Do you think Halo: Reach is the definitive Halo game?

  • 134 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
#1 Edited by greenygrey (155 posts) -

I know the game only came out a year ago, but it's a question I would still like to ask Halo fans. Before it's release, Bungie were hyping it up as the best Halo game and they would send their last game in their beloved (and often despised) franchise with a bang.

From a multi-player standpoint, I definitely think it's the best in the series despite the godawful maps that came with the game and armor lock. Definitely one of the most enjoyable and balanced online multi-player shooters of this generation.

But from a campaign standpoint, I thought it was the weakest or second weakest in the series next to ODST. One of the problems I had was the lack of epic set-pieces, and Bungie touted that the campaign will hold 40 to 60 A.I. on screen at once. But this is complete farce, as the game only had SLIGHTLY more enemies on screen than prior games, but not a single battle made me feel I was part of a war and there weren't any memorable set-pieces. Also, I found the story to be forgettable. A lot of people found the characters to be memorable, but I didn't give a shit for them. Kat and Jorge hinted character development, but they died off WAY too quickly to care. The story only really consisted of completing contrived errands for the UNSC, and the story didn't pick up until the last third act of the game. I will say that the ending was creative and emotionally engaging, but that's the best compliment I can give it. I don't think the campaign is bad, it's good but could've been better and the Vidoc hyped it up way too much. I will say that the enemy A.I. is very impressive; especially on Legendary where it's on par F.E.A.R.'s A.I.

 

#2 Edited by ProfessorEss (7506 posts) -

Multiplayer yes.

Single-player, though I very much enjoyed it (probably the most), I couldn't call it "definitive" due to the lack lead man and franchise icon, Master Chief.
#3 Posted by ReyGitano (2467 posts) -

In terms of features it certainly is, but I think it's missing some important aspects of the overall Halo experience, namely Master Chief, actual Halo's, and maps that people will remember as fondly as some of the older ones. I guess what I'm getting at is that when people decide to go back and play some classic Halo years from now, they might not be reaching for a copy of Reach... also totally didn't mean for that horrible pun right there.

#4 Posted by big_jon (5782 posts) -

I think it's a mixed bag, I loved it single player and multiplayer but I feel that each Halo has something that makes it stand out from the rest. Though fighting Elites in Halo Reach was pretty amazing, better than the other two games.

#5 Posted by greenygrey (155 posts) -
@big_jon said:
I think it's a mixed bag, I loved it single player and multiplayer but I feel that each Halo has something that makes it stand out from the rest. Though fighting Elites in Halo Reach was pretty amazing, better than the other two games.

The Elites in Reach were definitely badass, they were more cunning and ruthless than ever. They definitely made up for Halo 3's Brutes, which were basically Elites in disguise, minus dexterity and intelligence. I will give Reach props for not having Flood levles (LIBRARY, SACRED ICON, CORTANA). But it didn't have any stand-outs like The Silent Cartographer, Delta Halo, and Tsavo Highway. Long Night of Solace was the only mission that stood-out in Reach's campaign IMO.
#6 Posted by Pinworm45 (4088 posts) -

Halo is the definitive Halo game.

#7 Posted by zombie2011 (5047 posts) -

It was probably the best Halo game made. However for me i have so many great memories of playing Halo 2 and 3 online those will always be my favorites.

#8 Posted by greenygrey (155 posts) -
@Pinworm45 said:
Halo is the definitive Halo game.

If you mean CE, then I definitely agree with you. There isn't a single level in 2, 3, ODST, & Reach that came close to The Silent Cartographer.
#9 Posted by Diabloshadow (263 posts) -

Like someone said earlier, multiplayer in taht game is the best, it has been refined time and time again over the yeras and is just plain awesome.


Single player however, nothing in my mind, comes close to playing the original Halo: CE for the first time and realizing the scope of levels such as The Silent Cartographer, and the fear that I felt in The Library (Shotgun love forever).
#10 Posted by laserbolts (5365 posts) -
My favorite halo game multiplayerwise was halo 2 but my favorite halo single player was halo ce. So my definitive halo game would have to be halo 2.
#11 Posted by Jasta (2217 posts) -

Halo: CE will always be the one I remember, since then I've cared less and less about the franchise with each new release.

#12 Posted by protomessiah (49 posts) -

Absolutely not. Its a good Halo game, but the single player has a much weaker 2nd half and the characters are poor. The multiplayer is good but the map quality was low compared to older releases. Its a good game don't get me wrong, but not the "definitive" game of the series.

