Spike88
10-05-10, 08:15 PM
So I was just at my parent's house, and my dad bough Halo:Reach for him and my younger brother(who spends the most time gaming anyways.)
And my brother asked if I wanted to play Reach with him. Thinking that maybe my judgment on it was too harsh without actually trying it out, I said "Sure, why not."
He boots it up and sets us up in multiplayer 1vs1. The first thing I notice is that the graphics are pretty much the same exact thing from Halo 3, with a few slight touch ups. And my experience of Halo 3 was back on a friends standard TV, while this game was on my parents 40inch HD TV, it still looked the same. And while I, like most of us here, believe that good graphics does not equal a good game, you think with 3 whole years, they would have greatly improved the graphics. I mean Uncharted 2 was released 2 years after Uncharted 1, and it's graphics improved a lot between the two. I can understand not having something on Par with Uncharted 2, because the PS3 does have the best looking Exclusives, but you still would expect more of out it.
The next thing I noticed is that the graphics aren't the only thing that staid the same between the two. The gameplay feels exactly the same as Halo 3. The only two new additions are the fact you can customize your own banner, and the fact that you can select between 5 shallow classes that each have their own "Special ability".
1 class can sprint
1 class can hunker down in an "armor mode" where they can't take damage but that also can't move or fire
1 class can display holograms
1 class can use a jetpack
1 class... I forget what that class did.
Besides those minor things they were all pretty much the same exact thing. Now apparently you can go further and alter your classes so you do more damage with certain weapons, or something. But I did not see this.
The sad fact is that if sat people down infront of a game already in progress with the sprint class selected. They probably would not be able to identify which game was different. Its pretty much the equivalent of
this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d3N7zS440N0
And here's a quote I got from another board when I mentioned that it was perty much the same crap.
Halo: Reach is Halo: improved.
If you didn't like the franchise in the first place, you won't see much in this either. It's not revolutionary, its improved.
Why the hell dish out $60 more dollars for the same exact crap a second time? Especially when Bungie/Microsoft could have easily added the new features via an update. Much like Valve does/did with Team Fortress 2 and the Left 4 Dead games.
I mean Modern Warfare 1 and 2 were pretty much the same formula but they at least made the 2nd feel fresh and different. And that was an Activison game for gods sake.
Players who have the game say the story isn't that great until the ending, and the MP is pretty much the same.
What is the big deal honestly? Am I missing something. Hell I've failed to point out that the formula has pretty much not changed an iota since the first Halo game, besides a couple new features here and there. And the story has pretty much been the same exact thing sense then.
And why the hell was it the "most anticipated game of the year"
And why did it get such excellent reviews. Especially when you factor in the fact that most reviewers bash games for being the same exact thing, unless of course it's by a major producer.
/end rant.
And yes, I know a lot of you dissaprove of console gaming and it's many exclusives. But there are some great gems on consoles if you find the right games. Alan Wake, Gran Turismo 5, Infamous, Uncharted, to name a few series's.
And my brother asked if I wanted to play Reach with him. Thinking that maybe my judgment on it was too harsh without actually trying it out, I said "Sure, why not."
He boots it up and sets us up in multiplayer 1vs1. The first thing I notice is that the graphics are pretty much the same exact thing from Halo 3, with a few slight touch ups. And my experience of Halo 3 was back on a friends standard TV, while this game was on my parents 40inch HD TV, it still looked the same. And while I, like most of us here, believe that good graphics does not equal a good game, you think with 3 whole years, they would have greatly improved the graphics. I mean Uncharted 2 was released 2 years after Uncharted 1, and it's graphics improved a lot between the two. I can understand not having something on Par with Uncharted 2, because the PS3 does have the best looking Exclusives, but you still would expect more of out it.
The next thing I noticed is that the graphics aren't the only thing that staid the same between the two. The gameplay feels exactly the same as Halo 3. The only two new additions are the fact you can customize your own banner, and the fact that you can select between 5 shallow classes that each have their own "Special ability".
1 class can sprint
1 class can hunker down in an "armor mode" where they can't take damage but that also can't move or fire
1 class can display holograms
1 class can use a jetpack
1 class... I forget what that class did.
Besides those minor things they were all pretty much the same exact thing. Now apparently you can go further and alter your classes so you do more damage with certain weapons, or something. But I did not see this.
The sad fact is that if sat people down infront of a game already in progress with the sprint class selected. They probably would not be able to identify which game was different. Its pretty much the equivalent of
this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d3N7zS440N0
And here's a quote I got from another board when I mentioned that it was perty much the same crap.
Halo: Reach is Halo: improved.
If you didn't like the franchise in the first place, you won't see much in this either. It's not revolutionary, its improved.
Why the hell dish out $60 more dollars for the same exact crap a second time? Especially when Bungie/Microsoft could have easily added the new features via an update. Much like Valve does/did with Team Fortress 2 and the Left 4 Dead games.
I mean Modern Warfare 1 and 2 were pretty much the same formula but they at least made the 2nd feel fresh and different. And that was an Activison game for gods sake.
Players who have the game say the story isn't that great until the ending, and the MP is pretty much the same.
What is the big deal honestly? Am I missing something. Hell I've failed to point out that the formula has pretty much not changed an iota since the first Halo game, besides a couple new features here and there. And the story has pretty much been the same exact thing sense then.
And why the hell was it the "most anticipated game of the year"
And why did it get such excellent reviews. Especially when you factor in the fact that most reviewers bash games for being the same exact thing, unless of course it's by a major producer.
/end rant.
And yes, I know a lot of you dissaprove of console gaming and it's many exclusives. But there are some great gems on consoles if you find the right games. Alan Wake, Gran Turismo 5, Infamous, Uncharted, to name a few series's.