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

[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.

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.

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: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.