Halo Reach Multiplayer Video - Confirmed as real - HotUKDeals
We use cookie files to improve site functionality and personalisation. By continuing to use HUKD, you accept our cookie and privacy policy.
Get the HUKD app free at Google Play

Search Error

An error occurred when searching, please try again!

Login / Sign UpSubmit

Halo Reach Multiplayer Video - Confirmed as real

natversion1 Avatar
6y, 9m agoPosted 6 years, 9 months ago
Link in next post.
Tags:
natversion1 Avatar
6y, 9m agoPosted 6 years, 9 months ago
Options

All Comments

(38) Jump to unreadPost a comment
Comments/page:
#2
Please note that this video has not been officially confirmed by bungie, bungie studios, nobleactual or microsoft. This is a leak from another website. Saying that it does look like a legitimate leak

edit: now confirmed

looks amazing
#3
I just saw Bungie confirmed it. Really looking forward to this.
#4
Looks awesome!
#5
chelskii
Has just about every mode you could want, looks outstanding.


"looks outstanding."
the first trailer does looks outstanding and epic, but didnt they said they were using a new game engine and better graphics??

i thought the graphics would be atleast a quarter of the cut-scene quality but now they showed this trailer it reminds me of what they did with halo 3........showed great cut-scenes but the actual gameplay was noway near close to it.
#6
chelskii
I don't understand a word of what you are saying, something about you like cut-scenes ?. but you don't like gameplay? how could you know how a game plays that is not yet released ?.


you dont understand because your not reading properly.

ill give you time to read it again otherwise ill try and explain it as if im explaining to a 3 year old.

tell me when your ready.
banned#7
I'm not getting involved in this one.
Halo has always been about the gameplay and MP, can't fault them on either tbh.
#8
sennasnit
I'm not getting involved in this one.
Halo has always been about the gameplay and MP, can't fault them on either tbh.


but surely it wouldnt be a crime if it had better graphics...... and since bungie said it would have better graphics......
thats the only reason i raised the issue.......who doesnt want better graphics in halo?
#9
chelskii
Any explanation from a fanboy will be pointless and as you don't own a 360 or the Halo ODST game you won't be in a position to give a true opinion.

So wait until May 3rd when I am playing it (I will leave my PS3 off that day to give this a good test) then I will let you know what it's like......


how hard is it to understand i wouldnt own things i dont like?

think of a food you hate, would you buy it and eat it? ...........i dont know what it will take to start getting you used to using basic logic/common sense.

since you still havent figured out my point let me explain it anyway..........

the graphics in the cutscenes dont look anywhere near the graphics in real time gameplay.

they obviously cant be the same but take most other games and they are very similar.

its a shame bungie got my hopes up with probably the best trailer of this gen but the product people will be buying wont be of that standard.

its a bit like how supermarkets advertise their packaged food but when you open the packet, it doesnt look anything like it.
#10
btw this is my last comment on this
if the fans dont want better graphics then thats probably the reason why bungie never bothered. well done.
and im trying to say something about it and you guys are defending it like you own the company.
#11
fps_d0minat0r
btw this is my last comment on this
if the fans dont want better graphics then thats probably the reason why bungie never bothered. well done.
and im trying to say something about it and you guys are defending it like you own the company.


Not at all from what i've read, it just seems a rather lazy arguement to say 'I would like better graphics'. If you are comparing it to something like Gears of War (which obviously has better visuals), or even Modern Warfare 2, you are forgetting an integral part of the game; scale.

