Do you think Halo Reach will be what Halo 3 should have been?

  • 56 results
  • 1
  • 2
Avatar image for doctoroptimist
DoctorOptimist

535

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#1  Edited By DoctorOptimist

Hell, I could easily say Reach could be what Halo 3 AND 2 should have been. Halo 3 promised an epic campaign and a story; about heroism, tragedy, and sacrifice. That didn't happen, instead we've received a  straight-forward first-person shooter, with a bland and straight-forward story. The campaign wasn't bad, it was enjoyable, but it wasn't as epic as it could've been because the battles weren't any bigger than previous Halos and the set-pieces weren't exactly thrilling. Halo: Combat Evolved actually did have a lot of epic battles and memorable set-pieces, it even had variety in it's mission structure. Halo: CE's missions ranged from exploration, infiltration, search & rescue, covert sniping, and all out assault missions. 
 
Halo: Reach sounds like it's going to be what Halo 3 should have been. It's new setting and characters sound like a great idea for a intimate character driven story about; heroism, tragedy, and sacrifice. Bungie are even promising twice as many enemies on screen than previous games, with up to 40 Covenant enemies and 20 vehicles on screen at once. They're even promising more variety in the missions structure with everything that I've already mentioned for CE, but now they're going to include sandbox levels and space combat. It sounds too good to be true, I was hoping for a worthy successor to Combat Evolved. I just hoping Bungie are going to address issues with Halo 3 and aren't bluffing this time. I will say that the visuals for Reach look very impressive, definitely one of the best looking Xbox360 exclusives, that's something that couldn't be said for Halo 3 at the time, that may be a good sign.
 
Do you predict that Halo Reach's campaign and story are going be what Halo 3 should have been? Or it will be another disappointment or even a bigger one?

Avatar image for jamesboyce
JamesBoyce

299

Forum Posts

84

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#2  Edited By JamesBoyce

I predict that Halo: Reach will be like Tribes but with Halo skins.

Avatar image for linkin10362
Linkin10362

648

Forum Posts

5926

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 4

#3  Edited By Linkin10362

I think it will be slightly better, but not by much. I played the campaign of Halo 3 many, many times. Hopefully Reach makes me do the same.

Avatar image for doctoroptimist
DoctorOptimist

535

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#4  Edited By DoctorOptimist
@JamesBoyce: The jetpacks aren't really inter grated entirely into the core gameplay like Tribes. It's a very nice addition though, jetpacks make everything better. It made Dark Void less of a crappy game. :P 
 
Plus, when did Tribes have single-player?
Avatar image for freakache
FreakAche

3102

Forum Posts

114

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 8

#5  Edited By FreakAche

I've always played Halo for the multiplayer. This kind of concern for the campaign confuses me just as much as the Giant Bomb crew's fixation with the Starcraft 2 campaign does.

Avatar image for doctoroptimist
DoctorOptimist

535

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#6  Edited By DoctorOptimist
@FreakAche: Why? The StarCraft series had always provided excellent campaigns. Halo: CE's campaign was really good too.
Avatar image for rawrz
rawrz

723

Forum Posts

11

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 2

#7  Edited By rawrz

I may be in the minority but i loved Halo 3 and found it better then 2 in every way. I think Reach is just what a modern Combat Evolved is supposed to be like. Sure Halo isnt that old but gaming has advanced a lot in 9 years and Reach just seems like its being made more modern with sprint and stuff while still retaining that Halo feeling and the core aspects of what made Halo so special at its time of release.

Avatar image for infinitegeass
InfiniteGeass

2150

Forum Posts

446

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 11

#8  Edited By InfiniteGeass

I really enjoyed Halo 3 and ODSTs campaigns. The Halo Reach campaign looks great too.

