Digital Foundry vs. Halo: Reach beta

By Richard Leadbetter Published 1 May, 2010

Performance analysis, latency tests and more with tons of video to pore over.

Page 1 of 3

On Thursday night UK time, Microsoft and Bungie began to distribute the first Xbox Live redeem codes for the long awaited Halo: Reach beta, and Digital Foundry was one of the first 300 to acquire access to the sampler.

You saw a selection of 40 screenshots taken in-game yesterday, and of course Eurogamer posted some of our most early video captures. 36 hours on, we're ready to present our first tech analysis based on hands-on gameplay.

In terms of the beta itself, currently we seem to be limited to eight-player action set over two different maps, featuring a range of team-based and lone-wolf game-types. First impressions are that this is indeed "Combat Evolved".

The Halo development team has taken the core strengths of what is a proven, hugely enjoyable multiplayer experience and built upon them, with greater degrees of player progression and customisation, along with specific loadouts that see the introduction of jetpacks and cloaking technology to name but two new innovations.

More detailed gameplay impressions will be forthcoming soon, but in the here and now Digital Foundry is more concerned with the brand new Halo: Reach engine that we have direct access to for the first time.

There was quite a lot of discussion in the comments section about the screenshots from the beta we posted yesterday, wondering if the game is 720p or not. Our contention is that it is indeed 720p in that there are 720 progressive lines of resolution. However, as per our analysis of the original alpha footage posted from Bungie's first ViDoc, horizontal resolution is slightly cut down, giving native rendering at 1152x720. Here's a couple of shots to look at.

'Digital Foundry vs. Halo: Reach beta' Screenshot res2
'Digital Foundry vs. Halo: Reach beta' Screenshot res1

Resolution tests in the beta code can be challenging owing to the inclusion of some kind of temporal anti-aliasing (right). However, the shot to the left gives us plenty of clean lines to analyse.

The first shows exactly the kind of clean edges we like to count pixels, and allows us to easily confirm the small reduction in horizontal resolution. But what's going on in the second shot? What should be offering up a range of easy-to-analyse edges proves to be more than challenging. Reach appears to be using an odd form of 2x temporal anti-aliasing. What this basically means is that two frames (generated with a slight time-shift) are blended together to form one image.

Different implementations of this technique have been seen in the PS3 version of Devil May Cry 4, and also in Metal Gear Solid 4: Guns of the Patriots. The upshot of this is that you get great edge-smoothing on static screens, but blending artifacts when in motion. Take a look at these shots:

'Digital Foundry vs. Halo: Reach beta' Screenshot badmotion1
'Digital Foundry vs. Halo: Reach beta' Screenshot badmotion2

Frame-blending can look disappointing in the Reach beta, particularly on the view weapon, with an off-putting ghosting effect. More than anything we hope this improves in the final game.

The view weapon is an ever-present focal point for the player, but as you can see, the frame-blending produces a remarkable effect that sees ghosting images appear prominently on the screen. We saw it in the beta footage posted in Bungie's second ViDoc and put that down to a poor downsampling of a 60FPS capture to the internet-standard 30FPS, but this is actually how the game looks, as the shots above demonstrate.

If there's one single complaint we have about the beta, this is it. The effect can look reminiscent of the ages old ghosting LCD problem - a technological era we don't really need reminding about!

Onto the performance element then. Halo: Reach shares much in common with its predecessor - it aims to maintain 30 frames per second, and for over 99 per cent of the time the engine maintains v-sync. Torn frames do crop up from time to time, but rarely appear in groups and pretty much always remain at the top of the screen, making them virtually unnoticeable. The way the engine drops frames when under stress does suggest v-sync, so the inclusion of any kind of tearing at all is something of a puzzle.

Here's a quick look at the Sword stage first of all, confirming the findings and exhibiting a performance profile very similar to what we've seen in our analysis of the developer diary footage we posted previously. For the vast majority of the time, the game seems to effortlessly maintain 30FPS, but during multiple explosions performance can be impacted.

Performance overall is pretty consistent at 30FPS. However, multiple explosions in open areas can impact frame-rate.

Onto the second analysis video, this time of the Powerhouse level. It's an interesting change from the previous stage: showing how the new engine copes with outdoor environments while incorporating a decent range of close-quarters indoors fighting. Here we see a far more even performance compared to the previous stage, with the engine rarely dipped below 30FPS. A possible explanation is that the most intense combat is occurring in more confined spaces, automatically culling unseen elements that could cause engine stress.

The outdoor Powerhouse level is visually more appealing and in our tests has fewer moments of stress for the Reach engine.

It's clear to see that in just about every regard Halo: Reach has seen substantial tech upgrades compared to the old Halo 3 engine. Strong points of the old tech do remain: Reach possesses an impressive implementation of HDR for example, so the series' trademark use of colour is still in effect.

Indeed, this has been boosted with the inclusion of more dynamic lights. So, for example, every single projectile fired by the Needler has its own light source. On top of that, we can see a lot of other new features and improvements that have been added to enhance the overall look.

Page 1 of 3

Comments (116) Latest comment 2 years ago

Comments threads automatically close after 30 days, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • JediMasterMalik #1 2 years ago

    I didn't realise ugly games warranted such deep analysis.

  • karooo #2 2 years ago

    That was pretty fast, I remember it took 2 weeks + for gow 3 analysis.

  • JediMasterMalik #3 2 years ago

    Yeah well, Bungie are gonna be making games for Sony too now. M$ suck too much to hold on to a developer even as shit as they are.

  • RedSparrows #4 2 years ago

    Jedi, you're a fool.

  • Lince #5 2 years ago

    to be honest the game doesn't look anywhere as demanding as other popular FPS if you take into account the somewhat low player count... at least from the footage released, 30 fps with framerate dips for average graphics, limited-scope maps and a bunch of players is so 2006.

  • DUFFKING #6 2 years ago

    I've always found the Halo games look way nicer when you're actually playing them.

    Bit like IW's CoD engines, which in my opinion have always looked a bit shitty in trailers and screenshots but much nicer when you play them.

    As for 'limited scope' maps, I suggest you try playing a Halo game at some point.
    Edited by 1 at 01/05/10 @ 12:58

  • duckncover #7 2 years ago

    I appreciate the upgrades in the engine, but if they don't up their game on the art front then I'm out. But at the moment that seems to be all it is, I hope there is more to it than that as I am not seeing it yet.

