 years ago

    @spad+fokker (#92) YES they are pre-rendered. They used the ingame engine, but they are videos. This allows them to hide the game loading to the next chapter and completes one long uninterupted game. And since they are pre-rendered, they can add a lot more detail in the scene than the engine could in real-time. Some of the cut-scenes are real-time, but most of them are videos... ND said so themselves.....

    Edit: Here's your evidence:

    [link url=http://www.gametrailers.com/video/behind-the-uncharted-2/58094
    ]http://www.gametrailers.com/video/behind...[/link]

    6:40-6:51: She says something like, the transition between the interactive moments and the PRE-RENDERED cut-scenes needed to be as seamless as possible..
    Edited by NightAntilli at 26/09/10 @ 13:22

  • Nebula #133 2 years ago

    N@ wrote: "The cutscenes in UC2 are video pulled from the disc, so are not real-time."

    The gran majority of cutscenes are pre-recorded with engine and higher IQ regarding Uncharted 2, that is correct. The developers themselves have stated this in interview(s) and videos have some compression artifacts visible aswell as per developer stated upped detail like disabled LOD switching, better lighting and skin shading etc. Though some minor/shorter ones are realtime but majority are videos.

  • malmer #134 2 years ago

    Still the texture work in Alexandria is horrible. Good tech doesn't save bad art. Way too much fake looking tree-panel. In general the texture work of Reach is really bad compared to other games on the same platform. And the SSAO-implementation is nothing but weird.

  • womble #135 2 years ago

    What games are you comparing texture quality to?

    Gears? Borderlands? Fallout?

    The texture quality of Reach is fantastic. Pick a building on the map. Run up to it, zoom in. It's amazing.

    It's also BIG, unlike most games. You can't seriously compare the scope of Reach to most games.

  • RKOwned #136 2 years ago

    looks really good. But im not sure if it looks better then its competitiors. Saying so means taht it looks better then Killzoen 2 and even UC 2, and thats simply not true I dont think.

  • TUROK1134 #137 2 years ago

    @spad+fokker Don't want to turn this into a console pissing contest, even though it already seems to be one, but you're wrong.


    [link url=http://www.psu.com/PSU-talks-Uncharted-with-Naughty-Dog-Co-Vice-President--a0001851-p1.php0
    ]http://www.psu.com/PSU-talks-Uncharted-w...[/link]

    Read the last paragraph of that interview.

  • starhope #138 2 years ago

    Halo Reach isn't a linear game, right ? That's why it is graphically inferior to Killzone2, Uncharted 2 or God Of War 3, right ?

    Question : What about Alan wake ? What about Gears of War 2/3 ? WHAT ABOUT ANY LINEAR 360 GAMES ? None of them reach the level of best PS3 exclusives

    Please, stop your stupid excuses... PS3 is just more powerful. Deal with it.

    End of the discussion...

  • ealva #139 2 years ago

    @starhope I think everybody agrees the PS3 is "more powerful" (I'd like to say it has "more potential";), but it's not as "powerful" as everybody else is making it out to be. It's not light-years ahead of the 360. If it is, we should have had UC2 in 1080p 60fps and 3D. The only advantage it has, imho, is teh Blu-Ray.

  • malmer #140 2 years ago

    @womble. It hasn't got anything to do with resolution and pixel quality. It has to do with the actual texture. It simply looks fake and repetitive. The tree panel texture is probably the worst. And Assassin's Creed has bigger scope than Halo but still manages to have textures that are good art. Resolution might be worse, not sure, but it looks better. And Killzone 2 many times has really low res textures but it doesn't matter, because they are nicely done. The whole of Alexandria is a mix of terrible aliasing, uninteresting lighting and bland texturework.

  • womble #141 2 years ago

    Alexandria is indeed boring. I've already said as such.

    But overall, it's a pretty amazing package, the moreso that it fits on to one DVD. (Unlike, say, ME2, grrrrrr).

    Look, anyone who is comparing this to Uncharted 2 or other linear games, doesn't know what they're talking about, and definitely do not know anything about game engines and rendering technology.

    Halo Reach is OUTSTANDING, visually, marred only by some ordinary design choices. Which are in the MINORITY.

    There is nothing else available on console like this. Nothing. The only thing that comes close to scope and variety is Resistance 2, and that's not very close.

  • MegaCadet #142 2 years ago

    @starhope

    What's your problem? No need to burst into fantard rage because an exclusive in the "competition" gets some praise for it's tech.

    If you actually looked at the specs of the X360 to the PS3. You would know that it's almost impossible to compare just exactly how big the difference is between. It depends on the game engine and how well optimised it is for the hardware. The PS3's Cell SPEs can be used to a great advantage, likewise the X360's superior GPU w/eDRAM set up is also a factor.

  • TheTrueSpin #143 1 year ago

    I have seen quite a few Halo Reach Tech Analysis articles and you really have got to give credit to Bungie for what they have accomplished. Halo Reach really is amazing, both technically and as a bloody good game.