Avatar image for doctoroptimist
DoctorOptimist

535

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#9  Edited By DoctorOptimist
@Rawrz: I enjoyed Halo 3's campaign more than Halo 2 too actually. I just though Halo 3 had much more potential to a bigger and better experience, like a next-gen overhaul. The only thing that was next-gen for Halo 3, were the Scarab Battles that had A.I.
Avatar image for frozen_ice
Frozen_Ice

52

Forum Posts

43

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#10  Edited By Frozen_Ice

I only have ODST, so the only part of Halo 3 I got was the multiplayer. With that I can say that Halo 3 was everything Halo 3 should have been.

Avatar image for dystopiax
DystopiaX

5803

Forum Posts

416

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#11  Edited By DystopiaX

This is a nonsensical question.

Avatar image for rawrz
rawrz

723

Forum Posts

11

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 2

#12  Edited By rawrz
@DoctorOptimist: I agree. I was rather impressed by the Scarab battles. I just tend to see a lot of people say that the Halo 3 campaign was terrible when i found it rather fun and closer to what Halo 1 was with its varied environments, unlike 2 which was nothing more then purple hallway battle after purple hallway battle.
Avatar image for doctoroptimist
DoctorOptimist

535

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#13  Edited By DoctorOptimist
@Rawrz: It was closer to Halo: CE because the combat was way more dynamic than Halo 2's overabundant use of scripted scenarios and weapon progression. In Halo: CE, you had to understand the weapons strengths and weaknesses and how they interact with the enemies strengths and weaknesses, you didn't progressively receive stronger and better weapons and boss battles like in Halo 2 and most first-person shooters. Halo 3 was a lot like that, however, it suffered from the lack of mission variety and bombastic set-pieces. It was good single-player, but it could've been so much more when I think about it.
Avatar image for doctoroptimist
DoctorOptimist

535

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#14  Edited By DoctorOptimist
@Linkin10362: I've only played the campaign three times alone, basically beating it on every difficulty level except for Easy. I did play it several times on co-op, because Halo co-op is always awesome and co-op makes every game better.
Avatar image for pweidman
pweidman

2891

Forum Posts

15

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 4

#15  Edited By pweidman

Halo 3 shouldn't be underestimated imo.  It's easy to pick at it now, but the sp was solid and the mp was great.  Also, the additions it came with like Forge, and saved films made Halo 3 an all-around very dynamic game.  Will Reach match it or go further in the sense of a game that offers so much in one game?  Probably so.  For me the campaign will be the telling factor.  Can Bungie capture the pace, and mix of exploration and wonder of the first game w/the same excellent balance in gameplay?  Again it should, or more accurately it might, but will the familiarity factor hinder that experience because of the sameness we criticized the sp in Halo 3 for,  is my main concern.  
 
It will be given it's shot though, for many reasons really(how much does Bungie really care about this game considering the legacy of this series? I guess a lot), but mostly for the reason that all Halo fans wonder about.  Will Reach capture that essence of what CE imparted way back when?  ODST added something amazing though, and should be acknowledged.  Firefifght.  And Reach will expand on that exponentially w/matchmaking first, the new mode, and all the host options that should make that mode amazing and long in the legs.
Avatar image for kishan6
kishan6

1986

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#16  Edited By kishan6

halo 3 for its time looked better than halo reach does for its... 
and halo 3 really wasnt bad 
reach does look to be better imo

Avatar image for druminator
Druminator

1808

Forum Posts

10130

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#17  Edited By Druminator

I didn't really like Halo 3 that much but I loved Halo 2. I kinda feel like Reach is the true successor of Halo 2.