  • jag10 #8 2 years ago

    they should create the new game engine on another platform like Metro 2033 was. however if they're going to do that lets hope they actually release the game on that platform.

  • Lince #9 2 years ago

    @DUFFKING

    I guess playing MAG for so long makes everything else look small and limited, not just Halo, not that it makes a difference but I played Halo 2 and 3 for a long time, good games, lots of fun and hectic, just questioning the outdated tech of Halo Reach in 2010. Don't get too excited, just another opinion.

  • GamesConnoisseur #10 2 years ago

    Jedi you are a regular contributor and I do enjoy reading your comments, but this must rank as one of the most pointless and foolish trolling comment!

    The rationale of having DF taking apart Halo Reach is the same if they take apart Gods of War III, Killzone 2 etc, to see how the next iteration of the important or so called AAA title bears up to full scrunity. In terms of performance, visual, control lag and so on!

    Most reviews never really touch them and another good article from the squints, and looking forward to trying Halo Reach Beta and by the way I found Halo ODST too samey.

  • JediMasterMalik #11 2 years ago

    This is so boring. Where have all the Halo fanboys gone? Bastards have made me out to be a completely shit troll. I feel kinda depressed now. Thanks to teh9182, RedSparrows, DoctorShipman, and GC for not making it a complete waste though.

    On a serious, non-trolling note. I do think Halo Reach isn't up there with the big shooters when it comes to graphics, and the art design (of everything but the environments) needs rethinking, it's all too American style space marines for me. I never did understand the adoration Halo gets in the gaming community, but I can respect them as damn good games, if a bit samey.

    I'm also glad they're moving on to something new, I imagine working on nothing but Halo for so long got incredibly tiring.

    ! more thing, why did karoo get voted down so much? lol

  • des #12 2 years ago

    ^^
    zzzz

    Everything now looks...meh,release the game already!!!
    Save your strength for next-gen...
    Edited by 1 at 01/05/10 @ 13:28

  • stuarty_2003 #13 2 years ago

    Halo has always been more than the sum of its parts, regardless of how it can (in some places) be technically inferior to its counterparts.

  • GreyBeard #14 2 years ago

    Seems like Bungie have made solid, smart choices to keep performance and playability high in MP. The 10% drop in horizontal rez (and thus framebuffer size) shouldn't be too noticable.

  • Gambit1977 #15 2 years ago

    Why can't bungie with a team of 180 actually make a true 720p game? I don't think that halo is hugely pretty so I find this confusing. I'm aware that in single player the physics and ai are extremely well done, but can't imagine them affecting resolution as much as it does.

  • DUFFKING #16 2 years ago

    It was too easy to see what you were doing JMM, for it to have been realistic the posts would have needed to be 3 times longer.

    And about JRPGs.

    (:

  • VandelayIndustries #17 2 years ago

    Didn't help his cause by bragging about it in the forum thread either.

    Amateur :p
    Edited by 1 at 01/05/10 @ 14:42

  • Zappa #18 2 years ago

    Reach has the worst blur I have ever seen! The jaggies are very bad and the ghosting stuff looks laughable.It also looks very stale and sterile with no destruction + the maps are tiny when the hype was huge maps lol

  • JediMasterMalik #19 2 years ago

    Oh come on VI, don't mention that. Some front pagers might actually venture into the other side. We wouldn't want that now would we? :p

  • Jamiesan #20 2 years ago

    "Why can't bungie with a team of 180 actually make a true 720p game?"

    Its not about the size of the team, they are limited by the hardware. If a game is running at 1280x720, that's 921,600 pixels. All of them need to be textured, lit, and a bunch of other stuff which requires the image to be copied into memory uncompressed. Halo games have always had better lighting than most games, which probably increases the amount of data per pixel (I think this was the reason given for Halo 3 being sub-HD). Shaving off a few pixels could probably be the difference between Reach running at a nice smooth 30fps and stuttering all over the place. I'm 100% sure that if Bungie could get the game running at 1280x720, they would.
    Also bear in mind, the game looks better than Halo 3, and is also at a higher resolution, so they haven't done badly at all.

  • RodHull #21 2 years ago

    Let's try and remember that Reach is in beta stages. Halo 3 was far prettier at release than at its beta iteration.

  • Yossarian #22 2 years ago

    Yes, there is more to come in the beta: Arena unlocks on Monday, Invasion on new map Boneyard on Friday, Network Test 1 ("Generator Defense";) on new map Overlook the week after that.

  • azix2 #23 2 years ago

    Knew something was off. The game seemed to have some retarded motion blur going on. I really don't get how ppl aren't complaining about it as it can make a sensitive person pretty sick. Anyway, nice try bungie but you need better hardware

  • Badassbab #24 2 years ago

    A pretty lengthy analysis for a 2 map beta but then again this is Halo we are talking about. I can't wait to play the full game.

  • Yossarian #25 2 years ago

    It's a four map beta.

  • Dizzy #26 2 years ago

    The real beta next week will have more maps and playmodes btw.

  • Zappa #27 2 years ago

    @Dizzy

    whats your point? that wont fix sub hd and jagfest.

  • SpaceViking #28 2 years ago

    @Gambit1977 & Jamiesan

    The reason Halo 3 wasn't a 720p game was because Bungie wanted to include some fancy HDR effects in the game. To get this effect they have to render two frames and then combine them together in to one before they send it to your screen. So Halo 3 was actually rendering 1152x640 twice. That means they were rendering 1,474,560 pixels, compared to 921,600 for a normal 720p game. I think Halo:Reach does the same thing so that would be1152x720x2= 1,658,880 pixels.

    I think it's impressive but I would prefer a full 720p game with 2xMSAA instead of the HDR effects.
    Edited by 1 at 01/05/10 @ 15:40

  • Phinor #29 2 years ago

    Low resolution, low fps, no lighting, no shadows, no anti-aliasing and poor textures. That's all I got from the screenshots. But I guess I'm one of them PC retards :) Still, split-screen is always split-screen and that's a huge plus in my books. And it's not about graphics anyway, it's all about gameplay. 100ms latency for input still seems like an awful long time - I remember one of my monitors having up to 50-60ms input lag on it and it was completely useless for gaming but I guess that's slightly different case of input lag.

