An Early Look At Halo: Reach

KatanAlpha writes "Based on all the information coming out about Halo: Reach, it seems that Bungie's basic philosophy has been: 'The sequels to the first Halo sucked. Let's fix that.' We've already seen a little bit of this with Halo: ODST, wherein Bungie returned to some of the core elements of Halo gameplay and ditched many of the changes introduced in Halo 2 and 3. Reach seems to continue this idea while trying to invigorate the franchise by introducing greatly improved graphics and additional gameplay mechanics."

Comments

The original Halo also sucked

[alphabetsoup]

Some parts were fun, I admit, but mostly the levels were extremely repetitive. I especially remember the Library level - where you had to do the same thing over and over - move through hall after hall which looks exactly the same and enemies which behave the same - I have never felt so bored by an FPS.

Re:The original Halo also sucked

[Stormwatch]

Actually, the original Halo was radically different from what was ultimately released -- a third person shooter, set in an open and persistent world, with online multiplayer. But then Microsoft bought Bungie, moved the whole thing to the Xbox, and... rumors back then said the Xbox just lacked the power to handle the ambitious original design.

Re:The original Halo also sucked

[somersault]

Yep. I remember being really excited when I first read about Halo (way back when it was still being made for Macs), but when I eventually tried the real thing, it was crap. Same level of boringness as the original Unreal. IMO the only people who would make such a big deal about games like Halo and Resistance: Fall of Man etc are people who haven't played decent FPSes like Half-Life.

Re:The original Halo also sucked

[Jezza]

This isn't really fair, the original Halo is the first FPS I can think of that had vehicles that the player could use. It is also the first time I can remember computer controlled players being useful (well manning the turret in the Warthog is what I'm really thinking about). There was also a plot, with a couple of surprises. I also particularly enjoyed the "mad dash" Warthog ride at the end - the best ending of any of the Halo games.

Now it's true that a theme of all the Halo games has been fight across a level, then turn around and fight back across it - but let's cut them some slack here, the levels were pretty nicely designed (you've picked the weakest) and there was a lot of variation in both what the player had to do, and the level design.

Halo has influenced FPS design, the original wasn't perfect, the multiplayer was very lacking for example, but a very good game indeed.

Re:The original Halo also sucked

[am 2k]

You forgot about the part where you had to go through a whole level a second time, just backwards...

Re:The original Halo also sucked

[Winckle]

Tribes had vehicles in 1998

Re:The original Halo also sucked

[DNS-and-BIND]

The "original Halo" was just an updated Tribes. Man, what a good game. Pity that MS bought Bungie and Halo became famous...it's a watered-down Tribes.

Re:The original Halo also sucked

[BeardsmoreA]

IMO, as someone who moved from Doom through Quake to Half Life and then Halo, the only people who make a big deal about the tedium of Halo are those who've never sat down IN THE SAME ROOM, at the same screen, as a bunch of friends, and had an enjoyable couple of hours blasting things together. Halo stood out for its built in co-op for me. Sadly 2 and 3 didn't really add anything to the promising start.

Re:The original Halo also sucked

[iainl]

I've been back playing Half-Life 2 recently, in fact. While there are many wonderful things about it, the actual combat doesn't grab me anything like as much as Halo, in single-player at least. The rechargeable shield innovation of Halo is far, far preferable to playing the tedious games of health and ammo management that the Half-Life games use to implement difficulty, because the latter encourages rote learning through quicksave too much for me.

Re:The original Halo also sucked

[indiechild]

I've always felt that the basic combat in the Half-Life games sucks badly -- it just doesn't feel compelling. It's the characters, overall story and other gameplay elements that make the HL series great.

Games like Call of Duty 4 and Modern Warfare 2 on the other hand have great, satisfying combat systems, but awful storylines.

Re:The original Halo also sucked

[Hadlock]

Do the Myth II and "original Halo" share the same engine? I remember playing around with the Myth II map editor and couldn't help but notice that Halo looked shockingly like the Myth II maps I used to make.

Re:The original Halo also sucked

[zach_the_lizard]

The multiplayer was OK, but the rest of the game was -- and is -- mediocre. The main "feature," if I can call it that, is that the marketing droids managed to make a big deal out of a second rate game. It's not bad, but it's not the religious experience that it has been made out to be.

Re:The original Halo also sucked

[dredwerker]

The "original Halo" was just an updated Tribes. Man, what a good game. Pity that MS bought Bungie and Halo became famous...it's a watered-down Tribes.

Tribes was great - I did love the flying about and the choice of style quick and no armour, heavy and slow or in between :) Halo is about multiplayer mainly and it helps to have played the singleplayer game through so you know what its all about and how the weapons work.

Re:The original Halo also sucked

[Squeakstar]

That feature did smell a bit of re-using assets, but for me the original halo was defo the best storyline and epitomised the bungie philosophy of short bursts of condensed gameplay fun, run and gun. The flood constantly chasing, er, literally flooding was manic as chuff as great fun - something the sequels seemed to miss out on IMO. Storyline was weak in 2 and 3 and whatever nonsense characters were babbling just went in one ear and out the next, and especially Halo2, where it just seemed to end and i wished i'd paid more attention.