#13 Posted by BraveToaster (12588 posts) -

I thought ODST was boring, but Reach's singleplayer is the best in the series.

#14 Posted by npeterson08 (502 posts) -

It's definitely the best Halo game. However, I think the original Halo: Combat Evolved was extremely definitive, not only to the Halo franchise, but to the First Person Shooter genre in general.

#15 Posted by infestedandy (266 posts) -
@greenygrey: I'm not sure how you didn't feel that you were part of a war. There was a ridiculous amount of enemies on screen, so much so that I found myself running through fights just to move the story forward. That being said, I also didn't care much for the game.

The definitive Halo you're looking for was the second game; Halo 2.

Halo 2 changed everything. I'm sure you know, but weapons, story, visuals, gameplay mechanics, everything was smoothed out and streamlined to make it one of the best console FPS games ever. The story actually made sense and felt relevant, not to mention it was the only Halo campaign I went through where it didn't feel like it was squeezed for every cent it was worth. Let's face it, Halo 3's campaign was awful, ODST by far had the weakest, and even Reach didn't have the guns to do anything better.

I'm looking forward to playing through the remake of the first game, but Halo at this point is irrelevant to me. It's a story I thought was interesting and grew to despise, right along with everything else. I hate to say it, but I doubt Halo will ever hit its stride again.

HALO 2. What a time that was...
#16 Posted by Red (5994 posts) -

Multiplayer, definitely. However, I must disagree with your sentiments on the single player campaigns, although more out of personal preference. I hate when shooters try and go for large-scale battles, as they are usually frustrating and unrewarding as far as gameplay goes. My favorite shooter mission of all time is the flashback in CoD4, in which Price and Macmillan sneak and snipe to assassinate Zakhaev, and then have to hold off against enemy forces while waiting for a helicopter pick-up. It's simple, difficult, but never frustrating. On the other hand, the dual-Scarab fight in Halo 3 is probably one of my least favorite missions, as it is overly frustrating and unrewarding.

#17 Posted by greenygrey (155 posts) -
@npeterson08 said:
It's definitely the best Halo game. However, I think the original Halo: Combat Evolved was extremely definitive, not only to the Halo franchise, but to the First Person Shooter genre in general.

It seems you've never played Half-Life before. :P
#18 Posted by shinigami420 (640 posts) -

No 

#19 Edited by ez123 (1994 posts) -

Maybe.Reach's single player, Forge World, and Firefight are awesome. CE and 3 have better multplayer maps and characters that people(who aren't me) care about. Oh, and stable framerates but Reach does look pretty.

#20 Posted by greenygrey (155 posts) -
@infestedandy said:
@greenygrey: I'm not sure how you didn't feel that you were part of a war. There was a ridiculous amount of enemies on screen, so much so that I found myself running through fights just to move the story forward. That being said, I also didn't care much for the game.

The definitive Halo you're looking for was the second game; Halo 2.

Halo 2 changed everything. I'm sure you know, but weapons, story, visuals, gameplay mechanics, everything was smoothed out and streamlined to make it one of the best console FPS games ever. The story actually made sense and felt relevant, not to mention it was the only Halo campaign I went through where it didn't feel like it was squeezed for every cent it was worth. Let's face it, Halo 3's campaign was awful, ODST by far had the weakest, and even Reach didn't have the guns to do anything better.

I'm looking forward to playing through the remake of the first game, but Halo at this point is irrelevant to me. It's a story I thought was interesting and grew to despise, right along with everything else. I hate to say it, but I doubt Halo will ever hit its stride again.

HALO 2. What a time that was...

There were a good number of enemies on screen, but the game didn't do a very good job of setting up the battles or providing a chaotic atmosphere to make me feel that I was in a real battlefield. Killzone 2 & 3 have slightly less enemies on screen than Halo: Reach, but they definitely nailed down the atmosphere of war. I also don't know why you found Halo 3's campaign to be awful. Sure it wasn't great and disappointing, but it was good. It had a few good missions, like; Tsavo Highway, The Storm, The Ark, and The Covenant. The Scarab battles were epic, and some of the set-pieces were far more grandiose than Reach. I didn't care much for ODST either, I thought it was a cheap cash-in for the series. I will consider Halo 2 have contain my second favorite campaign in the series, but CE will always be my favorite in the series campaign wise.
#21 Posted by Druminator (1687 posts) -

I think Halo 2's multiplayer is still the best for various reasons but I like how Reach can be tweaked to pretty much play the same way. Still, I loved every map in Halo 2 and very few maps after that game haven't been as great. There's some good ones, but not awesome. But the first Halo is still the best as far as campaign goes.