  • CaptainQuint #30 2 years ago

    I think JediMasterMalik shoots his spunk into his own mouth whilst thinking "Mmmm".

    If he doesn't, he wishes he could.

  • lockload #31 2 years ago

    Phinor, explain to me how a game can have no lighting you moron

  • DoctorFouad #32 2 years ago

    so :

    1- a sub HD game (but not as sub hd as halo 3 was, with reach its almost full 720p 1152*720 instead of 1280*720, this is a great evolution !)

    2- No anti aliasing (only in some scenes 2x anti aliasing) this is very disappointing

    3- better texture filtering

    4- motion blur (per object + camera)

    5- better lighting

    6- better controller response and less lag

    all this is a great evolution over HAlo3, but not as an evolution as in between uncharted 1 vs 2, or resistance 1 vs 2, or motor strome 1 vs 2...etc suggesting a not so evolutive 360 hardware compared to ps3....I think Playstation hardware reliance on CPU power vs GPU power gave it great evolution in oerformance etween different generation of titles...as opposed to nintendo, microsoft....I like this approach...lets see uncharted 3, resistance 3, motorstorm 3,...

    I hope Alan Wake will be be a huge evolution in technology over previous xbox360 titles...

  • Guitarnerd87 #33 2 years ago

    @DoctorFouad

    Did you type that with your nose?

  • azix2 #34 2 years ago

    If you call someone a fanboy and they aren't... that makes you a fanboy. If you feel so strongly about something to call someone a fanboy... you might just well be a fanboy anyway. If you have to rate anyone with a negative comment about the game down... fanboy again. Goose calling the kettle fat O_o

  • Geordiemp #35 2 years ago

    Remember its a multiplayer, so comparing it to SP only games is not relevent - remember how many single player game said they could not do coop because of the performance hit.

    For a multiplayer, and a beta, its up there and you could only push uncharted 2 as an argument technically.

    Almost 720 P with mutiplayer, probably laps maps, HDR, Motion blur - sounds good. Hope the coop is good..and with system link

  • CaptainQuint #36 2 years ago

    "If you call someone a fanboy and they aren't... that makes you a fanboy."

    Let me write that down. Best logic ever.

    :-|

  • Badassbab #37 2 years ago

    Doctor Fouad-

    The jump between UC1 & 2 isn't that great as the first game looked great to begin with.The biggest jump between them was the screen tearing which was greatly improved in U2. R1&2 are hardly graphical masterpieces to compare and nor is the jump between the Motorstorm games as great as you say.

    Why not compare other games if your going to do that like Call of Duty, Gears, Lost Planet, Dead Rising, Just Cause, etc etc? They had improved graphics compared to their predecessors and all on 360. Reach is still an improvement and looks great. Also something 360 games don't have to put up with is QAA like a lot of PS3 games. It's horrid.
    Edited by 1 at 01/05/10 @ 17:51

  • Zappa #38 2 years ago

    @teh9182

    MAG 256 multiplayer runs 720p 2xAA, REACH is sub hd and a jagfest!!

  • El-Dev #39 2 years ago

    Looks to be shaping up nicely, will most likely be my first Halo purchase.

  • BlinxHDD #40 2 years ago

    Still looks mega-jag to me, really spoils the overall image quality.

  • BuckEntropy #41 2 years ago

    I'm perpetually amazed at the importance so many people give, to a checklist of the technical elements a game is or isn't doing... until one of those elements is missing from a showpiece of 'their' console, and then of course it doesn't matter and DF don't what they're talking about!

    But some of these results are interesting, as Bungie once more seems to be making a statement that HDR is more important to them than AA. Which is cool, they have a vision for their game, and it obviously doesn't gel with a lot of people, but I give em props for sticking to their guns.

  • CaptainQuint #42 2 years ago

    @DoctorFouad

    You forgot to throw in the huge potential of a vast sandbox campaign playground - ripe for experimentation, exploration and exploitation. Massive and [properly] advanced AI driven battle dynamics; NOT the small and heavily scripted whack-a-mole rail shooting of a game like MW2 and yes... Resistance 2.

    Lol, I can't believe you mentioned that wholly average game in the same breath as the word "evolution". Lol.

    The assets I've mentioned above in regard to Reach don't come cheap on the resources front, you know? Hmm let me see, large Sandbox dynamic gameplay vs. heavily scripted 720p resolution and full AA? Interesting trade off is it? Not in my mind it ain't: I'll take the former over the latter EVERY time thank you very much. Besides, Reach looks more than sweet enough, to this discerning eye.

    Gameplay my friend, it's all about the gameplay. I can only assume nobody has ever told that.

    I mean come on man, I'm a PS3 gamer and I love Uncharted 2 as much as the next guy; but to bring Resistance 2 into this debate is like bringing a knife to a gunfight. Tut tut.

  • onyxbox #43 2 years ago

    almost got ODST (for this) today but then I realised it probably is Halo 2 all over again... and as the article points out; games like BFBC2 have moved MP on by introducing bigger battles, destruction etc. and managed to deliver on the visuals.


  • Zappa #44 2 years ago

    But Reach looks like arse and runs sub hd and jaggy. And lol comparing 2008 MGS to a 2010 game.

  • DoctorFouad #45 2 years ago

    @ CaptainQuint :

    thanks for your comment,

    It is digital foundary, about technology not gameplay or story...for gameplay and story there are other sections in this web site...

    I bring resistance 2 to the table for a very simple reason : a huge improvement in technology between resistance 1 and 2 :
    1- streaming engine with no loading vs loading and no streaming engine for resistance 1 (thats what I hate about MGS4)
    2- normal mapped characters + a lot of bump mapping vs no normal mapping in resistance 1, thats a huge jump in texture quality allowed by the streaming engine

    I cant think of a game that made a huge technological leap over its predecessor on the same console than resistance 2...thats far greater improvement in technology compared to gears 1 (it was for me the first real next gen game, unbelievable experience at its time !) vs gears 2, or assasins creed 1 (i love this game !) vs 2 or halo reach vs halo3...etc

    it was the same thing for xbox 1, if you compare halo 1 ( a launch tilte) vs halo 2, and than you compare a launch ps2 title vs God of war...WOW ! than you will see what I mean by the evolutive playstation hardware due to the reliance on the CPU programmable to the metal power vs the GPU power....I expect resistance 3 this year to surprise everyone and to be a huge leap forward technologically compared to resistance 2...