There are few games that can boast the scale of combat that Halo does, sure Gears of War may look better, but that's because everything takes place in a small environment on one plane (i.e ground level, on foot). Comparing games like these to Halo is utterly unfair.
The Halo games are about being able to jump into any vehicle you want and drive around large enviroments, or even fly through the air, they are supposed to be fast-paced, furious fights between10-20 (maybe more like 30-40 in the new game) characters online/A.I at a time.
I still (very occasionally) play Halo 3 with a few mates, and when you actually stop and look at the game it still looks more than decent, I really don't understand how people could ever say that it looked bad.
As for the Halo Reach trailer; this is multiplayer which inevitably will not look drastically different to previous versions, Bungie seem care more about adding new features and making it run even smoother than simply adding polygons. I like the improvements they seem to have made, yet do feel somewhat disappointed to have initially thought it looked more like a glorified Halo 3. However after a watch or 2 I began to ask myself what it was that I actually expected and hoped for, and the answer to that is probably just a newer version of Halo 3 with some added features, and this looks to at the very least be that.
banned#12
fps_d0minat0r
btw this is my last comment on this
if the fans dont want better graphics then thats probably the reason why bungie never bothered. well done.
and im trying to say something about it and you guys are defending it like you own the company.


steady on fella, i'm not defending the way they work, i'm just saying that the Halo series has never been about the graphics, I played a couple of levels of Halo 3, and i really did enjoy it, it had a "cartoony" feel to it, not enough to buy a 360 tho.:thumbsup:
#13
sennasnit
steady on fella, i'm not defending the way they work, i'm just saying that the Halo series has never been about the graphics, I played a couple of levels of Halo 3, and i really did enjoy it, it had a "cartoony" feel to it, not enough to buy a 360 tho.:thumbsup:


thats the point......."its never been about the graphics"
games are about visuals otherwise you might as well play text based games like mafia wars or something. better graphics = better games.

please try and get that in chelskii's head somehow and also tell him that just because i wished halo had better graphics, does not make me a fanboy and he should also be expecting better graphics from such a big series.
#14
the dandy p
Not at all from what i've read, it just seems a rather lazy arguement to say 'I would like better graphics'. If you are comparing it to something like Gears of War (which obviously has better visuals), or even Modern Warfare 2, you are forgetting an integral part of the game; scale.

There are few games that can boast the scale of combat that Halo does, sure Gears of War may look better, but that's because everything takes place in a small environment on one plane (i.e ground level, on foot). Comparing games like these to Halo is utterly unfair.
The Halo games are about being able to jump into any vehicle you want and drive around large enviroments, or even fly through the air, they are supposed to be fast-paced, furious fights between10-20 (maybe more like 30-40 in the new game) characters online/A.I at a time.
I still (very occasionally) play Halo 3 with a few mates, and when you actually stop and look at the game it still looks more than decent, I really don't understand how people could ever say that it looked bad.
As for the Halo Reach trailer; this is multiplayer which inevitably will not look drastically different to previous versions, Bungie seem care more about adding new features and making it run even smoother than simply adding polygons. I like the improvements they seem to have made, yet do feel somewhat disappointed to have initially thought it looked more like a glorified Halo 3. However after a watch or 2 I began to ask myself what it was that I actually expected and hoped for, and the answer to that is probably just a newer version of Halo 3 with some added features, and this looks to at the very least be that.


all games look great until you see something that looks better than it.

im not going to talk about scale because the 3 games i was going to talk about happen to be ps3 exclusives (god of war, MAG, resistance 2)

i hope those polygons, ai improvements ect ect will make it a good game but tbh it should have happened a long time ago instead of developing odst and reach simultaneously.
#15
fps_d0minat0r
all games look great until you see something that looks better than it.

im not going to talk about scale because the 3 games i was going to talk about happen to be ps3 exclusives (god of war, MAG, resistance 2)

i hope those polygons, ai improvements ect ect will make it a good game but tbh it should have happened a long time ago instead of developing odst and reach simultaneously.


Thanks for your input, I don't understand what relevance your first line has to anything I said though.

Please Do talk about scale, I've played the first 2 God of War games, and while it can be argued that some of the monsters you fight are truly huge in scale, the environments simply are not, you cannot go anywhere you want to, and the camera is almost in semi-fixed environment, it is all heavily scripted, to heavily simplify things, you walk along a path, and kill things.
However I have obviously not played MAG, and have yet to play resistance 2, so have nothing noteworthy to add about them.