Re:The original Halo also sucked

[dskzero]

Well, Shadow Warrior has it in 1997 or so, but that's besides the point.

Re:The original Halo also sucked

[TheFakeMcCoy]

The story to the first HALO game was great. I found my self staying up until 3am and going to with 3 hours of sleep. I couldnt wait to find out what was going to happen next. I think on the first mission I actually cheered when I found the lost marines. Since then the books have been pretty good, however the in game storyline has become more of disappointment with each game. I'm actually ashamed of ODST, wish almost feels like a cheap knock off of one of the books. I hope that they can actually come up with an enjoyable game rather than continue to dishearten fans of the original and try to squeeze every dollar. Seriously, access to the Reach Beta by owning ODST. You should get odst free and access to the reach beta just for having played the 2nd and 3rd games respectivly.

Re:The original Halo also sucked

[grapeape]

Well I guess its a good thing that casual gamers far far outnumber the fps nerds. Bungie seems to know its market no wonder the game has done so well..its actually accessable to the masses.

Re:The original Halo also sucked

[somersault]

I have played Halo co-op before, it didn't strike me as anything special. I've had much more enjoyable local multiplayer elsewhere, both co-op and vs.. as far back as the late 80s or at the least the early 90s on SEGAs, Amigas etc. Playing with friends always makes a game more fun. The only reason Halo was such a success is that it was the only console based FPS of the time to even offer local multiplayer and co-op.. there were a few years where games developers just seemed to stop doing that for whatever reason.

Re:The original Halo also sucked

[Bakkster]

I'd say the main feature was that it made it a lot cheaper and easier to sit 16 people in a basement and play an FPS. Rather than 15 people lugging their desktop, CRT, keyboard, and mouse to your place and setting up a bunch of tables to play CS, you could have 3 friends bring their XBox with 4 controllers, a different 3 friends bring their TV, and another 9 people just need to show up ready to get sniped by someone with a pistol. It took the LAN party from a large undertaking for everyone involved to something where over half the people could just show up with Cheetos and Mountain Dew and still be able to play all night. Like Goldeneye before it, it was the 'hardcore' console party game.

So, you get millions hooked on Halo, and it doesn't matter that the sequels are totally different. They remember playing Halo, most get it for the nostalgia, and they stay for the still incredibly large player-base.

Re:The original Halo also sucked

[somersault]

If you define "boring" as "I have to actually engage my brain", then I agree with you.

I would much prefer to replay Half-Life or any of the expansion packs than sit through the boring-ass MW2 single player again (MW2 multi-player isn't bad, but I hate how you can't disable the auto-aim.. then again since I tend to get most of my kills with the knife, it doesn't matter so much).

Re:The original Halo also sucked

[KDR_11k]

Was it reallyor was that just your imagination soaring from the few bits of information? I've seen people get excited about a "new Tribes" quite often whenever a team xPS with jetpacks appears, even if the final result has little in common with Tribes. Examples I can think of where people complained afterwards that the game was not like Tribes are Section 8 and Global Agenda and those are just the recent ones.

Re:The original Halo also sucked

[KDR_11k]

To be fair Bz '90-something had vehicles that you spent the majority of your time in, only rarely did you leave the vehicle. Same goes for G-Nome. I hear a game called Codename Eagle (predecessor of the Battlefield series) had the modern balance of infantry combat with a few vehicles mixed in.

Re:The original Halo also sucked

[Hatta]

I've had many enjoyable hours sitting down with friends blasting things on the same screen. Only it was Perfect Dark. Halo didn't exactly suck, it just wasn't anything awesome. Perfect Dark was awesome.

Re:The original Halo also sucked

[AdamThor]

I'd say the main feature was that it made it a lot cheaper and easier to sit 16 people in a basement and play an FPS.

This is still what I do with a bunch of friends. I think we're all ready to move on from Halo, but there is a distinct lack of 4-player per console shooters out there for us to migrate to. I understand that there is one or two, and we've started putting more effort into figureing out what is available...

Re:The original Halo also sucked

[billcopc]

Yep you nailed it. All three games, I played through the campaign with a buddy (split screen) and we had a blast. The pacing was great, every few minutes there was a tense moment where we had to think together to pull through, and it rarely got boring. I even felt Halo 3 was too short, seems like we plowed through it in no time at all.

When I played them again on my own, I found each game a bit tedious overall. The levels tend to feel too large and I'm not a fan of massive fights where they drop four dozen of little alien bastards every ten minutes, and the flood reminded me of the HL's headcrabs, which I equally hated.

I'm still eager to see the next instalment, but that's because I know my old buddy will be calling me for some split-screen alien carnage.

Re:The original Halo also sucked

[Useful Wheat]

Shadow Warrior was made in 1997, and it had vehicles you could use. You had to find repair kits scattered throughout the game, and you could use them to repair a tank, and one other vehicle.

Re:The original Halo also sucked

[WraithCube]

the only console based FPS of the time to even offer local multiplayer and co-op.. there were a few years where games developers just seemed to stop doing that for whatever reason.