#22 Posted by Afroman269 (7387 posts) -

Reach is pretty good. MP is the best. SP is probably close to Halo 3 for me. Reach has an advantage by not having any fucking Flood levels.

#23 Posted by greenygrey (155 posts) -
@Druminator said:
I think Halo 2's multiplayer is still the best for various reasons but I like how Reach can be tweaked to pretty much play the same way. Still, I loved every map in Halo 2 and very few maps after that game haven't been as great. There's some good ones, but not awesome. But the first Halo is still the best as far as campaign goes.

Halo 2 easily had the best maps in the series, even though it had the worst bullet magnetism and weapon balance in the series.
#24 Posted by THRICE (167 posts) -

After 2-3 weeks of playing Reach I'd say it's the second best in terms of multiplayer, Halo 2 was the most fun I've had with an online shooter period. Halo 3 looking back was a failure in my eyes, it was made antiquated shortly after release by CoD4 and barely held my attention for any length of time. Reach would of been the definitive experience after it corrected a lot of the mistakes Halo 3 had made in terms of matchmaking, balance, and subtle gameplay nuances except it has literally the worst maps in any FPS ever. Of the on disc maps most of them look like someone took the same basic map and rearranged the pieces in a level editor. They are all the same gray pieces just moved around with no variety and lazy design. 

#25 Edited by JasonR86 (9723 posts) -

I'm not sure what is meant by the definitive halo game.

I think it is one of the better ones.  It would be hard to chose this over 3 though.  I really liked what they did in 3 just in terms of scale and the ending.  Reach was a good experience but I'm not sure it tops 3 in terms of story.  In terms of gameplay I'm not sure it was different enough from 3 to really say one was better then the other.  The same holds true from a multiplayer standpoint. 

#26 Posted by keyhunter (3207 posts) -

Halo 3 is still the definitive Halo experience for me. Reach was sort of a step back.

#27 Posted by TooWalrus (13256 posts) -

Nope. Not only because we haven't played this remake of Combat Evolved, but because the campaign doesn't even have the three or four characters I've grown to like over the first couple of games. I don't really play Halo's multiplayer, and haven't played much since 2, so maybe on that front...

#28 Edited by big_jon (5782 posts) -
@protomessiah said:

Absolutely not. Its a good Halo game, but the single player has a much weaker 2nd half and the characters are poor. The multiplayer is good but the map quality was low compared to older releases. Its a good game don't get me wrong, but not the "definitive" game of the series.

I disagree, I loved the characters, I wish I could have seen more of them.

I thought the campaign to Reach was really powerful, I teared up at the end, Also Kat and Jorges deaths really hit me.
#29 Posted by Enigma777 (6058 posts) -

Yes. 

#30 Posted by HistoryInRust (6397 posts) -

In terms of gameplay polish, aesthetic direction, and Bungie's comfort with the series' production, yes. It's simply the best Halo game. 


Spiritually, however, Combat Evolved will always be the one people look to. It changed things forever. And Master Chief is a veritable mascot for mature gaming, much in the way Mario and Sonic functioned as the iconography of a bygone era. 
#31 Posted by fox01313 (5089 posts) -

Liked the MP in this but while I always thought that the single player in this was interesting, the single player mode in Halo ODST was still my favorite just in how it told the story by finding bits left over of what happened. Reach & ODST are both highly recommended as they are both extremely fun games.

#32 Edited by mastrbiggy (229 posts) -

Even though Halo 2 holds a special place in my heart if i put nostalgia aside Halo Reach is my favorite multiplayer of the series.  The campaign is on par with other Halo games though no where near Halo CE quality.  I would rank it above Halo 3 in campaign though. 

My biggest issue with Reach is that there are so many missed opportunities within the campaign.  Besides background fights I never really got the sense of planetary invasion or loss of life.  I would of liked to of seen more from the civilian side of things, at no point did anything feel tragic, well besides Jorge's death. 

I also think that it was a silly not to have encounters with other Spartans when on Reach.  Why not meet up with Spartan 2s at some point like Linda and Kelly.  They really missed their chance to show Spartans at their prime on Reach, the Spartan base of operations.  I would of loved to of seen multiple Spartan characters besides  your team, especially another squad of Spartans fighting elites.