As far as i'm aware Halo ODST and Halo Reach were developed completely seperately, by seperate teams, Halo ODST was built using just the Halo 3 engine, and was always stated to be the case, while Halo Reach is supposedly going to use a completely overhauled Halo 3 engine.
#16
the dandy p
Thanks for your input, I don't understand what relevance your first line has to anything I said though.

Please Do talk about scale, I've played the first 2 God of War games, and while it can be argued that some of the monsters you fight are truly huge in scale, the environments simply are not, you cannot go anywhere you want to, and the camera is almost in semi-fixed environment, it is all heavily scripted, to heavily simplify things, you walk along a path, and kill things.
However I have obviously not played MAG, and have yet to play resistance 2, so have nothing noteworthy to add about them.

As far as i'm aware Halo ODST and Halo Reach were developed completely seperately, by seperate teams, Halo ODST was built using just the Halo 3 engine, and was always stated to be the case, while Halo Reach is supposedly going to use a completely overhauled Halo 3 engine.


the first line was in response to what you wrote like half way down your comment.....
"I really don't understand how people could ever say that it looked bad."

oh and youtube does 720p and 1080p hd if you want to compare the graphics.......dont think theres many 1080p vids up though.

god of war is scripted i agree, but it is still has to be rendered when you get to a checkpoint.

games like crysis, fallout, borderlands are all openworld fps's but notice how long the player spends just walking around.
and compare that with scripted games like call of duty, killzone, uncharted........your always engaged in doing something rather than crossing a big map.

even in infamous, when you take over territories the enemies dont respawn and your left with nothing to do in that area except walk through it.

im pretty sure halo reach wont be 100% open world and will have a lot of scripted stuff.
scripted stuff tends to be more entertaining.
1 Like #17
yep, very fun game, be tough to beat bad company 2 but hey this does look great right enough, still not a fan of halo, if it wasnt overhyped as much maybe i would like it more
banned#18
chelskii
LOL yer Bad company 2 is going to give Halo Reach a tough time,

You mention and highly rate the as yet non existent GT5 in your posts so if that comes out even if it looks great you won't like much then as you mention the word Over Hyped..


Halo is way more over-hyped than GT imo, it's the advertising i think, MS tend to have a lot more advertising than Sony. Also at the moment you can't visit a gaming website without seeing a news story about Reach.
banned#19
lol, i suppose if it doesn't interest you it's annoying and too much, but if it's your type of thing you lap it up!

It's like when you buy a new car and the next day when you're driving around it feels like everyone has the same car.
Maybe that's just me.
1 Like #20
whats the argument about gfx for? this is a trailer for the multiplayer BETA... for those who bought ODST... BETA's never truly represent the gfx that will be in the actual game
1 Like #21
sennasnit
Halo is way more over-hyped than GT imo, it's the advertising i think, MS tend to have a lot more advertising than Sony. Also at the moment you can't visit a gaming website without seeing a news story about Reach.


Although I own an xbox, Ive never been a fan. However GT5 is more overhyped than Halo, all the time I keep hearing about how great it will be, yet its been put back so many times.
#22
chelskii
The top sections funny in a sad way"games are about visuals etc" but the bottom section is the icing on the cake

Your goldust you are.

You must be a different person to the one I thought constantly posts anti 360 comments at every opportunity (and always a "get a PS3 because blah blah"type post on the 360 deals) .
I Should check through your posts though my memory is usually quite good)


and all i see you ever do is disagree with people.

and ive never told anyone "get a ps3 because...."
quote me if i have and send me the link too.

i may have corrected someone who lied e.g. 'xbox has a better controller' or 'dvd is better than blu-ray' and proven why its not and i see nothing wrong at all in correcting a lier.
banned#23
Chidda
Although I own an xbox, Ive never been a fan. However GT5 is more overhyped than Halo, all the time I keep hearing about how great it will be, yet its been put back so many times.