    As for AI, I dont thing an FPS game that has better AI than Killzone 2 on ps3 (if you play on hard)...technically speaking killzone 2 is head and shoulders above halo 3...thats the result of a powerful CPU approch of ken kutaragi since the days of PS1...

    But well, if we are talking gameplay, story, level design, art...etc, I dont think anyone could beat mass effect this eneration...mass effect is my favorite next gen video game till today (I didnt have the time yet to play mass effect 2)

  • edhe #46 2 years ago

    Woo, really happy to hear they've upped the resolution from halo3, upped the poly count by about 4x, increased the map size, increased the texture detail, improved the damage alert mexgqnism, decreased any controller latency, improved the dynamic lighting, added a tranche of new multiplayer features *and kept* the fps, kept the split screen, kept the solid gameplay and the save game features.

    Any idiot that compares this to a single player experience with dumb ai and linear map progression is blatantly empty in the pants.

  • Beano #47 2 years ago

    Based on the screens and movies, Reach looks very promising and I expect campaign graphics to be even better. Doesn't look like a Uncharted 2/Killzone 2/GOW3/Gears 2/etc.-killer graphicswise (so far), but a big improvement over the dissapointing Halo 3.

  • Dizzy #48 2 years ago

    Oh dear. Where is my ignore list when you need it. I think about 10 Trolls that I have not seen for years have appeared again. Why????

  • bladdard #49 2 years ago

    I've visited this thread because:

    A) I own an Xbox and I'm genuinely interested in this game.

    B) I have a genuine interest in all video formats, I don't own a 360 but I still like to peer over the fence to see what the neighbours are up to. Maybe one day I might have the resources to own another console and have the best of all worlds.

    C) I'm a stealth troll, I won't buy Halo Reach and I don't own a 360 but I'm pleased it isn't the best looking game in the world and I can now point out its inadequacies without directly insulting the xbox or xbox fan boys but I'll still get right up their noses.

    D) I'm a 360 zealot and I'd like to point laugh in the face of PS3 owners with their boring games a life without Halo.

    E) I just wanted to be the ultimate cunt and type "Halol".

    F) I'm bored as fuck have too much time on my hands so I created a pointless list. I should probably get a life!

    Add your own reason below.
    Edited by 1 at 01/05/10 @ 21:36

  • CaptainQuint #50 2 years ago

    BECAUSE YOU'RE ALL INDIVIDUALS!








    I'm not.

  • BuckEntropy #51 2 years ago


    G) Every possible pro and con of the Halo franchise has been iterated umpteen times, and no thinking is required to denigrate or defend it. And I'm just that lazy and unimaginitive.

  • busboy33 #52 2 years ago

    What happened to the ignore option?

    Why are all these obnoxious twats back on my screen?

  • Beano #53 2 years ago

    H) What I say is fact and you must agree 100% - otherwise you are a PS3 fanboy!!!

  • Darren #54 2 years ago

    Looks alright but it's definitely not a game I'd ever describe as "pretty" based on those screenshots and videos. That said, it looks good enough for a 2010 game and runs smoothly which is perhaps more important but isn't really pushing the boat out technically IMO. The jaggies are still very much evident too I see.

  • E2K #55 2 years ago

    Digital Foundry should make an article on how Halo3: Reach would look on PS3.
    I will help them a little bit:


    "Bungie has ported Reach to the PS3 in a mere 6 months, less than FFXIII took to convert to the 360. What has changed?:
    -Full 720p Graphics
    -60FPS
    -Full HDR light rendering (noa32)
    -Added MLAA
    -3d support, although this reduces the resolution to 1200*720p, and also the framerate becomes 30FPS
    -PS Move support, metroid3-controls
    -Uncompressed sound
    -Better textures
    -Full making-off included on the blu-ray
    -better object based motion blur

    These improvements might look significant, but in reality they are not. DF prefers the 360 controller and we think that this is the way to play the game. Nobody uses 3d and the glasses are too expensive. Also, had bungie been given an addition 6 months, it's possible that the 360 version exceeded the PS3 version because of the EDRAM and the superior Xenos GPU. It is a shame however that the 360 version turned out to be so poor because the 360 really is a better system in our opinion because it has a more flexible setup and a tesselation unit"

  • KayJay #56 2 years ago

    Who would have thought the third comment would come from a Microsoft fanboy?
    ;-)

  • gnrlstuart #57 2 years ago

    of mediocre gameplay blah blah blah...

    looking forward to this alot.

  • davisorle #58 2 years ago

    @JediMasterMalik

    I think I remember you for making always some of the most stupid comments ever in EG. I mean love your PS3 but dont comment on shit you have no fucking clue about. Ignorance isnt a bliss. Thats a propaganda made for tards like you to make themselves feel better aka "size doesn't matter" etc. Sorry to tell you this but it does matter.

    On topic: I wish Bungie had done this improvement since Halo 3 cause it deserved it. It's not like it's too late but it is kinda late even though I'm still up for Reach and can't wait for it. Looks good and will surely play even better like all Halo games did. ( What sucks the most is that every time Halo/Bungie comes out I think of their 10year contract with Acti and puts me off :S )

  • flanker22 #59 2 years ago

    ^ why do ppl like this exist :/

  • Kestana #60 2 years ago

    Let those PS3 fanboys (who may own or not own an Xbox 360. I'm inclined towards the latter as they wouldn't wanna make themselves feel bad with their purchase of the rival console) troll about Halo: Reach. It makes me feel good about my Xbox 360 purchase.
    Edited by 2 at 02/05/10 @ 14:36

  • BuckEntropy #61 2 years ago

    @E2K

    OK, I know alanwakemakesmep there is just a joke, but are YOU for real?

    You're the kid who grouped Reach, Alan Wake and SC Conviction together with games that aren't doing alpha blending but "A2C all the way". (on the FFXIII thread) I know I'm almost certainly wasting my time, one way or the other, but just in case you do care... be clear that your own credibility stands at zero with crap like that.

    -

    To the rest: there's a game you all need to play. It's on XBLA and it's called Perfect Dark.

