Forums / Games / Halo: Reach and Legacy Halo

Why does Halo Reach look better than halo 4 and 5?

OP capnchuc

  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. ...
  4. 2
Is art style really that important??? Because I'm playing through Reach and I'm blown away by how good everything looks... I never got that feeling in 4 or 5 ):
Maybe it's my tv quality but overall I think 5 absolutely looks best. Although I'll give it to Reach the detail on the Brutes is pretty damn good
From the standpoint of framerate and resolution Reach doesn't even come close to the newer games.

As far as art style goes, that's in the eye of the beholder. And this beholder will take the newer games any day. Don't get me wrong - Reach was (and still is) amazing. I still play firefight to this day. Nothing beats Courtyard, Glacier, or Unearthed. Except maybe A.R.C., Sanctum, and Apex 7.
Reach graphics are great, definitely loads better than 5 because 5 is waay too cartoony. Idk 343 goes for that.
While Halo 5 had some elements that were absolutely jaw-dropping (armors, sanghelios, areas in the last half of the campaign, Mercy MP map, etc.) I think that Halo 4's graphics were the most impressive of any Halo game so far.

That being said, Halo 2 anniversary and Halo 3 have my favorite art-styles (different than just graphics).
AMBR8978 wrote:
While Halo 5 had some elements that were absolutely jaw-dropping (armors, sanghelios, areas in the last half of the campaign, Mercy MP map, etc.) I think that Halo 4's graphics were the most impressive of any Halo game so far.

That being said, Halo 2 anniversary and Halo 3 have my favorite art-styles (different than just graphics).
Hands down this is the case for me. They are my favorites as well.
Reach graphics are great, definitely loads better than 5 because 5 is waay too cartoony. Idk 343 goes for that.
There too focused on making halo their own thing instead of improving previous source material
Reach graphics are great, definitely loads better than 5 because 5 is waay too cartoony. Idk 343 goes for that.
There too focused on making halo their own thing instead of improving previous source material
Exactly
If they could patch Reach to 1080 and 60 fps I feel like it would be the best looking of the series. The art-style of Reach is my favorite by a large margin, but playing Halo at 30 frames feels weird after playing every other one at 60.
To me H2A looked the absolute best.
It's probably because you prefer the artstyle of Halo Reach over 5. Don't get yourself confuse between artstyle & graphics. There's some stuff in Halo 3 & Reach that look dated (in graphics) but overall, the game looks nice for that time.
It looks better mainly because the artstyle was so much better than the one we have now but hopefully it's going back to the way things were by looks halo wars 2s artstyle
Halo Reach Ridgeline Map

Halo Reach definitely looks better. It was due to the Artstyle. Bungie did a great job with Reach. They really maximised the tech used on the 360. And not only that but the maps you play on feel like they are in the Universe. Halo 4 and 5 maps don't feel that way. They really do feel like a simulated version, and they come across as soulless as a result.
Because Reach is the best.
If they could patch Reach to 1080 and 60 fps I feel like it would be the best looking of the series. The art-style of Reach is my favorite by a large margin, but playing Halo at 30 frames feels weird after playing every other one at 60.
Plenty of Reach assets were upgraded for use in Halo 2 Anniversary, to save the devs (whoever they were because that game was outsourced to everyone ever) from having to remake everything from scratch. H2A is a glimpse at that next-gen Reach.
Richnj wrote:
Halo Reach Ridgeline MapHalo Reach definitely looks better. It was due to the Artstyle. Bungie did a great job with Reach. They really maximised the tech used on the 360. And not only that but the maps you play on feel like they are in the Universe. Halo 4 and 5 maps don't feel that way. They really do feel like a simulated version, and they come across as soulless as a result.
This. Bungie's maps felt lived in, 343i's feel artificial, which takes away from the enjoyment, despite how much I like the gameplay on 343i's maps. I love Halo 5's Forge, but it needs a bit of a paint job to make the map pieces more organic with different options for skins and such. Of course that probably wouldn't be possible until Halo 6.

As for Reach, I think that looked better because it was gritty. Like what Richnj said, the world didn't feel artificial, it felt real. It's so much easier to suspend your disbelief and immerse yourself in Reach, whereas the bright matte colours and glowing Spartans of Halo 4/5 really take that away from the player.
because the art style is meant to be gritty and realistic instead of futurish and plastic like
If they could patch Reach to 1080 and 60 fps I feel like it would be the best looking of the series. The art-style of Reach is my favorite by a large margin, but playing Halo at 30 frames feels weird after playing every other one at 60.
Plenty of Reach assets were upgraded for use in Halo 2 Anniversary, to save the devs (whoever they were because that game was outsourced to everyone ever) from having to remake everything from scratch. H2A is a glimpse at that next-gen Reach.
Saber Interactive did H2A Campaign

Certain Affinity did the H2A MP

(Certain Affinity is lead by Max Hoberman, who was heavily involved in the development of the original Halo 2 MP).
To add to the above, it was Halo 4's engine that was used as the base (which itself was stripped and upgraded from Reach, but 4 was the base version used for H2A)
Because Reach had a great art style that truly felt like Halo. Halo 4 and 5 can have all the impressive graphical upgrades in the world. But if the art style is poor then nothing can save it visually.
  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. ...
  4. 2