Halo Reach Opinion Poll

[halo3]

Personally its more like COD for me, not fair and just stupid in some aspects.

 

Engine very similar, i like halo 2 and 3 because they are what you'd call "Perfect Shooters", that being said they both have bad graphipcs

 

As for Reach, nice graphics. Fun to play. Little unfair.

 

I will probably purchase the game, but spend majority of xbl time on halo 3

remember halo 2 and 3 are older now, and they did have the best graphics at the time.

[DarkRuler]

remember halo 2 and 3 are older now, and they did have the best graphics at the time.

 

actually when H3 came out there were many other games with better graphics

[gruntmods]

actually when H3 came out there were many other games with better graphics

[Randomrocket]

actually when H3 came out there were many other games with better graphics

Not very many though. IMO Halo 3 has better graphics than mw2. mw2 just has 60 fps and more movement of the player. If halo 3 had all that flying paper crap that you see all the time in mw2, then Halo 3 would be considered "better graphics". But I still think Halo 3 has better graphics than mw2

[lostmodz26]

Grenades are overpowered, look sensitivity needs to be increased, melee system is screwed up, and jetpack needs to last longer.

 

Other than that it's perfect.

[.Slack♠]

Don't be a fanboy, the game sucks. I'm only getting it for custom games which I am a HUGE fan of.

[matty0]

there need to be a hell of a lot of tweaks, many of which we have discussed here. if somebody is happy to create a list of these i will post them on bungie.net. its the whole point of the beta anyway, too many people (perhaps me included at times) are judging this as a game when it is just a test.

 

anyway, if you guys will give me lists, i will post them

[DarkRuler]

there need to be a hell of a lot of tweaks, many of which we have discussed here. if somebody is happy to create a list of these i will post them on bungie.net. its the whole point of the beta anyway, too many people (perhaps me included at times) are judging this as a game when it is just a test.

 

anyway, if you guys will give me lists, i will post them

 

 

ok, in their last update though they already mentioned they fixed some things for fall

-Reticule in beta is too transparent, turns out the UI team didn't finish the reticules and that was just a placeholder anyways

-Its hard to tell where you were getting shot from, its fixed for fall

-Graphic bugs and other bugs like that were already known, fixed

-Melee system was ****** up, now been fixed, also you can't 2nd beat down as quickly

-Many complaints over the grenades, they are being tweaked and they will be fixed for fall

-Banhammer will ban quitters for 15-30 min

 

all of this will be in the full game, not the beta

----------------------------------------

 

But what I think is still left to fix is-

1. Focus Rifle = Overpowered

2. Running and Jumping needs to be increased (not as much as H1-H3)

3. Banshee needs to be faster and not blow up when you hit a wall lightly

4. You can spawn kill in Invasion on Boneyard

5. Tank and Wraith seem really weak

6. Reticule bloom has too much effect on the DMR and should be decreased slightly

7. Needler works to well from far away

8. In Invasion Elites can sometimes spawn with sprint or ARs and frags

Edited May 8, 2010 by DarkRuler

[Curtis]

remember halo 2 and 3 are older now, and they did have the best graphics at the time.

 

Lol wow, totally incorrect statement,

 

Halo has never had good graphics, and even reach's graphics are shit.

[lekgolocrap]

this beta rapes, my problems are Juggernaut way overpowered, in invasion, the elites get like the very little things like 1 plasma grenade launcher, and a focus rifle. they should get a little bit more, and probably a couple of more vehicles too

[gruntmods]

Lol wow, totally incorrect statement,

 

Halo has never had good graphics, and even reach's graphics are shit.

my bad, I thought there were raving reviews of halo 2s graphics.Oh yea, there was.

[matty0]

my bad, I thought there were raving reviews of halo 2s graphics.Oh yea, there was.

you're right and wrong there, gamespot said that basicaly the only thing wrong with H2 were its graphics, but it was also way ahead of many other xbox games of the time.

 

as for H3 many (me included) think that the graphics were great, but others (those who like cod) will say that the graphics are lacking (mainly because halo dosent have random bits of paper flying around... yeah nice) as for reach, i (and my cod playing friends) all agree it is brilliant now. better than cod and odst... great

[.Slack♠]

All these videogames suck. I want to go back to when everybody was hosting zombies on foundation in Halo 2 :'(

[gruntmods]

All these videogames suck. I want to go back to when everybody was hosting zombies on foundation in Halo 2 :'(

tower of power on accession was better.

[DarkRuler]

after playing Fallout 3, GoW, and many other games, Halo 3's graphics look like clay and the spartans look like clay peopl

 

it just looked too fake

 

for Reach, it looks much better

but I think its what H3 should of looked like

[gruntmods]

after playing Fallout 3, GoW, and many other games, Halo 3's graphics look like clay and the spartans look like clay peopl

 

it just looked too fake

 

for Reach, it looks much better

but I think its what H3 should of looked like

honestly, they should make a new xbox so that developer arn`t strained using 4 year old tech.

Sure games CAN be made very high quality like this now, but its incredibly hard and has a performance penalty.

Edited May 10, 2010 by gruntmods

[test10]

Most developers can only take advantage of a console after years of it being out. Imagine a brand new home. You have 24 hours to give a tour, you will know next to nothing. 72 hours later you will have a better idea. It relates to video game development. Developers learn more efficient methods and other ways to accomplish things the longer they have the console.

 

Consoles should be on a 8-12 year release cycle at this day in age.

[Quinn]

I think most 360 graphics suck. But I guess thats just me.

But mind you, I play games like Fallout 3 with over 10 gigs of textures replaced.

[Randomrocket]

honestly, they should make a new xbox so that developer arn`t strained using 4 year old tech.

Sure games CAN be made very high quality like this now, but its incredibly hard and has a performance penalty.

Didnt they estimate the 360 to live until 2015??

 

That's a long time on just 512 MB of RAM!!!

[iBotPeaches]

Its not an operating system like a computer though. Most of your RAM on a computer is sucked up by a variety of things. A 360 does use it a lot more efficiently.

[gruntmods]

Didnt they estimate the 360 to live until 2015??

 

That's a long time on just 512 MB of RAM!!!

Then again, the PS3 has 256mb

[matty0]

we're getting hung up on things that dont matter. the whole point of this thread is to discuss how good (or otherwise) reach is. not the inadequacies of the xbox 360.

 

thats a conversation for another thread.

[Randomrocket]

Its not an operating system like a computer though. Most of your RAM on a computer is sucked up by a variety of things. A 360 does use it a lot more efficiently.

True. But a video game on my computer uses at least a GB of RAM. Just the program itself.

 

And we do need to get back to the topic, but the thing is, we kind of were talking about Halo Reach. We're discussing why some people think it is "crappy". Which I dont think it is. The Reach game we have is a beta. Im not saying they did, but I think they had to tone down the graphics to get it to fit in the 1.15 GB that it did. I bet you guys that the final game will be epic. I just hope they don't rush it and leave out a bunch of features and unfixed bugs.

 

Like MW2. Im not sure, but why did they leave on Global Thermonuclear war?? And remember all the bugs it had? It need like 4 patches or something like that. lol