I'm not really sure what years you are talking about. Timesplitters and Perfect Dark were both released in 2000 for the PS2 and N64. Gamecube and xbox were released at the end of 2001. Halo I guess would have been the first one released for the xbox, since it was released with the launch. Timesplitters 2 was released in 2002 for the xbox, gamecube, and PS2, had a ton of multiplayer modes, weapons, character stats, bots, and a mapmaker. Tribes Aerial Assault was also released in 2002. I also seem to recall various bond games released over that time period as bond games seem to keep getting made in order to recreate the success of goldeneye. The only way Halo might have been the only unique game of the time with that is if you wanted a good FPS during the first few months the xbox was released and that was the only console you were looking at.

Re:The original Halo also sucked

[somersault]

Well, I was more into my PC FPSes back then and used my PS1&2 for other types of game so I didn't hear about anything but the 'big' games (and I didn't even know Tribes was available for consoles) - but it seemed to me that during the 00s it was increasingly prevalent to have games with online multiplayer but no local multiplayer. Thankfully things seem to be getting better again. Maybe I was just looking at the wrong games.

Re:The original Halo also sucked

[Ihmhi]

Microsoft seems to have a history of taking promising games and then ruining them. My group of friends were the exact same way with Perfect Dark on the N64.

I hear about the next Perfect Dark on the Xbox and I am understandably excited - but like most modern gamers I've been burned by previous purchases and so I wait it out.

If they hadn't fucked that game up so horribly I would have been an early adopter.

Re:The original Halo also sucked

[AmigaMMC]

As a matter of fact the 2nd book was too game oriented as well. While I highly recommend the first book "Halo: The Fall of Reach" If you have not read it yet you're in for a treat, this book is a prequel to the game and tells the origins of Master Chief and the Spartan II project before they even had a Mjolnir armor. Great read (and the 3rd book, Halo: First Strike) is also a great read.

Re:The original Halo also sucked

[ooshna]

Tribes Aerial Assault was also released in 2002.

I played Tribes since Starsiege:Tribes and it was the only good one. Everyone after that was a shell of its former self

Re:The original Halo also sucked

[Backward Z]

I had a friend with four TV's, four Xboxes, four copies of Halo and sixteen controllers in his apartment who would regularly have Halo/Halo 2 throwdowns (he was a manager of a GameStop).

Countless hours playing Halo at his place later and I'm still not wowed. We all pretty well agreed, the only reason we played Halo all the time was because there wasn't anything resembling an apt suitor on Xbox. Nobody denied that PC FPS's had WAY more to offer (there's nothing Halo did except for the recharging armor that Bungie didn't steal from Half-Life).

It's a slightly-above-average FPS that just happened to drop in exactly the right place at the right time. I have more fun in 4 player L4D and L4D2 on my PC over the internets than I ever did playing Halo in the same room as my opponents.

The campaign level design was extremely lacking. Copy+paste does not good level design make. Putting another player in a co-op situation does nothing to fix the abhorrent level design.

That, and OMG everybody moves so damn slow! I can't stand it!

Re:The original Halo also sucked

[theArtificial]

I recall the lament one of the team members stating that this movie was entirely scripted. Some of the builds prior to this one had a much more ambitious take on weapons (the game featured several dozen). I have a Voodoo 550 still in the box on my shelf for a never realized "classic" game machine that has been completely obsoleted by DOSBOX and VMs that has Halo artwork on it.

Re:The original Halo also sucked

[JonathanBoyd]

Countless hours playing Halo at his place later and I'm still not wowed. We all pretty well agreed, the only reason we played Halo all the time was because there wasn't anything resembling an apt suitor on Xbox. Nobody denied that PC FPS's had WAY more to offer (there's nothing Halo did except for the recharging armor that Bungie didn't steal from Half-Life).

That's rather hilarious. What is it that you think they stole from Half-Life? You are aware aren't you that Bungie has made quite a few games before Halo and people fanatically look for links there?

Re:The original Halo also sucked

[Hurricane78]

Well, I played it on the PC. And because I was used to fast, nasty aliens that would not wait a second... not the “standing around for a couple of seconds until you adjusted your thumbstick” kind, I found the enemies mind-numbingly dumb. As was most of the game.

Well, there are different people on this planet. I can tolerate their views. (But we’ll see of they can tolerate mine. Went pretty bad every time I mentioned Apple.)

Re:The original Halo also sucked

[Hurricane78]

Yes, co-op is a great feature, that I would love to see coming back. Especially to PCs, where everybody has his own monitor.

But come on. After Quake 3 (especially pro mode), how can anything else, be it halo, unreal or half life, ever offer enough fast-paced action again? (Although there still is absolutely nothing that beats a round of CPMA as a target and run practice/warm-up.)

The sequels sucked?

[Toonol]

I don't think they really did. They just didn't do anything vastly different than the first game. Slight bump in graphics, tweaking mechanics a bit... disappointing, I suppose, if you are expecting massive improvements between games. Maybe more disappointing if multiplayer is your focus, instead of the story and campaign.