#33 Posted by Rawrz (598 posts) -

As much of a fan of Reach as I am id still kinda give the multiplayer edge to Halo 3 just because I find the assault rifle and grenades in that game were better balanced then in Reach . Im also not a fan of just how random the DMR bloom is at times. I do prefer most of the Reach maps to any of those found in 3 though. Halo 2 easily had the best maps of any of the games. As for single player Halo CE is still the best to me.

#34 Posted by Hailinel (25205 posts) -
@Sir_Ragnarok said:
In terms of gameplay polish, aesthetic direction, and Bungie's comfort with the series' production, yes. It's simply the best Halo game. 

Spiritually, however, Combat Evolved will always be the one people look to. It changed things forever. And Master Chief is a veritable mascot for mature gaming, much in the way Mario and Sonic functioned as the iconography of a bygone era. 
If by mature gaming you mean little kids shouting racial slurs and near constant teabagging, then sure.

But mature on an emotional, intellectual level?  There are far better games than Halo to look to for that.
#35 Posted by LordXavierBritish (6320 posts) -

I don't play Halo for the story, so for me it is.

#36 Edited by iDarktread (1189 posts) -

Halo: Reach did absolutely nothing for me. It made me stop recommending 360s to people that I talk to.

#37 Edited by matrix_hiei (143 posts) -

Probably. I'm honestly not a fan of the series, but the amount of features in Reach is incredible. If I were to play a Halo game, I would certainly go to that one. With that being said, the first one is the only game in the series that I enjoyed at any point. A lot of that had to do with the progression of console shooters. Halo felt like a legitimate step up for the genre, but I don't think the franchise's gameplay evolved as console FPS became better.

I suppose what I'm saying it that it depends on what you mean by "definitive." For its time, the first Halo is easily the best in my opinion, but Reach is certainly the one I would go to now. And I've never enjoyed Halo's campaigns, and the first is the only one I ever finished,  so I'm not even factoring that into the equation.

#38 Edited by HistoryInRust (6397 posts) -
@Hailinel: No, I don't really mean either of those. Definitely not mature on some symbolic plane. 

I mean in terms of what age groups gaming as a medium pitches itself toward, or rather, as a window through which we can see how the gaming medium perceives itself. Mario and Sonic, probably even as far back as Pac-Man and Donkey Kong, serve as monoliths for an era in which gaming was almost exclusively focused on a flashy, "fun" experience. In point of fact, it wasn't very self-serious. 

Master Chief certainly wasn't the beginning of the video game medium taking a more mature turn, but he's definitely representative of the kinds of tones video games wanted to shoulder (and continue to shoulder) in the current phase of video game history, what some might call the second renaissance of the shooter. People can't really identify random-Call-of-Duty-soldier from random-Battlefield-soldier (nor should they, really, since the point of those games are to give people the ability to live vicariously a pseudo-realistic military conflict), but Master Chief--as a stand-in for Halo and, more broadly, first-person shooters in general--is a mascot for a newer generation of gamers, whose tastes are cut from a different cloth. 

So, I guess I mean "mature" contextually. In a broad, critical sense. 
#39 Posted by NTM (7540 posts) -

You know F.E.A.R. still has the best A.I. if people are still using them as examples.
#40 Posted by TaliciaDragonsong (8605 posts) -

Great game, loved it and still play it often.

#41 Posted by Raven10 (1922 posts) -

For me the series goes like this (from best to worst): Halo CE, Halo Reach, Halo 3, Halo 2, Halo ODST for single player

For MP the series is: Halo 3, Halo 2, Halo Reach, Halo CE, Halo ODST

A lot of it is hard to judge though. For example, Reach had the best graphics technically, and I really liked its art direction as well. The music from the first game is certainly iconic, but I would say Halo 2's music is overall the best. That said, I think the best song in the Halo series is Finish The Fight from Halo 3, and ODST's soundtrack has the most depth and variety. I think the combat in single player was best in Reach because of the highly intelligent Elites, while the first game is probably the most influential for console shooters. As for the story, I think the story in CE is by far the best and the story in 2 is by far the worst. ODST and Reach suffer from a severe lack of Master Chief, and 3 comes in second to CE. It's really hard for me to judge. The maps in 1 and 2 are probably the most iconic and some of the most balanced, but the weapons are much better balanced in 3 and Reach. And in terms of sheer content, Reach has a ridiculous number of modes and options. I can't really say any one of them is the best. I can say that ODST was the worst but that is the best I can give you.