    It runs at 1080p, 60fps, and with 4x MSAA even. And while I have to admit it didn't seem all that impressive to me at first... since it seems specs like that are nearly everything that really matters, I now understand it MUST be the best looking console game in existence.
    Edited by 1 at 02/05/10 @ 09:20

  • thenastypasty #62 2 years ago

    When are the mods going to do something about the blatant trolling in this thread.

    I mean if you don't like Halo then fine,if you have issues with something in the game then why not say something constructive instead of turning it into another PS3 Xbox fanboy war.

    Also what has happen to the ignore button?It would have got plenty of use off me today.
    Edited by 1 at 02/05/10 @ 10:48

  • E2K #63 2 years ago

    It's sad that DF is focussing on such a mediocre looking game.

    This game should be compared to Haze, not KZ2!

  • CaptainQuint #64 2 years ago

    @alanwake

    I realise that you're just taking the piss, but c'mon man, you're using the wrong game in your comparison, meaning the joke has a great big glass jaw - yes Killzone 2 looked INCREDIBLE; but gameplay-wise it was DULL AS FUCKIN' DISHWATER. Graphical advances? Well I wished they'd remembered to update the damn playability and design as well, because I was bored to friggin' tears by that medieval game. Yes I played it to the end, but only because I'd paid top dollar for it; but luckily I was able to get decent trade price for it, so it wasn't all bad.

    Killzone 2 was a dull, dull game. Halo had nothing to worry about, funnily enough.

  • Cheddar99 #65 2 years ago

    Some of the comments here actually make me embarrassed to own a ps3... And why would you bring MAG into an argument about graphics? That game was hideous looking.

  • mcmonkeyplc #66 2 years ago

    Amusing

  • captainrentboy #67 2 years ago

    Bloody hell, reading through these comments makes me realise why gaming is still viewed as such a geeky, bit sad, hobby. The shit a lot of you come out with is so friggin tedious to read and has been written down before soooo many times on these comments sections, there's barely an original statement to be read anywhere. But it'll never ever stop, so I shouldn't complain :)
    Personally I can't wait to get on this tomorrow, I think it looks just fine and the new game modes and loadout system seems like it'll change it all just enough not to be Halo 3 all over again. Weirdly I put more hours into Halo 3's beta than I did the full game.

  • Badassbab #68 2 years ago

    Captainrentboy-

    Couldn't agree more. Fanboys are so embarassing. They should hang their head in shame. They must be in their teens or less.

  • iter #69 2 years ago

    If less pixels + more effects results in a better overall image, what's the issue?

  • Beano #70 2 years ago

    As a PS3 fan, is it ok to think Halo Reach looks very promising?

  • Kestana #71 2 years ago

    @ thenastypasty

    Why should the mods do anything?

    Doing nothing makes it easier to separate the console war extremists from the reasonable people.

    @ android

    Please don't tease me. I've been waiting for Gran Turismo 5 for half a decade...2011... it's unacceptable! We're all dead by 2012. Please don't tell me I only have 1 year to play the game that's considered Jesus. *sobs* But seriously, I really look forward to GT5. But I can't stand "fellow fans" who think all other driving games are crap at everything compared to GT. And lastly, no, it's not an excellent racing game at all. But it's a damn excellent driving game.

    @ Beano

    Each one to his own. I personally don't fancy Halo as the art style is pretty bland. I'm a firm believer that no matter how much polygons your game can push, it's nothing without good art direction. On another note, I'd like to learn more about the Halo universe through this game. So yes, I'm looking forward to this. But not as much as I look forward to Test Drive Unlimited 2, Gran Turismo 5 and Fable 3.

    Also, we should stop entertaining the fanboys. Apparently they'd rather trust some numbers than their eyes. Hell, I bet if we splashed some ammonia in their eyes and told them Fat Princess was 1080p and 16x AA they'd believe it looks better than Uncharted 2.
    Edited by 4 at 02/05/10 @ 14:54

  • malmer #72 2 years ago

    (Ignoring fanboy discussion above. The rest of you: Please do the same)

    Not much of a multiplayer guy, but this looks pretty nice. Only problem I have is that the characters pop out a little too much from the background. But that is usually the case in all multiplayer games. A big step up from Halo 3 in any case and it looks to be on par with most games nowdays. Not a benchmark so far, but the little they shown of the campaign looks really nice. MP usually looks a bit artificial due to the non-progressive and repeditive nature of it.

    Really looking forward to the single player campaign! Hopefully it is the same length as the previous halo games.
    Edited by 1 at 02/05/10 @ 14:57

  • CaptainQuint #73 2 years ago

    Indeed, I think I'm one of the few who looks forward more to the campaign of these games, even more than the illustrious multiplayer aspect.

  • VandelayIndustries #74 2 years ago

    @Cheddar99 - It's for the wind up. Ignore and carry on :D
    @JMM - point taken /o\

    So does anybody want to talk about Reach? I quite looking forward to playing it tomorrow.

    Edited by 1 at 02/05/10 @ 17:26

  • irrelevanthuman #75 2 years ago

    @Vandelay
    I am very excited about playing the beta tomorrow,what a great bank holiday bonus!

  • VandelayIndustries #76 2 years ago

    Never been able to get into the previous Halo MPs (generally play them for the SP), hoping this beta will change that.

  • E2K #77 2 years ago

    The realtime gameplay of Killzone 2 looks much closer to the first trailer than Halo3:reach compared to it's original reveal trailer.

    Every 360 fanboy, including DF, conveniently seems to forget how good the original reach trailer looked. We all know it was pre-rendered, but still. It almost looked as good as realtime killzone2. Almost. The bungie CGI-department has some real skill I tell you.

    The realtime-department? Well, look for yourself, the beta is out :'D

  • Geordiemp #78 2 years ago

    teh9182 you not bought a PS3 yet ? Calm down.

    Halo is a good game, its more about big maps and vehicles.

    Everyone cheats with bullshots and showing cut scenes, whats new ?

    Killzone 2 should of had a decent coop then I would have ranked it better. SP was a bit too scriped.
    Edited by 2 at 02/05/10 @ 20:08

  • malmer #79 2 years ago

    I actually thought this looks very much like the teaser cut-scene. The difference is that it was a cut-scene so they had depth of field and shots and framings that look cinematic, as opposed to a fps view of frantic a MP match.

    I would not be surprised if in the actual game that exact cutscene is featured looking the same. Cut scenes always look better than the gameplay. Not just because they might raise some effects, but also due to simple things like the above mentioned framing.