Sometimes I think the industry is to quick to rebuild a game from scratch for the sequel, when the players really would be happy with just more story, more levels, more characters. We didn't need the special effects in the Empire Strikes Back to be better than Star Wars; we just wanted to see what would happen next.

Re:The sequels sucked?

[fyrewulff]

Slight bump in graphics? .. have you actually looked at screenshots of Halo 1, 2, 3, and Reach side by side?

Halo 1 didn't even support bump maps on bipeds, only scenery!

3 is leagues ahead of 2, obviously because it's on much better hardware.

Reach has more polygons in the Assault Rifle first person model than an entire Marine had in Halo 3 due to improvements to their engine.

Re:The sequels sucked?

[jadin]

when the players really would be happy with just more story, more levels, more characters

As long as the price is scaled accordingly. I doubt anyone wants to pay full game price when it should be in the expansion section.

Re:The sequels sucked?

[Jezza]

I think this all depends. There are some games that are so good, that you're going to buy them no matter what. Also what if the game is far longer than the original (in a good way) does it matter that it doesn't fundamentally change things? The cost of producing a game is at least as much tied to the "digital assets" as the "engine". When you think about it, most modern games use the same underlying technology anyway, I'm not sure I'm persuaded by your argument.

All sounds a bit "new Coke" to me...

Re:The sequels sucked?

[zach_the_lizard]

Reach has more polygons in the Assault Rifle first person model than an entire Marine had in Halo 3 due to improvements to their engine.

Despite that, the gameplay will likely not have improved by that much. It'll likely be the same, only maybe we can dual wield swords or something like that now.

Re:The sequels sucked?

[KDR_11k]

Reach has more polygons in the Assault Rifle first person model than an entire Marine had in Halo 3 due to improvements to their engine.

That isn't very surprising, the first person models often have the most details of any asset in the game because they're going to be right in your face all the time. It wouldn't even be surprising to find that a game actually put more polygons into its first person view weapons than its characters.

Re:The sequels sucked?

[SuiteSisterMary]

I watched the first Halo: Reach ViDoc the other day, and they had a side-by-side of the marine model from Halo 3 and the marine model from Halo Reach and it was pretty damn impressive. Of course, anybody can whip up a video, but I'm looking forward to it.

Re:The sequels sucked?

[Blakey Rat]

Halo 2 is one of my favorite games ever.

True, I didn't care much for Halo 3... but I think it's a long stretch to say Halo 2 sucked.

Halo: ODST

[FinchWorld]

No it didn't change anything, it was pretty much a Halo 3 expansion which cost more. It didn't really play much differently (For a non augumented human, an ODST is still strong enough to beat a brute to death with his rifle).
Halo 2 was worse than 3, but they were good games, not great. After the first time round theres not much else to it (unless you hunt easter eggs etc.). The only reason we still play Halo 3 is because its one of the few games that support 4 player spilt screen and LAN at the same time, so with a couple large TVs and 2 consoles we can quickly play 3v3/4v4, or have 2 per screen for co-op. Its odd such games (Im looking at you Call Of Duty) allow 4 player split screen, but as soon as you try a lan game your limited to 1 per console.

Re:Halo: ODST

[Xest]

I actually really liked ODST, in fact, it's my favourite Halo game so far (played 1, 2, 3, and Halo Wars).

Halo has always been cool because of it's coop/multiplayer support, and yet I found ODST's campaign so good when played alone, because it added so much to the 'lone marine' storyline. In fact, it was one of my favourite games of last year- I preferred it to MW2's messy, rushed, disjointed single player storyline for example. I'll admit when I played through it a second time with a friend in coop it wasn't quite so good because playing coop just took away completely from the lone marine storyline, and removed all need for tactics- dying doesn't matter in coop, you just respawn.

I didn't find the ODST campaign really any shorter than Halo 3, playing it solo on legendary it lasted as long as Halo 3 did on coop for example, in fact I'd say it lasted longer due to the tactical nature of fighting frickin' hunters and stuff as an ODST by himself for some parts of the game. It wasn't more expensive- £29.99 for ODST vs. £39.99 average price for Halo 3, and it included Halo 3's multiplayer + all the map packs and such too. It had as much content as 99% of full retail games, and yet retailed for £10 cheaper.

The only real problem I have with ODST is the fact that their survival mode had no matchmaking and required you to find 3 friends with it. Apart from that it was an excellent package IMO - fair price, great single player storyline, fun coop survival mode, Halo 3's multiplayer in full.

Re:Halo: ODST

[Jezza]

One of the things I think is key to the enjoyment of the single player in ODST is something it forces on the player - you get different weapons as you "step into the boots" of the others in your squad. It's a little thing, but you're forced to use different weapons, and often different tactics. Once you've played it, you CAN blast through it pretty quickly (the sequence with Dutch in the wildlife park CAN be amazingly quick - and seeing how fast you can do that is fun in itself) but there is a lot to see and do. It doesn't feel quite as meaty as the other Halo games, but as you say that is reflected in the price. In a lot of ways ODST is technically the strongest Halo yet. It's also the most underrated of the Halo games.

Well that's a lot of leaps of logic

[fyrewulff]

Bungie has never said the sequels suck. However they are very open about what they did wrong and right in their previous games.