Avatar image for doctoroptimist
DoctorOptimist

535

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#18  Edited By DoctorOptimist
@kishan6: Actually Halo 3 visuals paled to many games at the time. I could name about  thirty games from 2007 that looked better than Halo 3. But with Reach, I could possibly name about ten or five games that looks better than Reach, which means Halo: Reach looks to be a more visually inspired game than Halo 3 did at the time. Plus, I wasn't panning Halo 3. It's a good game, but it could've been so much more.
Avatar image for jamesboyce
JamesBoyce

299

Forum Posts

84

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#19  Edited By JamesBoyce
@DoctorOptimist:  I know, I know - I was winding you up.  I never thought Halo 3 failed to deliver, I just thought it was more of what was previously there and I'm not a huge fan of Halo's story/lore.  In saying that I'm not as hardcore as some people are with Halo, maybe that's why it didnt' seem like such a big deal to me.  The multiplayer is pretty good but even then it doesn't excite me too much.  Althouuugh, I do wanna get Reach quite a bit, looks quite a lot of fun - played the beta a little too.
Avatar image for t00muchsteeze
T00MuchSteeze

177

Forum Posts

40

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 8

User Lists: 2

#20  Edited By T00MuchSteeze

Seems like Bungie is really cramming a lot more into this game. I'm sure a lot will like it just as much as the previous games but from my point of view I'm just hoping it stays familiar enough to where I'll want to play it for hours and hours like I did with 2 and 3. All these new armor abilities and loadouts really just seem like there is too much crap going on, but I said that when they changed everything for Gears of War 2 and it turned out fine.  So I definitely think this will be a great one nevertheless. I mean it is Halo after all. 

Avatar image for doctoroptimist
DoctorOptimist

535

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#21  Edited By DoctorOptimist
@T00MuchSteeze: There are a lot of Halo haters and they're opposed to the idea of Halo being a "great game".  Even though I don't consider Halo 2 & 3 to be "great", but rather fine games. I wouldn't opposed to another opinion that highly regards Halo 2 & 3 than me unless that opinion has a lot of weight behind it.
Avatar image for lordxavierbritish
LordXavierBritish

6651

Forum Posts

4948

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 7

User Lists: 6

@DoctorOptimist: Halo 3 is what a finale to the Halo story should have been. 
 
Reach is what a finale to the Halo franchise should be.
Avatar image for sodiumcyclops
sodiumCyclops

2778

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

#23  Edited By sodiumCyclops
@LordXavierBritish: This is exactly what I think.
Avatar image for vinny_says
Vinny_Says

5913

Forum Posts

3345

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 14

#24  Edited By Vinny_Says

Halo: Single player Campaign around 8 hours+ Local & LAN multiplayer
Halo 2: Single player Campaingn +2 player co-op Campaign+ Online Multiplayer
Halo3: Single player Campaign+ 4 Player co-op campaign+ Online multiplayer+ Forge
Halo Reach: Single player Campaign + [4] Player co-op Campaign (Speculated)+ Online Multiplayer+ Forge World+ Firefight
 
what's the one thing that didn't change in 9 years?

Avatar image for big_jon
big_jon

6524

Forum Posts

2539

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 18

#25  Edited By big_jon

I think this is a stupid question, it is relative to how you feel about Halo 3.
Avatar image for xplodedd
xplodedd

1379

Forum Posts

1844

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 3

#26  Edited By xplodedd

I def. don't hate Halo 2, or 3, although both games slightly disappointed me. I just think when a company hypes a product so much there is almost no way they can live up to the expectations carved out by fans and gamers alike. I hope reach turns out to be a kickass game that won't disappoint fans. 
 
As to the question, I think the developers really just want Reach to be a memorable end to the Halo franchise. I hope that's what they come up with, and in that sense, yes Reach is supposed to be what 3 should have been.

Avatar image for doctoroptimist
DoctorOptimist

535

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#27  Edited By DoctorOptimist
@big_jon: Let me guess. Halo 3 actually lived up to the hype for you?