    Some games also "cheat" a little bit with the cutscenes and play a movie that looks like it is rendered in engine, but with textures and effects cranked up a little bit. This is more common on the PS3 due to blu-ray. So instead of having a loadscreen for the cutscene and then one more loadscreen afterwards the games just play a movie while loading the next level in the background. Prime example of all of this is Uncharted 2. Not for all cutscenes, but for the big really impressive ones. But nothing wrong with that. It was an amazing way of keeping the entire game loadscreen free while playing (unless you died). And no-one can blame Uncharted 2 for looking bad in-game. It just looked a little better in the cut-scenes, even the real-time ones. Why? Framing! (Then that ice-level blew my socks off!).

  • BuckEntropy #80 2 years ago

    @Again with the BS E2K?

    Are you seriously comparing the KZ2 E3 teaser, which was nothing but a pre-render made before there even were any in-game assets for the game... to the Reach announce? Halo's cinemas always look better than the campaign, and the campaign always looks better than the multiplayer anyway. So either you don't know anything, or you're just content to spam bad faith garbage, either way your credibility still stands at zero. Or I dunno, maybe that's not low enough for you yet?

    -

    I can understand a lot of people not liking Halo's art style, but at times I wonder if it's getting criticism just for having an art style. At least it stands apart from the 'innocuously realistic' norm right now. But the really big problem with all other subjective comparisons, is that Halo's priorities are distinct.

    Versatility and consistency of performance > Scale > Lighting > FX > Detail

    I think that's pretty close, those have been the priorities of nearly every Halo game. So if another game's priority is detail, it can easily look "better" than Halo, if that's what someone's looking for.

    I'll be there tomorrow, but I'm actually another one who's always enjoyed the campaign more than multiplayer too. I'm just not hard core enough in the end I guess. :/

  • Douche #81 2 years ago

    It looks a lot of fun. Which is most important.
    Edited by 1 at 04/05/10 @ 07:52

  • tnt_2008smum #82 2 years ago

    ^^^^^^

    Oh my God is this really happening!!!!!

  • azix2 #83 2 years ago

    @teh who said

    "If you call someone a fanboy and they aren't... that makes you a fanboy."

    Brilliant. Let's extend this to other things: -

    If you call someone a racist and they aren't... that makes you a racist.
    If you call someone fat and they aren't... that makes you fat.
    If you call someone Dave and that's not their name... that makes your name Dave.

    Yes, by giving some further examples we can see that your logic is indeed impeccable. lol.

    Well you are a smart one. I said fanboy, not dave, racist or fat. I didn't say it applied to all things. What I am saying is if you think someone is a fanboy for a certain comment and they aren't, you might well be the fanboy for feeling so strongly about an unbiased statement. An example that could be similar is calling someone a pervert for saying something when they weren't being perverted at all. You would be the pervert for seeing their statement in a perverted way. If you wish to extend it to other things without moderation then go ahead, just don't blame me.
    Edited by 2 at 03/05/10 @ 00:58

  • womble #84 2 years ago

    I was lucky enough to score a beta code from the bungie.net page.

    It's GREAT fun. Anyone who says differently, well they probably haven't played it.

    And the visuals, well, they're a bit of a mixed bag. The Power House map looks fantastic. As good as ANY game this generation. It blows Killzone 2 away in terms of variety, lighting, scale, etc.

    The Sword Base map, however, is a mess in most every regard. It's a collection of bad decisions.

    The new selective AA system works VERY well with naturalistic scenes; all the outdoor stuff, and grungy corridors and the like. It doesn't work as well with IKEA maps like Sword Base.

    This game is SMOOTH. I play on a projector screen at 720p and over two days I haven't seen a single torn frame. Not one. Also, I haven't noticed any frame drops; it's always been consistent regardless of the action.

    Above all, it's a good game. It has a variety and scope that is simply missing from KZ2, Gears 2 and all the rest.

    Thanks for the article DF.

  • Retroid #85 2 years ago

    God's sake. It's like being back at school with arguments about Spectrums & C64s.

    Tribal idiots really make me despair.

  • E2K #86 2 years ago

    Halo3:reach looks NOTHING like the original trailer as of now.
    Play it for 30 seconds and you immediately see it.

    Things that are different:

    -resolution
    -texture filtering
    -textures
    -anti-aliasing
    -lighting
    -shadows
    -geometry

    100% bullshot for every.single.frame. of the reveal trailer.

    other worthy mentions:
    [link url=http://burn360.net/wp-content/uploads/200 9/12/Bungie_REACH_1280x720.jpg
    ]http://bu rn360.net/wp-content/uploads/20...[/link]
    http://ww w.gamingtarget.com/images/media...

  • Badassbab #87 2 years ago

    alanwake 540p-

    What a stupid username. How old are you?

    Ninja Gainden 2 on PS3 sacrificed high resolution alpha effects and number of enimies on screen @ 720p.
    Tomb Raider was significantly jerkier than the 360 version.
    FFXIII was a crap port. Like a lot of PS3 ports in fact.

    Is that it?

    360 also upscales all it's games.

  • ocmerius #88 2 years ago

    @E2K are you really that dumb?

    the trailer is a cutscene from the SP and you are comparing that to the MP. Offcourse they're not the same. There are almost no games where the cutscenes are exactly the same as the MP.

    @Retroid
    Where did the ignore button go? I've never used it before because I like a good laugh, but at this point reading this thread just brings my hopes for humanity down.

  • BlinxHDD #89 2 years ago

    Those Microsoft PR bullshots have immaculate image quality. Compare that to 1152x720 with an AA solution that's ineffective most of the time and gamers have every right to be disappointed.

  • Retroid #90 2 years ago

    ocmerius: "@Retroid
    Where did the ignore button go? I've never used it before because I like a good laugh, but at this point reading this thread just brings my hopes for humanity down."

    Don't know! There's been some twiddling on the site code and some things seem to be missing - the Post Comment button is invisible for me for a start! I'm also surprised my nick has a big "MODERATOR" tag next to it in comments but a simple "MOD" in he forums. Gah.

    I'll raise the missing Ignore with the code monkeys :)

  • chessboxer #91 2 years ago

    @ teh9182

    Tomb Raider: Underworld is 576p on the 360. They used a different engine on the PS3 version which runs at 720p, making it look much closer to the PC version. The 360 version had a more consistent framerate, helped by the lower resolution.