As it stands, Halo 3 is still the best multiplayer experience. Halo 1's multiplayer is a glitchfest with maps that were made by a two man team with a guy that just learned how the extrude tool worked the day before. It is unbalanced and only two of it's maps supported vehicles (so of course, everyone just played those two maps). The maximum amount of Xboxes that can join a LAN is 4 so if you want more than 4 people playing, somebody is gonna have to splitscreen.

Halo 2 was leagues better but it suffered from animation glitches and the ability to escape from maps.

Halo 3 refined the balance of 2 and also fixed all the animation glitches and map escapes. After playing it, there is no reason to ever go back and play Halo 1 multiplayer beyond for a laugh. Single player I play once in a while, but the multiplayer is so bad now it's not even funny.

The removal of dual wielding doesn't even change things that much since people hardly do it in Halo 3 anyway. All it really means is that dual-able weapons will now get a damage buff, like they already did to the Needler (went from dual-capable in 2 to a single weapon in 3)

Reach so far appears to be continuing to build upon Halo 3's multiplayer design and balance. Heck, a Bungie employee is already quoted as saying that the weapons aren't going to be drastically tweaked or anything from their Halo 3 versions.

But then again, I'm probably one of the few people that started with Halo 1 in 2002 and don't worship the broke as hell pistol from 1 (which again, was actually a bug that couldn't be fixed in time for ship).

Re:Well that's a lot of leaps of logic

[thinkloop]

Why is the pistol broken! It was a great utility weapon and a sad day when I found out how much they crippled it in the sequels...

Re:Well that's a lot of leaps of logic

[elrous0]

It's broken because it was never meant to be that powerful. When you have a whole map full of people running around with the default pistol, ignoring the rifles and other (presumably more powerful) weapons, you know there is a problem. Ever seen a war with everyone carrying around .38 revolvers? All you whiny bitches complaining about them "crippling" the pistol in later versions are just mad that you actually have to work for it now, with properly balanced weapons.

Someone at Bungie

[AHuxley]

played Marathon?
If you sell out and have to make creative cuts as your running at 640p due to MS hardware 'cost' cutting...what do people expect
Now the 'brand' name wants to tart things up with violence, plot, bestial alien languages and unique battles?
Note the total lack of words pointing to 'world size' or 'more monsters' just more tinkering efforts.

Re:Someone at Bungie

[dskzero]

I might be taking the bait, but didn't bungie *make* marathon?

Re:Someone at Bungie

[Lemming Mark]

According to other accounts I've read, the engine has been upped to support much larger distances between co-op partners (i.e. less of the annoying teleport effect) and to support up to 40 full enemy AIs, which is something like double the Halo 3 engine. So don't write off the world size and monster count just yet ...

Slashdot as a sucky games site

[Aceticon]

<RANT type="no-more-pre-release-marketting" class="big">

Bungie is supposedly going to do yet another Halo, only this time it's supposedly going to be much better than the previous ones and here's an article with what the producer's PR/Marketoids think should be said on what it's supposedly going to be like.

Reminds me of all the articles we used to have a couple of years ago about the latest and greatest new software that was coming out: it usually turned out to be neither that greatest, as ground/breaking or the seamingly flawless experience the software house's Marketing people had described it to be for the preview.

Now we have the same type of bull as game previews in Slashdot, kinda like the almost-paid-for, page filling pap which is the standard fare of the "Previews" section of the large (and mainstream gaming industry fanboy) game sites.

Until we actually have a post by someone with hands-on gaming experience on the game, maybe we should save the space for more interesting news, like say, new developments in the area of waste treatment - more substance and less perfumed s*it.

</RANT>

Re:Slashdot as a sucky games site

[Reapy]

Actually one of the most interesting news about REACH that I read is bungie can FINALLY FINALLY do another game that isn't halo. I have loved almost everyone of their games, especially myth, the fallen lords, and I have always felt they had ideas outside the norm and executed them perfectly. I can't wait to see what they can cook up when finally unsaddled from generic halo FPS games.

Re:Slashdot as a sucky games site

[DocHoncho]

Maybe I misread your comment but the new game is to be called Halo: REACH and so you shall keep waiting for that non-Halo game from Bungie.
Sorry Charlie.

Re:Slashdot as a sucky games site

[Reapy]

What I read was after halo reach is released, is that they will next be doing an original IP game that is not in the halo universe.

Re:Slashdot as a sucky games site

[DocHoncho]

Well bully then. Here's to hoping it's not the utter tripe Halo was then.

It was a printing error

[scdeimos]

...it seems that Bungie's basic philosophy has been: 'The sequels to the first Halo sucked. Let's fix that.'

That's because the L lost a fleck of ink and came out I.

Actually, I really enjoyed the first Halo. I felt extremely ripped off at the end of Halo 2, though, since it felt like I'd only gotten to play half the story. I skipped Halo 3 altogether as a result.

Re:"Story" People vs. Game-Playing People

[danny_lehman]

there are a series of books about halo.. i think theyre written by eric nylund. they are decent reads.. and i may be wrong but the plots in-game happen in between some books. so its no surprise there are 'story people'

Meh!