@blacklabeldomm:
Halo 2 played a lot like a straight-foward action game, Halo: CE had much more variety in the mission structure. Hell, they've made plenty of changes that watered down the game mechanics. Such as; melee dashes, increased aim-assist (It's way too easy to pull-off head shots), flashlight that last for 10 seconds. you couldn't take fall damage, you jumped way too high (made it way too easy to bunny hop to victory), replaced health bars with regenerating health, duel-wielding made combat cheap (It even looked childish) and the weapon set was way more unbalanced than the first game. Halo 3 didn't fix much, it just toned down the aim-assist, the melee lunge's distance, and balanced the weapons. Halo: Reach is going back to CE's good ol' balanced mechanics this time around. 
 
I'm not saying Halo 2 & 3 are "bad" games, they're fine games. However, they're very dumbed down compared to CE.
Avatar image for man_flannel
MAN_FLANNEL

2472

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#28  Edited By MAN_FLANNEL

Halo 3 was what Halo 3 should have been.   If Bungie didn't add 4 player co-op, Forge, or theater, then yeah, it would have been disappointing, but it still would have been a good game.  I played WAY too many fucking infection custom games....it's just too damn fun.  Makes me wonder what Reach's Grifball or Infection will be.

Avatar image for doctoroptimist
DoctorOptimist

535

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#29  Edited By DoctorOptimist
@MAN_FLANNEL:
Halo 3 is a good game, I'm not saying it's bad in any way. I'm just saying that the campaign wasn't really, you know, epic. I could've imagined large scale planetary battles. Instead, the final battle for humanity's struggle consisted of; two Pelicans, two warthogs, one mongoose, and one scorpion tank. That's not what I call epic. I'm not some anti-Halo 3 hating brainless jackass. I'm just saying that Halo 3 should have been had large scale battles that push what the Xbox360 could have done. Reach is certainly looking to do just that.  
 
Halo 3's multi-player is certainly great though, definitely one of the best, if not THE best console exclusive multi-player shooter avaible. However, after playing the Halo Reach beta, I couldn't get into Halo 3 anymore. The Halo Reach beta was far better than Halo 3's multi-player IMO.
Avatar image for twoonefive
TwoOneFive

9793

Forum Posts

203

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

#30  Edited By TwoOneFive

this is just flat out stupid. its like saying any sequel thats better than the last game is what the last game was meant to be. 

Avatar image for doctoroptimist
DoctorOptimist

535

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#31  Edited By DoctorOptimist
@TwoOneFive:
Halo Reach isn't techinically a sequel to begin with. Plus, Halo 3 didn't really improve over the single-player from Halo 2 much. The campaign for Halo 2 & 3 were good, but not epic. They were pretty repetitive at times, considering there really much variety in the mission structure outside of several vehicular sections. Halo Reach is said to have variety in it's mission structure, such as; sniper missions, exploration, search & rescue, space combat, and all epic war scale battles. Something we didn't receive from Halo 3 all that much.
Avatar image for twoonefive
TwoOneFive

9793

Forum Posts

203

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

#32  Edited By TwoOneFive
@DoctorOptimist: its a fuckin sequel in terms in the actual game itself, not the story.  
 
i just dont see the logic in what you ask. of course its an improvement over halo 2 and 3 in every way. 
Avatar image for canucks23
canucks23

1081

Forum Posts

5

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 2

#33  Edited By canucks23

Dunno. All i know is that Reach is the first Halo game i've ever been legitimately excited for, so that means they must be doing some stuff right by me. After playing the same old rehashed CoD games as my go to play mp game with friends,  Reach looks like it could take that spot this year. It's refreshing to see Bungie making the game like it should be made for the sake of making it a great experience instead of being like MW2 where they just cram everything they can think of in the game that'd be "cool, maaan", making it incredibly unbalanced in the process and then after launch just not giving a shit about what's broken. I play halo 3 on the rare occasion but i'm not the biggest fan of it, but i really enjoyed what i played of the reach beta. That and firefight is just amazing and now that it has matchmaking it's got a lot more legs for me.