That sounds just like Alan Wake tbh.
#24
sennasnit
That sounds just like Alan Wake tbh.


Never heard of it . That some kind of surfing game.

fps_d0minat0r
and all i see you ever do is disagree with people.

and ive never told anyone "get a ps3 because...."
quote me if i have and send me the link too.

i may have corrected someone who lied e.g. 'xbox has a better controller' or 'dvd is better than blu-ray' and proven why its not and i see nothing wrong at all in correcting a lier.


[Edit]How can anyone lie about the 360 controller being better for them than the ps3 controller is. It's about personal choice. Ergonomics has to come into it, not all hands, tendons are the same. Choice is important. If a user says the 360 controller suits them better. Why do they have to be liars ?
#25
sennasnit
That sounds just like Alan Wake tbh.


Never heard of that game
#26
chelskii
LOL yer Bad company 2 is going to give Halo Reach a tough time,

You mention and highly rate the as yet non existent GT5 in your posts so if that comes out even if it looks great you won't like much then as you mention the word Over Hyped..


Gran turismo isnt over hyped!
its our games in one man, all full great games
#27
chelskii
Well I wasn't going to bother but on a Xbox 360 Elite Console deal -

"good deal considering the price and not considering the ps3. you could pay that bit extra and get free online, blu-ray and wifi."

http://www.hotukdeals.com/item/611992/xbox-360-elite-console-halo-odst-wi?p=7869441#post7869441



Scroll down for 2nd comment


exactly.....it was a suggestion, i didnt tell anyone to get it.

and what have i done wrong in informing people they can get all those features for a bit more money?
#28
dontasciime
Never heard of it . That some kind of surfing game.



[Edit]How can anyone lie about the 360 controller being better for them than the ps3 controller is. It's about personal choice. Ergonomics has to come into it, not all hands, tendons are the same. Choice is important. If a user says the 360 controller suits them better. Why do they have to be liars ?


because theres way more to a controller than ergonomics.

bluetooth>infrared
built in battery pack>no battery pack
dualshock is more advanced than the xbox rumble
xbox controller doesnt have sixaxis.
when friends are over, 7 can connect on ps3, only 4 can on xbox.

even if ergonomics do count ps3 has a better d-pad, better shoulder buttons and firmer triggers and its shape has lasted the longest in gaming history.......all the way since ps1.
#29
fps_d0minat0r
because theres way more to a controller than ergonomics.

bluetooth>infrared
built in battery pack>no battery pack
dualshock is more advanced than the xbox rumble
xbox controller doesnt have sixaxis.
when friends are over, 7 can connect on ps3, only 4 can on xbox.

even if ergonomics do count ps3 has a better d-pad, better shoulder buttons and firmer triggers and its shape has lasted the longest in gaming history.......all the way since ps1.


Jesus do you ever give up. Give a bad name to ps3 fanboys you do
#30
Chidda
Jesus do you ever give up. Give a bad name to ps3 fanboys you do


instead of making a pointless comment why dont you try and counter what i said.

thats how a debate works.
#31
fps_d0minat0r
because theres way more to a controller than ergonomics.

bluetooth>infrared
built in battery pack>no battery pack
dualshock is more advanced than the xbox rumble
xbox controller doesnt have sixaxis.
when friends are over, 7 can connect on ps3, only 4 can on xbox.

even if ergonomics do count ps3 has a better d-pad, better shoulder buttons and firmer triggers and its shape has lasted the longest in gaming history.......all the way since ps1.


Not for me it does not.

For you maybe and that is fine and your choice.

For me though it cripples my hand quicker than the 360 controller does or the gamecube controller or dc used to and wii mote / nunchuck option.



bluetooth>infrared

[It's not infrared] Where is the red spot/square on ps3 controller] if you are trying to say the 360 controller is infrared it's not that either. It's proprietary 2.4ghz wireless

built in battery pack>no battery pack [if ps3 battery stops charging throw away controller)

dualshock is more advanced than the xbox rumble

[No it's not it's a series of litte motors that turn at a given time)

xbox controller doesnt have sixaxis.