[ThirdPrize]

Since I gave up my xbox live gold account I haven't looked back. As a result I don't think I will be bothering with Reach. I played the Halo 3 campaign and that sucked. Move to next room, shoot some bad guys , get some ammo. Rince and repeat. The story didn't make much sense and Master Chief is a fairly unlikable hero.

Re:Meh!

[IgnoramusMaximus]

The story didn't make much sense and Master Chief is a fairly unlikable hero.

Do not even get me started on the "back-story" ... a fascist government that kidnaps kids (replacing them with clones who are sabotaged to die young - and painfully - so that parents do not catch on to the scheme) and puts them through a decade of torturous experiments, maims and kills most of them -- and somehow those kids through some kind of twisted "Stockholm syndrome" become great champions of the fascists, aka the "Good guys", against a bunch of fanatical religious nuts, aka the "Bad guys".

Then again, this is a Microsoft product and so they probably think fondly of this kind of future where corporations like Microsoft get to do this to kids under auspices of "defense of freedom", "protecting the Dumb Masses from Terrible Foes" or some other such utterly self-serving crap.

It is also quite a sad testimony to the current goings on in the American culture that there is so many budding fascists who identify with such ends-justify-all-means "heroics".

"Unlikable" is a rather large understatement.

Re:Meh!

[Culture20]

Do not even get me started on the "back-story" ... a fascist government that kidnaps kids (replacing them with clones who are sabotaged to die young - and painfully - so that parents do not catch on to the scheme) and puts them through a decade of torturous experiments, maims and kills most of them -- and somehow those kids through some kind of twisted "Stockholm syndrome" become great champions of the fascists, aka the "Good guys", against a bunch of fanatical religious nuts, aka the "Bad guys".

Wait, so the Govt. could clone the kids, but they went through extra steps to steal the *real* kids, and make the clones die quickly? Did they make a video game that Uwe Boll can't ruin the script of when he makes the movie?

Re:Meh!

[SuiteSisterMary]

It's not that they made the clones imperfectly, it's that the clones they made were unviable, due to the technology not being there. They could clone, but the clones would not survive. So, that was worked into the plan.

Any of the Halo books written by Eric Nylund are actually pretty good reads. The novelization of the original game is crap.

And to your parent poster, I doubt that Microsoft had anything to do with the story. And lest we forget, Halo was originally to be a Mac game....

Re:Meh!

[HarvardAce]

Wait, so the Govt. could clone the kids, but they went through extra steps to steal the *real* kids, and make the clones die quickly? Did they make a video game that Uwe Boll can't ruin the script of when he makes the movie?

It's been a while since I read the books, but my recollection is that the cloning process was not very good and resulted in the early death, which is why they couldn't use the cloned kids in the program (otherwise they could just find the best and make an army of clones).

Re:Meh!

[elrous0]

Would you have felt more comfortable playing as a pacifist running like hell from the aliens the whole game, trying not to crap yourself?

Actually, that might make for an interesting game.

Re:Meh!

[IgnoramusMaximus]

Would you have felt more comfortable playing as a pacifist running like hell from the aliens the whole game, trying not to crap yourself?

There is a loooong way from the SPARTAN program to any "pacifism". A regular military force defending their homes from an invader is not "pacifism" by any means. SPARTAN program, as described in the books, crossed every line to the point that it essentially gave up any reason for its opposition to Covenant to exist as both sides became just a different faces of the same ugly coin and both became enemies of everyone sane everywhere. This simple fact, that giving up freedom and justice in order to "defend" freedom and justice is one of the most counter-productive things ever, never seems to register with various authoritarians drooling after power and "hero" status.

By all tokens the SPARTAN "graduates", if such a thing existed in real life, would behave quite differently from the wet dreams of the jingoists writing this drivel, they would have every reason to hate the UNSC and none to hate the Covenant, as at the time of their "graduation" all the torture, mutilations and murder were committed on them by the UNSC and none of them even saw anyone from the Covenant. Given this simple fact, in real life a majority would end up as insurgents and terrorists out to exterminate their torturers and all those who benefited from their misery and not quite a few would outright welcome the Covenant's attack side with the invaders (who would gladly welcome them and supply them with equipment and provisions and who would take care to make sure that they never offend these powerful allies, thus becoming vastly superior "Good Guys" to the vicious UNSC "Bad Guys" from the perspective of the SPARTAN victims).

But in actuality these infantile fantasies are so bothersome because the sick morons that think them up would actually try them (as long as it was on people other then themselves) irrespective of any probability of "success", as is evident by the general attitudes of various war-mongering dolts that can be seen everywhere.

Re:Meh!

[SuiteSisterMary]

Bungie is known for having written a rich and detailed backstory, and having a very detailed 'bible' for Halo. Eric Nylund was not coming up with things at the behest of Microsoft. I'm sure he gets to invent minor stuff what needs inventing, but somehow I doubt 'the origin of the Spartans' would fall into that.

Re:Meh!

[IgnoramusMaximus]

Bungie is known for having written a rich and detailed backstory, and having a very detailed 'bible' for Halo.

