Halo Reach? A rant of sorts.

[Spike88]

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:

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.

[Crécy]

Originally Posted by Spike88

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.

They are using the same engine as in Halo 3 so there can't be great improvement in graphics.

Originally Posted by Spike88

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".

Banner editing was in Halo 3 as well. Classes only purpose is to flavor things in up, not to work as they work for example in BC2 where every class supports another.

Originally Posted by Spike88

Why the hell dish out $60 more dollars for the same exact crap a second time?

Because the people who bought is, also liked Halo 3. Nobody would've bought it if they think Halo 3 is crap.

Originally Posted by Spike88

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.

I have played both of them. Modern Warfare 1 felt fresh and was a good improvement from the previous Call of Dutys (CoD 1 is still the best of the CoDs!). Modern Warfare 2 is an ADHD reaction game. Who squeezes the trigger first, wins. Awful crap.

Originally Posted by Spike88

What is the big deal honestly? Am I missing something.

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.

I believe you are missing something and don't know what's the big deal as obviously you are not a big fan of the Halo series .

It got good reviews because the entirety is good. Good SP, good MP. Sure it feels like Halo 3 and doesn't seem to have much new in it. But for a fan you have plenty of new things and desired additions. New singleplayer experience and story, in MP they've added all features from previous games as well as new, like the credits system and armor customization (only a cosmetic feautre, though).

People who aren't the fan of the series, they feel like it's the same old, so I say why to bother even buy? For a fan, Reach is everything you've wanted from a Halo game.

[Dowly]

Originally Posted by Crécy

People who aren't the fan of the series, they feel like it's the same old, so I say why to bother even buy? For a fan, Reach is everything you've wanted from a Halo game.

It usually takes a non-fan to see how things really are.

As for your comments about the lack of graphical upgradre, Silent Hunter 5 is built on Silent Hunter 3's engine, updated yes, but it's still the same.

[Crécy]

Originally Posted by Dowly

It usually takes a non-fan to see how things really are.

I don't completely sign that. For example, If I'm not a fan of some game I don't usually praise how good it is.

Originally Posted by Dowly

As for your comments about the lack of graphical upgradre, Silent Hunter 5 is built on Silent Hunter 3's engine, updated yes, but it's still the same.

Interesting . Didn't know that. Considering the Reach, I guess it's the lack of time (only a year after ODST) why they didn't upgrade the engine more.

[Arclight]

Half the video games in the entire industrie run on the same bloody Unreal engine for years now. Graphical quality varies greatly though, and is still improving (kinda).

You saw the same thing previous gen; Xbox stayed the same, Playstation improved a lot. Xbox is so easy (in comparison) to program for that you can make full use of it's potential with relatively little experience. Playstation is a pain but games improve a lot graphically as developers get more experience with the platform (same deal with Nintendo).



As for Reach; it's a Halo game on the 360. What did you expect?

Seriously though, it's the last Halo game coming from Bungie. Imho a nice half-priced "Halo-improved" game would have been more appropriate as a parting gift, but between the raving fans and Microsoft, there's not a soul that wouldn't pay full price for it.

[Weiss Pinguin]

Hey, say what you want about Halo, but I like it and I enjoy Halo Reach. If you don't like it that's your business

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.

Because it's a well built game. It may be the same ole same ole (which is fine with me), but it's decent same ole same ole. I'm satisfied with it, whatever anyone else thinks

[Spike88]

But why Spend 60 dollars on the same old same old?

When it is just showing developers that they can feed you the same stuff repeatedly over and over.

But like I have stated earlier I do not care for the franchise. Always been a Half Life man myself.

[Weiss Pinguin]

Originally Posted by Spike88

But why Spend 60 dollars on the same old same old?

Cuz that's what it sells for If people like something enough, they'll pay for it.

[Dowly]

Fresh out, Yahtzee on Halo:Reach
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/vide...136-Halo-Reach

[Weiss Pinguin]

Originally Posted by Dowly

Fresh out, Yahtzee on Halo:Reach
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/vide...136-Halo-Reach

This should be good

[Spike88]

Originally Posted by Dowly

Fresh out, Yahtzee on Halo:Reach
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/vide...136-Halo-Reach

Hot off the press. I just checked an hour ago and they didn't have anything.

[daft]

My God am I late to this, but here goes. Firstly, yes it is the same engine but Bungie has stated repeatedly that it is a heavily tweaked Halo 3 engine, and after spending way too many hours in Reach (many more that in Halo 3 to be honest) I have to say that it really shows. Reach is undoubtedly better looking and sports bigger levels that H3.

As to why spend $60 on same old, same old. Well, many would argue it is not. In fact there are quite a few that claim that Reach is such a departure from the Halo concept that it is a Halo game in name only. Secondly, Reach serves a good story (much, much better than Cod:Blops IMO) as well as an amazing multiplayer platform, and considering the heavy work Bungie has put into the engine I would say that Halo Reach adds more bang for the buck than most sequels do regardless of genre.

I didn't really "get" Halo until I started playing Reach. I found the universe quite compelling and really enjoyed the multiplayer aspects of the game even though I suck badly at it. It really demands a lot of tactical analysis of the player since running and gunning will kill you pretty fast. The new armour abilities does add a lot to that strategic aspects as different abilities has different pros and cons. Finding a group of regular players makes Halo Reach into one of the best gaming experiences I've had in many years, flight-/subsims included. I've already spent around 80-90 hours in SP and MP and still play the game on a daily basis. I can see myself playing Reach for years to come, and if that isn't value for money, I don't know what is.

So at the end of the day I believe that if you take a closer look at Reach you will find that it really isn't so much more of the same as you might think. And on its own merits it is a rich and rewarding multiplayer/social experience that knows how to entertain and captivate its players, and that goes a long way in my book. To each his own, as always, but I thought I should I should chime in and "defend" a really good game. Nothing personal.

[Spike88]

I decided to get the whole Halo saga "besides Wars" for really cheap . And have changed my opinion on the games a little bit.

Halo: Okay standard shooter, but 90% of the game looks the same.

Halo 2: Okay shooter, more variation in the areas, although basically like playing Halo 1 again.

Halo ODST: I love the futuristic city. But the whole "Investigate" thing was a bit of a disappointment. I was hoping to have to actually try to piece together what happened, not just FIND THE YELLOW THING and play as the member who dropped it(which doesn't even really make sense). I still need to beat it.

Halo 3: Have yet to start because of needing to finish Halo ODST. But From what I've seen it'll just be like 2 and 1 again.

Halo Reach: Multiplayer which is what I was basing my rant off looks just like Halo 3's, but a little bigger. But jesus the single player looks nice. I haven't played much of the story(waiting on 3), but I'm only expecting the same exact formula of the last 4 games.

The one thing I do like, although I don't really play multiplayer so I'll never really use it, is the fact that you can customize your character to look how you want them to look.

In total, would I regret buying all the games back when they were first release full price? Probably. Do I regret spending the amount of money on them \cheap? Not really.

[Weiss Pinguin]

I have to agree with you on the ODST's campaign; I still liked it, but after seeing a couple trailers (especially the one with I was getting pumped up for some insane large-scale interplanetary paratrooper fighting from the perspective of 'one of the guys,' but instead we got an action-mystery game. But hey, it was an action-mystery with Nathan Fillion

Also, I dunno if I would've done ODST before Halo 3, but I guess it doesn't really matter either way. They both only really cross paths for a little bit, and then both stories go way off in different directions.