[Pleased] I liked it for Flow and the duck game but It's a novelty and PITA when software developers overuse this and force it on you (look at the Wii most games are spoiled by the very thing that makes that console innovative) forcing you to use the motion sensor when the game is simply not fun(spoiled) to play like that. However when it's done well and suits the gameplay. Excellent.

when friends are over, 7 can connect on ps3, only 4 can on xbox.

[Thats easy I don't have 7 friends so 4 is enough for me.]
#32
chelskii
Listen the best thing you can do after reading some of your posts yesterday and the hostile responses you got is "Give it a rest".


Your comment above ".it was a suggestion, i didnt tell anyone to get it." says it all........

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-vtnr8PUncs


i would do the same for any product...........even a PC, if theres one that offers better components for a slightly higher price i would reccomend it........i dont see what i have done wrong.
#33
dontasciime
Not for me it does not. For you maybe but for me it cripples my hand quicker than the 360 controller does or the gamecube controller or dc used to and wii mote / nunchuck option.



bluetooth>infrared

[It's not infrared] Where is the red spot/square on ps3 controller] if you are trying to say the 360 controller is infrared it's not that either. It's proprietary 2.4ghz wireless

built in battery pack>no battery pack [if ps3 battery stops charging throw away controller)

dualshock is more advanced than the xbox rumble

[No it's not it's a series of litte motors that turn at a given time)

xbox controller doesnt have sixaxis.

[Pleased] I liked it for Flow and the duck game but It's a novelty and PITA when software developers overuse this and force it on you (look at the Wii most games are spoiled by the very thing that makes that console innovative) forcing you to use the motion sensor when the game is simply not fun(spolied) to play like that. However when it's done well and suits the gameplay. Excellent.

when friends are over, 7 can connect on ps3, only 4 can on xbox.

[Thats easy I dont' have 7 friends so 4 is enough for me.]


well people have using these controllers since ps1 and it hasnt crippled anyones hands.......your in a minority.....i mean 0.000000000000001%

give me one good reason why xbox doesnt support bluetooth and ill agree its better.........they just want to block third party stuff. they call it proprietary but all it is is a variation of something (most likely infra-red).

dualshock IS more advanced.

even though many games might not use sixaxis, its still an advantage.

7>4 .........i bet you argue that DVD is better than blu-ray as well, would help if you could count.
#34
dvd in 25fps is better than 24fps blu ray to me (for me) as br is jerky when panning scenes are used eg left/right/ up/down on HDTV and I don't like that.(my choice) this is @1080p or 720p even on HDTV's that support 24fps. 100hz , 200hz .ETC yet to see one that does not do it to some degree. Picture quality on non moving or slight moving scenes is far superior on br though.

This bluetooth you mention and M$ blocking stuff thats quite funny saying as my ps3's seems to block my nokia phones from working as intended. n95, n95 8gb etc

Btw 7>4 and not being able to count . what do you mean ?

you do realise that I said I don't have 7 friends

I have 4 friends though . So 4 controllers would be enough for mine and my friends needs
#35
dontasciime
dvd in 25fps is better than 24fps blu ray to me (for me) as br is jerky when panning scenes are used eg left/right/ up/down on HDTV and I don't like that.(my choice) this is @1080p or 720p even on HDTV's that support 24fps. 100hz , 200hz .ETC yet to see one that does not do it to some degree. Picture quality on non moving or slight moving scenes is far superior on br though.