Much of which, if not all, happened after they were assimilated by Microsoft. The game was originally quite different in design and scope and underwent a considerable evolution under Microsoft's direction (and also due to limitations of Xbox). It is no coincidence that all the dolts at "Central Command" Nylund mentions in his books are long-time Microsoft employees in charge of various aspects of Microsoft gaming division.

Re:Meh!

[SuiteSisterMary]

I guess we're just going to have to agree to disagree that Microsoft is using video game tie-in literature to espouse the usefulness of morally indefensible 'ends justify the means' human experiments.

Re:Meh!

[IgnoramusMaximus]

To be accurate its not "Microsoft" which is an abstract entity, although it is convenient to speak of it that way, but the whole corporate culture of which Microsoft is an example and which attracts such individuals and enables them to rise in power by rewarding their sociopathic attitudes. The end result is that these people end up thinking of themselves as superior (after all their traits made them "successful" at the expense of all around them who are not as twisted as they are) and so they proudly promote their way of thinking in part as self-justification, in part as ego-stroking and in part because they actually believe themselves righteous and "good".

History is full of idiots of this kind, in fact pretty much every oppressive social order, all wars, atrocities and campaigns of persecution were instigated and conducted by the personalities just like them.

Re:Meh!

[SuiteSisterMary]

not-sure-if-serious.jpg

Re:Meh!

[IgnoramusMaximus]

Am always serious when I see high-level corporate stooges (many of whom these day have power and resources exceeding those of whole small nations) start to fancy themselves as military commanders... even if it is supposedly in the name of "entertainment".

I am not quite sure if you have been following news lately but corporate power is these days ever more unbalanced versus that of citizens to the point that whole corporations are now para-military entities with an explicit license to kill pretty much anyone they please (e.g. Blackwater/Xe). The thing has long since crossed from the realm of dark futuristic fantasy and make-believe games into reality.

Re:Meh!

[Spit]

Don't forget the Spartan raison d'etre was to smash the rebellious colonies, years prior to the Covenant threat. The horrific Spartan backstory along with the internal Covenant politics makes for an overall more interesting story.

Re:Meh!

[SuiteSisterMary]

You know, it's interesting you say that. About ten years ago, I went on a business trip to South Korea (from Canada.)

Up here in Canada, Daewoo makes televisions. In South Korea, they're a fricken Megacorp, straight out of Gibson or Shadowrun. Daewoo toothpaste even.

The other day, I was having a conversation with a co-worker that Google is rapidly approaching that status, with their new fibre plans. I likened it to L. Bob Rife's monolog in Snow Crash about how he bought a bunch of regional telcoms, and nobody realized that when he hooked them all together, he'd have a huge network.

Now, corporate power has been an issue for quite a while. Some of America's defining moments (such as the Boston Tea Party) were anti-corporation, not anti-Crown or anti-Government. Declaring corporations as people was just ridiculous, I think.

Re:Meh!

[IgnoramusMaximus]

Don't forget the Spartan raison d'etre was to smash the rebellious colonies, years prior to the Covenant threat.

I haven't forgotten. It is precisely why I called the UNSC fascists ... well ... "fascists".

The horrific Spartan backstory along with the internal Covenant politics makes for an overall more interesting story.

SPARTAN program would have certainly back-fired under those conditions in ways that I already described. Without the Covenant the SPARTANs would have certainly turned on UNSC and likely sided with those very rebellious colonies, with Covenant around they would most likely become its allies. Even the most inept general of either the colonies or the Covenant would immediately recognize the potential of helping the SPARTANs and trying to work into their good graces (which would have been rather easy given what UNSC did to them).

Re:"Story" People vs. Game-Playing People

[delinear]

For me it's about enhancing the feeling of immersion. The story doesn't have to be revolutionary (and that's just as well, because they're almost always not), it just has to be enough to encourage suspension of disbelief and give some level of empathy with the character(s). You're never going to get a story that comes close to the best of the written word because the two media are playing to their own strengths. In a game, you have to have the "game" parts which obviously detract from the story parts - Hamlet wouldn't be so good if five out of every six pages was just dedicated to Hamlet beating waves of enemies in sword combat, or exploring locations for health/ammo pickups.

Bioshock did this really well, IMHO - sure the main plot was nothing we've not seen before, but that's not where the feeling of immersion came from. It was more from the information you discover and piece together on your own, exploring and finding journals, tracking the journeys of characters you never actually meet in the game, discovering the origins of the characters you do fight/help in the game, it made the game world feel more real (dispite the slightly silly delivery mechanism of tape recordings dotted everywhere, which made if feel like these people experimenting with prototype tweeting). I know people who played through the game as a straight FPS without exploring this rich back story, without even realising it was there, and that's fine if the FPS experience is all you're after, but for people who want to feel a bit more involved with the game there was a much deeper experience to be had.

Re:"Story" People vs. Game-Playing People

[Antique Geekmeister]

True. There have actually been a few _good_ books about video game worlds. The "X-Com: UFO Defense" book by Diane Duane was actually fun to read, both consistent with the gameplay and lending color to the characters. Of course, Diane is also the woman who wrote "Spock's World" and "The Romulan Way", which also preserved the structure of someone else's fictional world but actually explored the people in it. I highly recommend her books to fans of worlds she's written books for.

