Halo: Reach

I didn't really expect it to look any better than H3 does. The shots are too blurry to make out any details, I guess it'll be the game play that carries it not the graphics.

 

Meh... about the only thing I can speculate on looking at these pictures is that the gun models look like they might have been tweaked, in particular the Battle Rifle, Needler and what I presume is the Spartan Laser Cannon. Outside of that, it looks like this is taken from a very early build as you can see numerous very low res textures on the hills in the background, along with some very empty looking environments. I guess the horrible picture quality along with the fact that this looks very early in development probably means these screens are not even close to what the final product is going to look like.

 

Yep, early development stage alright. Everything looked low res, low poly and sparse as a desert. I'm just curious if this future 360 title would implement the tessellation technology.

 

The leaked pics is from a very early version of the game and even though they are blurry shots, the gun models look considerably better.I believe Reach will be a graphically stunning game and I have faith in Bungie....Can't wait to see more..

 

Well, the gun models visually are already a big improvement over Halo 3's and im expecting this game to look much better then Halo 3 does.This game will have amazing graphics and gameplay and what we saw is from a very early version of the game.I also found out that you can sprint in Reach and that it will have some sort of "perks" system as well.Can't wait to see more..

 

I've never really "got" the Halo universe. Sure, the games I played are fun (H1&H3) and the gunplay and AI are certainly impressive (especially the latter). The scale of some of the battlefields, and the clever use of vehicles takes it above the average shooter for me.

But the games have never really grabbed me by the balls and given me the level of excitement that others obviously derive from them.

That said, I've always appreciated the art style. A Halo games looks like a Halo game, and nothing much else could be confused for a Halo game. And from those offscreen images, even with the improvements in geometry, textures and models that are obvious, it looks very much like a Halo game.

I, for one, am glad that Bungie haven't felt the need to go for the "dark'n'gritty proto-realism" that so many other developers seem to favour.

 

From all the rumours I've read, this is meant to be using features of a new Xbox engine that would be taking more advantage of the Xbox 360's MT capabilities.

Reach is meant to be the game that really shows the 360's graphics capabilities.

Then again, could all be rumours. Still...promising

 

They're incredibly blurry off-screen shots. They'll simultaneously make the game look both better and worse than the actual product, I'm not sure why we're even talking about graphics.

 

Yep. Those weapon models look very much more detailed though.

 

What does the "MT" stand for? Just curious...

I think the detail on the weapons shows a phenominal upgrade, and even though its a blurrycam offscreen shot I still think the lighting looks awesome in those pics. Very natural and realistic

I never really liked the direction that Bungie took Halo after the first one, but I'm certainly glad this is a new and fresh take on the franchise. This one's certainly on my radar

 

Multi-threading.

 

I'm not that sure about that, Bungies spend a lot of time in "ironing" their game before shipping. I don't know when the beta is to occur in 2010 but I don't expect lot of improvements from now to the Beta and none from the beta to release. Anyway those shot don't say much of the improvements tho.
I want more

 

The big weakness for Halo3 was artwork... mostly the characters, and some environment art. There's a lot of difference between, say, the first jungle level and the later forest level on the Ark; or between the Flood infected ships and some of the artificial interiors like Crow's nest or some Halo structures.

Image quality suffered from sub-HD + no AA, lack of AF, limited fade distance for shadows, and some other ugly stuff like fading in distant enemies using alpha coverage.

If they can fix the IQ, create world-class art, keep the quality of lighting and increase overall scale and detail, then Reach can end up looking very good...

 

Halo gunplay, vehicles, and AI with classes, squads, and a sprint button? Sign me up! The only thing missing is confirmation of custom game browsers

It is still Halo (colorful art, large flat objects, large view distances) and looking at their design philosophies (emphasis on strong AI, 4 player coop and online, theater, etc) their technological investments trend to place graphics after game play concerns. They surely don't build the best renderer possible and then see what kind of game they can get from it.

Gameplay design concerns will come first, and then the renderer will constructed with the art and set pieces Bungie wishes to use second, and then whatever is left to squeeze in and compatible with their art pipeline (starting with their artists!) will be deployed.

This is the same company that had some "interesting" animation decisions in Halo 3 and alien-human heads.

Yeah, don't expect a big jump from beta to release.

A great poll would be how much AA, any AF, and what resolution? Sub-HD, no AA, no AF, negative LOD bias?

 

My thoughts pretty much. Some of their texture work is very, very good--but worthless due to no filtering. The clean art style with an emphasis on large, clean edged alien artifacts reall screams for AA. Hopefully with all their shadow research they have more dynamic shadows--and that don't disappear 10 feet ahead! Besides these IQ issues I think a little bit more robustness to the material system, improved animation, more particles (sand and dirt in the air?), I think some AO would really add a lot. Clean up the IQ and add some AO and I would be happy in regards to still frames.

The artistic side (animation, art) is probably a bigger problem in the pipeline though.

 

What I wanted to ask you: can you really classify 'good' and 'bad' art?
I mean (as you are the pro) are there widely accepted rules and fundamentals how things have to look to be 'good' art?
Because I often have the feeling that art is strongly related to the personal perception and that it boils down to personal preference (I for instance 'like' the HALO artwork).
So is your rating 'HALO3 artwork is weak' your personal subjective opinion or your opinion as a professional (maybe it is hard to answer as long as you are not schizophrenic )

 

Yes. Halo 3 humans, especially heads, are an example of bad artwork.

 

Can you please elaborate? I mean cg humans and their animations always look off (no exception).
But is there anything overly bad about the human heads in HALO3?