    @ alanwake540p

    Your source of information is crap at best. The 360 does have native 1080p games, around 10 of them. Not a lot compared to the PS3 (which has well over 40) but they do exist.

    Also SuperStardust HD isn't native 1080p. It runs natively at 1280x1080p, but it is an impressive game as it can display over 10,000 active objects with individual physics and collision calculations on screen at once and all at 60fps.

  • chessboxer #92 2 years ago

    @ malmer

    "Some games also "cheat" a little bit with the cutscenes and play a movie that looks like it is rendered in engine, but with textures and effects cranked up a little bit. This is more common on the PS3 due to blu-ray."

    Sorry but that is bollocks. Most of the games on the PS3 are multiplatform and also appear on the 360. If the games had pre-rendered cutscenes, they would be pre-rendered for both versions. I can only think of 2 (multiplatform) games from the face-offs which have used the BD capacity to include higher resolution cutscenes (FFXIII and Darksiders), but pre-rendered cutscenes have been used for many years on every gaming platform and their game medium, whether it be catridge, CD or DVD. It's not something that has magically appeared on the PS3 now it's using Blu-ray.

    It's harder to find a great looking game that doesn't use any kind of pre-rendered cutscenes. On the PS3, the cutscenes in Killzone 2 are generated in real time (apart from the into movie that lands you on the "beach";) and God Of War 3 is generated in real time with the in-game engine from start to finish.

    I can't comment on 360 exclusives (as I don't own one), but what about the non PS3 multiplatforms like Metro 2033? That is supposed to be the best looking game on the 360. Does that use pre-rendered cutscenes? Are the cutscenes in L4D 1 & 2 not pre-rendered on the 360?

  • ronuds #93 2 years ago

    And the world calls us Halotards?

  • Retroid #94 2 years ago

    The two main platforms this generation are the closest they've ever been (C64 v Spectrum, Amiga v Atari ST, NES v SMS, Megadrive v SNES, Saturn v Playstation, Xbox v Playstation 2), I would've hoped a smaller difference in tech would reduce the daft fighting but it seems its intensified instead.

    :(

  • Retroid #95 2 years ago

    @chessboxer: Can't comment on Metro2033 being the 'best-looking' 360 game as I don't own it, but I've heard it looks pretty enough.

    With Left 4 Dead 2 the only pre-rendered video is the intro video / trailer, everything else is in-engine. L4D 1/2 don't really have cutscenes anyway, just bits of dialogue between the characters.

    For what it's worth, I've never thought the Halo games (apart from Halo 2 for its time) were amongst the best looking games out there, but they've been serviceable at least.
    Edited by 1 at 03/05/10 @ 16:04

  • E2K #96 2 years ago

    The two main platforms this generation are the closest they've ever been (C64 v Spectrum, Amiga v Atari ST, NES v SMS, Megadrive v SNES, Saturn v Playstation, Xbox v Playstation 2), I would've hoped a smaller difference in tech would reduce the daft fighting but it seems its intensified instead.

    :(

    Not true.
    Yes, the multi-platform games are the closest they ever been.
    The exclusives however, could not have been more far apart, some examples:

    Halo vs KZ2
    Forza vs GT
    Uncharted vs Gears
    GOW3 vs ......

    That is not to say 360 games don't look good. But saying the 360 and PS3 are very close on a technical level is just bullshit. Everyone who has ever seen a true PS3 exclusive knows that.

  • Retroid #97 2 years ago

    E2K: "But saying the 360 and PS3 are very close on a technical level is just bullshit. Everyone who has ever seen a true PS3 exclusive knows that."

    I have, I own most of the games you mention. They all look good in their own ways. I couldn't pick one format over the other, I simply couldn't.

  • ronuds #98 2 years ago

    @ E2k

    Now you're talking bullshit. If we're saying PS3 exclusives are better looking, it's only marginally so. But, most PS3 exclusives are also smaller in scope.

    Comparing Halos looks to KZ2s is ridiculous. KZ2 is much smaller in scope than Halo... there aren't 40 enemies on screen at once in KZ2. There's, like, 10 at most... give or take. That kind of thing makes a big difference. You can't just look at one aspect of a game and say, "well that makes it better" - a lot of things running behind just what you see which all affect everything else.

    You should read up on things and get a clue before you start talking about them like you're some authority.

  • CaptainQuint #99 2 years ago

    The best looking game I've ever played is Uncharted 2. The visuals just blew me away. With that said, if Naughty Dog chose the sandbox route with their game, I strongly suspect the impact on the graphics would've been substantial - in that they simply wouldn't be as good.

    The bigger the play space (a là Halo) the lesser the visual fidelity: currently that is FACT, for the consoles and lower spec pcs. I dunno, I quite like a large playground to try out different shit, so if that means a visual quality trade-off, I can happily live with it.

    Oh and I thought the visuals of Metro 2033 were slightly overrated. Some of it was stunning, but some of it was rather generic - I saw realistically gritty hallways and corridors years ago, in Half Life 2.

  • ronuds #100 2 years ago

    Not only do bigger playspaces make a visual impact, but many other factors as well. Graphics are only one small piece of a much larger puzzle.

    Plus, Sony has a much larger stake in the "looks" department this generation, so they have incentive to opt for graphics over gameplay or large scope. If you remember, MS wasn't the one telling their customers that the PS3 was some uber-powerful machine before the gen began.

  • E2K #101 2 years ago

    " KZ2 is much smaller in scope than Halo... there aren't 40 enemies on screen at once in KZ2. There's, like, 10 at most... give or take. That kind of thing makes a big difference."

    Come on now, never in your life did you play KZ2 if you sprout such bullshit.
    Killzone has a 32 player online mode, this is 32 players, simultaneous, at the same time, in the same map. More than halo will ever have this generation. No lag. No slowdown.

    You could argue that Halo has a 4 player splitscreen co-op mode, but looking at halo's graphics, I am sure that when you tone the detail down to the same level, the Killzone 2 engine would easily be able to handle 7 player splitscreen co-op mode, while still rendering at a true HD resolution, not this 1000*500 halo bullshit. This is because of PS3's controller number limitation, else it would be 8 player co-op.