This bluetooth you mention and M$ blocking stuff thats quite funny saying as my ps3's seems to block my nokia phones from working as intended. n95, n95 8gb etc

Btw 7>4 and not being able to count . what do you mean ?

you do realise that I said I don't have 7 friends

I have 4 friends though . So 4 controllers would be enough for mine and my friends needs


wow, you must have a very very very quick mind to notice the difference between 1 frame/second.
to a normal person like me, more content on a blu-ray matters more.

some developers have the guts to say they cut a game (lost planet 2) because of DVD but obvisouly most companies wouldnt do that due to contractual reasons.
you may argue about multiple disks but its not as simple as it sounds for a next gen game where the engine it self is massive and has to be on every disk.
if final fantasy wasnt cut it would take two people to carry the DVD boxes home.

and i say 7>4 because your not the only person who matters, think in the interest of the whole population.
#36
fps_d0minat0r
wow, you must have a very very very quick mind to notice the difference between 1 frame/second.
to a normal person like me, more content on a blu-ray matters more.

some developers have the guts to say they cut a game (lost planet 2) because of DVD but obvisouly most companies wouldnt do that due to contractual reasons.
you may argue about multiple disks but its not as simple as it sounds for a next gen game where the engine it self is massive and has to be on every disk.
if final fantasy wasnt cut it would take two people to carry the DVD boxes home.

and i say 7>4 because your not the only person who matters, think in the interest of the whole population.



.........i bet you argue that DVD is better than blu-ray as well

Whatever :lol.

I was talking about movies so you know the dropping of 1 frame per second happens to be 1 too many when watching FMV set @ whatever FPS it happens to be it's very noticeable.

As I can now see you mean games are better on BR than on DVD

Blu ray for games is nonsense @ minute makes no sense developers don't like them cos they have to work harder for less money to fill them which is why they mostly don't bother. Anything on BR game wise is filled with nothing useful at present on the majority of releases.

Can you tell me which games on BR cannot be on DVD (1) disc

Then list the games currently on BR that could not be on (2) discs

3 then 4 disc's

TBH 2 disc's is not so badYou're right not ideal.. Little bit of a pain (unless installable to HD) 3,4 more of a pain but I think I have 2 360 games split on to multiple disc's Blue dragon, lost odyssey.

I remember when trying to play MGS 4 My ps3 said I had to install about 8 gig onto the hard drive and that I could not play it until I did.
#37
dontasciime
Whatever :lol.

I was talking about movies so you know the dropping of 1 frame per second happens to be 1 too many when watching FMV set @ whatever FPS it happens to be it's very noticeable.

Blu ray for games is nonsense @ minute makes no sense developers don't like them cos they have to work harder for less money to fill them which is why they mostly don't bother. Anything on BR game wise is filled with nothing useful at present on the majority of releases.

Can you tell me which games on BR cannot be on DVD (1) disc

Then list the games currently on BR that could not be on (2) discs

3 then 4 disc's

TBH 2 disc's is not so bad. Little bit of a pain (unless installable to HD) 3,4 more of a pain but I think I have 2 360 games split on to multiple disc's Blue dragon, lost odyssey.

I remember when trying to play MGS 4 My ps3 said I had to install about 8 gig onto the hard drive and that I could not play it until I did.


i agree, making more content is bad for developers...............but shouldnt we be talking in the interest of gamers?

MGS is an 8gig install because its so big it had to be compressed on a blu-ray. (again proving the point multi-disk isnt feasable)

its perfectly logical that the bigger the game the more content/textures there will be and if it were feasible for developers to make games on multidisk then more of them would be doing it.

everyone knows if xbox got blu-ray support overnight and it was a free upgrade, more developers would be making larger games.

its like supporting CD after DVD came out........whats the point.
#38
I have seen transfer on linux of MGS4 Disc and it's 30 GB in size.

Will have to have another look

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=11630733&postcount=38

PS if you look left or right 1st there is something wrong with you

Post a Comment

You don't need an account to leave a comment. Just enter your email address. We'll keep it private.

...OR log in with your social account

...OR comment using your social account

Thanks for your comment! Keep it up!
We just need to have a quick look and it will be live soon.
The community is happy to hear your opinion! Keep contributing!