Halo: Reach

I personally think Reach's graphics look THAT good and im more impressed with Reach's graphics then Resistance 2's visuals...

 

Probably the name of the armor ability in use (if you'll notice the lightning bolt symbol next to the text)

Perhaps its a power drain/EMP ability that they don't want to reveal yet (or it could just be sprint)

 

http://www.bungie.net/images/Games/Reach/images/screenshots/ReachCampaign_m10_firstperson.jpg

I wonder how many of you noticed that the aiming reticule is pointing away from the center of screen.

 

It's pretty simple really. Bungie wants you to get online with us for a Lengendary co-op run this fall.

@Scott
Will this be the first Halo game you get?

 

Wow, this thread is just.......awesome. Its amazing what some people say even on B3D.
All this because of one game. Incredible.

 

I did, I think it's just not finished or something, the reticle doesn't look like a final design, it's way too simple and thinly lined.

 

No different than the one in halo 3:
http://www.bungie.net/images/Games/Halo3/Screenshots/H3_E307_FP01.jpg

 

I know I've said this before, but seriously, who cares if Reach looks the best (why does it have to look better than X or Y?)? I'm pretty sure the visuals won't be dissapointing. My main concerns now are what changes they've made to the gameplay, although I like the midrange single shot rifle. Josh will have a few more holes in his head.

I really like how devs are really starting to come to terms with the platforms (PS3 and 360). Lot's of great looking games coming.

 

It is, look closer the one in the Reach shot is a very generic looking reticule, the H3 one has more style. Also the circle's lines on the H3 reticule are much thicker than the Reach shot.

It'll be very hard to make out that Reach reticule on screen when it isn't rendered at 1080p with high AA like it is in that bullshot.

 

Just realized how out of the loop I am. I haven't seen any screens of that game but at first I thought it was Crysis. And yeah, I'm not so sure either but it's a great looking game from what I've seen.

 

There are plenty of corridor shooters out there so pick one and have a blast with the visuals. I and likely a few others, enjoy the big battlefields in Halo games. Give me a "barren" area with 40 enemies over 4-5 in a pretty room or trail.

 

sigh

 

Don't worry, before you know it, they'll have Gears of War 3.

 

I guess that's what I find peculiar, for some of you guys like it's a binary situation where the only options for the visuals are "the best" or "not that impressive".

 

The reticule, could it be Natal in action? I honestly don't think it'll be a good idea to mix an add on feature like that in a hardcore shooter.

 

We all feel you excitement for the game of course, but it might be best to see all this 40+ enemies with 20+ vehicles on screen in action first, before all the hand slapping gets thrown round the room. Saying and doing are different things. If they do it....great. if not...........well. Your comment is a little...PR`ish.

 

In the EDGE article I think it says up to 40 AI characters on screen or twenty vehicles. Don't quote me though I read it a few days ago. Further the difference between the like of KZ2 and UC2 is not the number of characters on screen but how scripted and tightly controlled those games are (Is till laugh when I drove the tank in KZ2 and realised it could only go a few metres in any direction and got stopped in its tracks by a kerb). Neither have the scale nor is breadth of Halo and this pointed out in the EDGE article. But they question if this is important anymore and indeed it it wanted by gamers. They question if Halo's design has been outgrown by tightly scripted games such as those mentioned. And it’s a really good point, especially given the success of the two games and is probably the best bit of the Halo Reach EDGE article.

 

Er, Halo3 is more successful then both of those games combined, maybe even with their prequels.
The games you've probably meant are the Modern Warfare series, which are heavily scripted tunnel-shooters, that's where the true competition for Reach lies. Fortunately they don't have to go against each other this year (although Treyarch comes up with another COD episode, but I doubt it could get to the same level of sales).

I personally prefer the sandbox approach, so Reach is probably gonna be a full price purchase, while both MWs I only borrow from friends...

 

Well so far I would not venture too far about this game. Clearly it will looks better but I'm waiting to see it in action. Super sample shots don't do it for me I'm patient enough to wait for the Beta and see better shots and some vids.
Overall what I can say is that from a PR POV Bungies has done pretty bad so far, they deal with a title that faces far more constrains than the titles it will be compared with. (The talk here is already a proof of that). I can foresee some bashing coming. No matter the game does great things it won't gain technical awards ala UC2 /KZ2, the visual are set to miss some impact to do so.
Other than that they have been stupid enough to state that the 360 won't bend further... I foresee even greater bashing/internet noise (no matter is somehow true for a game dealing with the same constrain as Halo).
I wonder how Ms feels about this unwanted talk, clearly Bungies could have passed on this as it's set to become noisy... Clearly their IP is strong enough they should have hold themselves from that kind of PR crap.

 

Halo games apart from first were never best looking games. May be 2nd one was also nice for its time. Halo reach looks good I think but nothing more than that honestly