    Halo is not epic in scope, it just has big, sterile, empty environments. Devoid of any detail. Any engine or platform could handle that, as Halo games never at 1 point have had a big polygon count or a large number of players at the same time. The Halo3:reach expansion disc is no different. It only has 50 extra pixels, more blur effects and blur-AA compared to Halo3. Again, this game deserves a DF article as much as Haze..
    Edited by 1 at 03/05/10 @ 18:07

  • Retroid #102 2 years ago

    E2K: "I am sure that when you tone the detail down to the same level, the Killzone 2 engine would easily be able to handle 7 player splitscreen co-op mode, while still rendering at a true HD resolution"

    If that was true it rather makes you wonder why there isn't a co-op for even two players in that game.

  • ronuds #103 2 years ago

    @ E2K

    Yep... whatever. Let us know when you're not a troll and have a clue what you're talking about.

  • ckyman2 #104 2 years ago

    sorry just had to comment, i own metro 2033 and thought the visuals were amazing...but... after playing it in HD3D on my mates pc the other week.... well lets just say i feel a little cheated :(...as for halo reach lets play the beta were getting the chance to make this best one yet, so lets stick to them and not the guys and dolls and eurogamer - http://www.bungie.net/

  • Badassbab #105 2 years ago

    Ok played the beta and can say it's great for Halo fans, if you don't like Halo games this won't convert you. As for the graphics, not a massive improvement over Halo 3 but I guess the campaign will look a lot better and they still have 6 months of dev time left. As before the outdoor environments look much nicer than the indoor and yes it's typically Halo 'big' with large levels, massive buildings etc.

  • Dizzy #106 2 years ago

    "I am sure that when you tone the detail down to the same level, the Killzone 2 engine would easily be able to handle 7 player splitscreen co-op mode, while still rendering at a true HD resolution"

    I am sure if they added colour to KZ2 it would drop down to 320x200. :)

    /gets coat

  • BlinxHDD #107 2 years ago

    "MS wasn't the one telling their customers that the PS3 was some uber-powerful machine before the gen began."

    Microsoft were just telling their customers to expect at least 720p games with free 2xMSAA, 480p with free 4xMSAA....

  • Gecks #108 2 years ago

    "the Killzone 2 engine would easily be able to handle 7 player splitscreen co-op mode, while still rendering at a true HD resolution, not this 1000*500 halo bullshit. This is because of PS3's controller number limitation, else it would be 8 player co-op."

    why stop at 8 player splitscreen? I want a player for every pixel. THAT is the true power of ps3.

    I also want a biscuit for every comment i've read of yours today. I feel like i deserve it.
    Edited by 1 at 04/05/10 @ 03:14

  • Kestana #109 2 years ago

    LOL @ E2K

    There are things in console games that they'd like to make things transparent to its players. Like many of the players said, it's the scope.

    Did you really thing Uncharted 2 renders everything upclose as it does in the distance? Of course not! That's madness and exclusively "Crysis 1-only" tech. Uncharted 2 does have horrible draw distance. But. A big but. Does it seem like it? No. As much as possible, they would like to make such things transparent to its players. So they employ or cut down on things that are less perceivable to the player such as AI (less enemies onscreen mean less more CPU time) and streaming details + post-processing (rendering objects only near the player's line of sight and making it more realistic by implementing post-processing effects to obscure the distance, which in turn" hides" the lower poly objects being rendered from afar resulting in a blending of the visuals). But here's the thing, Uncharted 2 plays to the PS3's strength by employing a wide range of post-processing effects which are offloaded to the Cell's SPUs. The same can be said for KZ2, with the help of a unique color palette and art style (though Uncharted 2 is more technically impressive).

    For whatever reason, it seems like many of the Xbox 360 games (or rather, exclusives) choose to implement brute force in regards to graphics rendering. Instead of employing a vast number of post-processing effects to make the game more photorealistic, they go for other, less transparent ways of "showing off a console's prowess". i.e. Ninja Gaiden 2 for the PS3 renders considerably less opponents than the Xbox 360 version, which in my experience, actually decreases difficulty a ton.

    My knowledge regarding graphic hardware is rudimentary at best, but is it possible that PS3 games actually avoid going the brute force method because of RAM and bandwidth issues?

  • onyxbox #110 2 years ago

    I've seen it with my own eyes now... those shots were bullshots.

    Halo: Reach looks dated... and I am disappointed.

    Bungie set an expectation that they haven't met (again).

    :-/

  • darkmorgado #111 2 years ago

    The same can be said for KZ2, with the help of a unique color palette

    Wait, Killzone has a colour palette?

  • BuckEntropy #112 2 years ago

    Make a note of all the people who think a public BETA for the game mode with the last priority on visuals... is the final word on how good the game looks. Something tells me they may not think the same in other circumstances. *eye roll*

    I'm somewhat impressed, it's definitely a lot sharper looking than Halo 3. Though whatever extra detail and particles are there are pretty hard to notice when you're always just trying to avoid getting killed. It may as well be Halo 3 for the familiarity of the visual style, though it plays quite different. I like it, but it will take the campaign mode to really blow me away on the tech side I think.

  • Kestana #113 2 years ago

    @ bulkpack

    Halo is the iPod of console FPS games. No matter how much elitist audiophiles criticize the iPod (for the lack of FLAC support, "mediocre" sound quality or what not), the masses just keep coming back and back, and back. There must be something about the Halo formula that works. So why fix something that ain't broken? Then again, this is the video game industry (which also classifies as 'entertainment') and one thing's for sure: You can't please everyone. But you can please a wee big chunk of the market, and that's what counts.

  • BuckEntropy #114 2 years ago

    ^ The point being, Bungie has had the last laugh for 3 iterations now, and going by the beta numbers that wont end just yet. It'll be interesting to see what the next (not Bungie anymore) game does, that may be the crucial moment that decides if Halo joins the ranks of the true dynasty franchises like Mario / Zelda / Final Fantasy... they have to make some changes, but not too radical either. It's all entertainment. ;)

  • Negotiator #115 2 years ago

    Just to let people know that Bungie have stated that the ghosting effect in the beta has already been fixed, it was a bug.

  • MegaCadet #116 2 years ago

    So at splitscreen mode it's 1280 X 720? But regularly it's 1152 X 720? Not half bad Bungie. I'll be even happier if they nail 1280 X 720 by the full release :).