1 was GOOD but clunky, usually in a good way, it had a charm. I liked the vibrant colors and the mix of cartoon and realism. Sometimes I couldnt make sense of what i was looking at though.which is my only problem looking back.
2 has a crisp and angular look that i liked, most things were easy to read and make sense of. The textures gave thing a handcrafted look, and things had a nice balance of grittyness realism and cartoonishness.
3 was nice and better in some ways, but didnt have the handcrafted feeling 2 had. it felt a little too plastic to me. It was prettier in some ways but everything looked like clay. Materials looked weird. it had a stale look and feeling at times that never pulled me in the way the other games did.
reach i hated when it came out, but looking back, it was good. Just too different at the time.
OP here halo 3 had a lot of solid designs but something about the lighting or something I dont like as much. Some stuff looks like playdough. I think in halo 3 they were starting to put too many lines on things but it wasnt really a problem yet.
3/reach are a good amount of complexity I think even though sometimes I prefer the simpler designs of halo 1/2.
ANything before 4 is acceptable though.
Xavier Collins
Probably 3 though I have a soft spot for CE
Jonathan Barnes
to be fair though i admit halo 2 had weird materials also, i have no idea what this is, looks like the armor is metallic, transparent, and maybe iridescent all at once. But something about the look being semi realistic but also somewhat abstract is what pulls me in.
For mass appeal i would have to concede halo 3 would probably be best for a new game as a template.
yeah it is really cool. if you zoom in the eye lenses are actually transparent. Halo 2 was also cool because they had some pretty experimental looking elite models. The white ones with the giant helemets, and the honor guards were pretty cool. the reach ones are kind of generic to me, i still like it but i dont really care about it either.