#42 Posted by Sayishere (1840 posts) -

I dont know what the definitive halo game is, but the one i played the most was Halo 2.

#43 Posted by ajamafalous (12146 posts) -

I think Halo 2 is the definitive Halo game.

#44 Posted by protomessiah (49 posts) -
@big_jon said:
@protomessiah said:

Absolutely not. Its a good Halo game, but the single player has a much weaker 2nd half and the characters are poor. The multiplayer is good but the map quality was low compared to older releases. Its a good game don't get me wrong, but not the "definitive" game of the series.

I disagree, I loved the characters, I wish I could have seen more of them.I thought the campaign to Reach was really powerful, I teared up at the end, Also Kat and Jorges deaths really hit me.
Thats exactly my problem, we got to spend no time with them. They are all stereotypes, bland awful characters. Jorge was the only one with a semblance of character, the rest are all just soldiers in a race to have the most glorious death. 
#45 Posted by greenygrey (155 posts) -
@NTM said:
You know F.E.A.R. still has the best A.I. if people are still using them as examples.

I said it was on par with F.E.A.R.'s, not better.
#46 Posted by Bobby_The_Great (1012 posts) -

Put all the maps from 2 and 3 in there, and then you'll have the definitive Halo game. I'm just waiting for them to do so...

#47 Posted by greenygrey (155 posts) -
@big_jon said:
@protomessiah said:

Absolutely not. Its a good Halo game, but the single player has a much weaker 2nd half and the characters are poor. The multiplayer is good but the map quality was low compared to older releases. Its a good game don't get me wrong, but not the "definitive" game of the series.

I disagree, I loved the characters, I wish I could have seen more of them.I thought the campaign to Reach was really powerful, I teared up at the end, Also Kat and Jorges deaths really hit me.

Sorry, but I would have to agree with him. The characters were one-note, poorly characterized, and bland archestypes. The "noble sacrifices" were forced and poor set-up. I didn't feel aq single ounce of empathy for the characters of Reach, like I did with Stars Wars: Republic Commando, Brothers in Arms: Earned in Blood, Half-Life 2, and COD4 to an extent.
#48 Posted by big_jon (5782 posts) -
@greenygrey: We will have to agree to disagree then.
#49 Posted by greenygrey (155 posts) -
@Raven10 said:
For me the series goes like this (from best to worst): Halo CE, Halo Reach, Halo 3, Halo 2, Halo ODST for single player For MP the series is: Halo 3, Halo 2, Halo Reach, Halo CE, Halo ODSTA lot of it is hard to judge though. For example, Reach had the best graphics technically, and I really liked its art direction as well. The music from the first game is certainly iconic, but I would say Halo 2's music is overall the best. That said, I think the best song in the Halo series is Finish The Fight from Halo 3, and ODST's soundtrack has the most depth and variety. I think the combat in single player was best in Reach because of the highly intelligent Elites, while the first game is probably the most influential for console shooters. As for the story, I think the story in CE is by far the best and the story in 2 is by far the worst. ODST and Reach suffer from a severe lack of Master Chief, and 3 comes in second to CE. It's really hard for me to judge. The maps in 1 and 2 are probably the most iconic and some of the most balanced, but the weapons are much better balanced in 3 and Reach. And in terms of sheer content, Reach has a ridiculous number of modes and options. I can't really say any one of them is the best. I can say that ODST was the worst but that is the best I can give you.

I disagree, I consider Halo 2 to have the best storyline in the series. The dual perspectives of the Arbiter and the Master Chief made the plot complex and intriguing. It even had subliminal themes, not present in other Halo games. Yeah, it did have that abomination of an ending, but everything else about the story was solid. I also found the Arbiter to be a far more interesting and empathetic character than the Master Chief. I say Reach or Halo 3 have the worst story in the series.
#50 Posted by Hia7us (10 posts) -
@greenygrey said:
One of the problems I had was the lack of epic set-pieces, and Bungie touted that the campaign will hold 40 to 60 A.I. on screen at once. But this is complete farce, as the game only had SLIGHTLY more enemies on screen than prior games, but not a single battle made me feel I was part of a war and there weren't any memorable set-pieces.

 

There's actually a thread on Bungie.net where the OP goes level for level through Reach and H3 and compares the enemy count. What Bungie said was in fact true.

This edit will also create new pages on Giant Bomb for:

Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

Comment and Save

Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Giant Bomb users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.