Re:"Story" People vs. Game-Playing People

[Anonymous Coward]

The point of looking for a good story in a video game as opposed to a movie or a book is that the game is interactive. For some games that just means more immersion -- you don't just follow the main character, you *are* the main character -- but in other cases the story itself is interactive. Picture reading Hamlet and getting to the part where he's yelling at the queen and Polonius cries out from behind the curtain -- and you get to choose whether to take the "renegade" route and stab whoever's behind the curtain or take the "paragon" route and just demand the guy identify himself. Imagine how different the story would be from that point on. You would want to go back and read the story again and make different choices just to see how events unfold differently. There are games like Dragon Age and Mass Effect that really do put that much power over the storyline in your hands.

Re:"Sad" news ... Günter von Gravenreuth, dea

[grapeape]

Well he spent most of his adult life using coward tactics to confront pirates and crackers (I remember him harrassing the C=64 scene in the 80's). Only fitting he choose the cowards way out when confronted with his own crimes.

Re:"Story" People vs. Game-Playing People

[XxtraLarGe]

I admit to being amused -- in the nicest, gentlest, least-condescending way possible -- by the "video game story people."

Most game stories are pretty formulaic, but some games have extremely engrossing plots to them. Admittedly, these are far and few between. Halo was not one of them, but the original Marathon from Bungie was. The exchanges between the on-board AI's as well as the archives you could access at random terminals made for a very deep storyline. The other game that had an excellent story was Deus Ex. It successfully married almost every conspiracy out there from the Illuminati, to the Knights Templar, Majestic 12 and Area 51. The game had quite a few plot twists, partly that were dependent on what actions you took, and took you to a number of locations, from New York to Paris to Hong Kong. There were times you could chose to kill someone (like agents Navarre or Gunther), and that would change the game play experience in the future, since certain weapons and upgrades might not be available to you. Much like Marathon, Deus Ex used things like books or stray notes to give you clues as to the motivation of people in the game.

Re:"Story" People vs. Game-Playing People

[elrous0]

Yes, it's true that very few people play primarily for the story. But a compelling or interesting story (and, more particularly, setting) can set a game apart from its peers. "Knights of the Old Republic" was a pretty straightforward RPG, judged exclusively by its gameplay. But the story really set it apart. Ditto for Mass Effect, Half-Life 2, Bioshock, etc.--all pretty unremarkable if judged on straight-up gameplay.

Re:Bungie's Strong arm tactics.

[Lemming Mark]

I think they should have charged less for ODST. That said, I bought it new as I didn't want to wait. I think I've had / am having my moneys worth with Firefight mode alone so I'm not upset, even though I think the decent thing to do would have been to sell at a reduced price.

Re:"Story" People vs. Game-Playing People

[geminidomino]

Isn't she the one who wrote "So you want to be a wizard" way back when?

Don't feed the troll.

[jadin]

All my friends who got into the game didn't bother with the halo books... they read what arguably inspired halo. Even an elitist snob might enjoy it.

"Ringworld is a Hugo, Nebula, and Locus award-winning 1970 science fiction novel by Larry Niven, set in his Known Space universe and considered a classic of science fiction literature. It is followed by three sequels, and ties into numerous other books set in Known Space. Ringworld won the Hugo Award in 1970,[1] as well as both the Nebula and Locus Awards in 1971."

What do you mean by "sucked" ?

[Majinace]

Number of copies sold for... Halo 1: 5 million Halo 2: 8 million Halo 3: 8.1 million Halo 3 ODST: 3 million Looking at Halo sales, I can't see how you can assume that Bungie thinks Halo 2 and 3 'sucked' in comparison to the first one. I think you could make a better argument that they broke things by returning to the 'core elements'

Actually

[manekineko2]

Actually, the video linked in the article did address both world size and more monsters directly. They're going for sand box style battles, with more of the feeling of vastness of stepping out of the ship in Halo 1, with more monsters and allies.

...and KatanAlpha speaks for whom?

[nataflux]

If you are implying that the Halo series "sucked", then you probably weren't around to witness the series unfold, or are just suffering from the "its popular, therefore it sucks" syndrome, or a little fanboyism, or all of the above. While Halo 2 may have been the blatant sell out that it was, it was still enjoyable and it pioneered the matchmaking concept as well as provide a platform for competitive gaming to thrive on the console market. The Halo series is a landmark in the first person genre, just the same as say Doom, Quake, and the Half Life series, of course its quite possible, probably guaranteed that without Microsoft's backing, Halo wouldn't have done as half as well as it did in sales. The Halo canon, while it may be a cookie cutter epic, is quite easy to comprehend and paints a fairly enriching struggle between humanity and the covenant. Halo is an advanced form of the "shooter-in-a-tube", it is an improved version of marathon, just as marathon is an improved version of Pathways into Darkness. Implying that it was meant to be more complicated than that only reveals that you weren't there to watch it grow, similar how say an adolescent child today who grew up playing Gears of War will find the first Halo game to be simple or "crappy".