Avatar image for doctoroptimist
DoctorOptimist

535

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#34  Edited By DoctorOptimist
@TwoOneFive:
However, Halo 2 & 3 weren't an improvement over Halo: CE, well, at least not to me. Sometimes, sequels don't improve over the original game. Take Devil May Cry 2 and Deus Ex: Invisible War for example.
Avatar image for sitoxity
Sitoxity

559

Forum Posts

425

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 1

#35  Edited By Sitoxity
@blacklabeldomm:  You forgot about Halo: CE's Co-Op and ODST in general, which had a shorter (but better than 2 and 3) campaign, co-op and Firefight.
 
I agree that Halo 3 was a little disappointing, but not as disappointing as Halo 2. From the trailers and media you thought "OMG, it'll be defending earth! Hell yeah!" Then you realise the first what, three? Missions were all Earth based and the rest was just rehash of Halo CE. Sure, it wasn't bad, but it was by no means great. Halo 3 was much better in that respect, it DID feel like you were trying to defend Earth, and the whole Ark twist actually worked in well. Though it was short and didn't feel like it was as good as CE. Though I never claim any Halo games to be up there with the true greats of FPS (Half-Life 2, anyone?) it's still a good game, especially on consoles.
 
Halo: Reach is what I'm looking forward to the most. It's gone back to the roots that were in CE and added improvements to Firefight, which as a kid playing Halo, I wanted from the beginning. It runs smoother, it runs faster and grenades are back to being useful. I dunno if it'll be what Halo 3 should have been, but it's certainly going to be a fantastic ride.
Avatar image for dunderri
dunderri

163

Forum Posts

48

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 3

#36  Edited By dunderri

Yeah, I was a bit disappointed by the SP in Halo 3. IDK I was just expecting more I guess. Reach does look fantastic, and I think it will very much live up to my expectations.

Avatar image for johnkiller118
JohnKiller118

64

Forum Posts

369

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#37  Edited By JohnKiller118
@FreakAche said:
" I've always played Halo for the multiplayer. This kind of concern for the campaign confuses me just as much as the Giant Bomb crew's fixation with the Starcraft 2 campaign does. "  
Halo 1 was one of my first truly great singleplayer experiences. It has a sentimental place in my gaming mind. 2 wasn't as good, but it was satisfying, save for the ending, which would have been fine had the grand finale actually been grand. 
It wasn't. 
I was terribly disappointed with the game, especially given the massive hype it had. I was expecting to be brought to TEARS! Instead I got a mediocre story, straightforward levels with a bland art direction, and a nice ending... which wasn't as satisfying as it should have been because everything before that sucked. 
 Thankfully, ODST brought back some of the lost magic. The game was more "sandbox-y", Marty O'Donnell was at his finest with the music, the art direction made me cream, the pistol was back, Firefight was epic, and I was overall more satisfied with this game than I was with Halo 3. 
 
Reach better be fucking incredible.
Avatar image for fjordson
fjordson

2571

Forum Posts

430

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 6

#38  Edited By fjordson
@DoctorOptimist said:

" @TwoOneFive: However, Halo 2 & 3 weren't an improvement over Halo: CE, well, at least not to me. Sometimes, sequels don't improve over the original game. Take Devil May Cry 2 and Deus Ex: Invisible War for example. "

That's surprising to me. I thought Halo 2 was incredible. I played that shit for years, literally. Halo on Xbox Live was just about the single best thing ever for Halo fans at that time.

Halo 3 certainly isn't my favorite in the series, but I played its multiplayer for a long time as well. I think the main trilogy games were all quality. The only reason Reach has ground to make up is due to ODST, IMO. It's a slightly unfair criticism, given that the release strategy and $60 price point weren't totally Bungie's fault, but I know a ton of people who were disappointed with it, and have read lots of similar opinions on various forums throughout the last year. As opposed to Halo 3, which is still consistently in the top 2 or 3 spots of games played on Live. I routinely see people on my friends list playing it as well.
 
I guess a big deciding factor in this is what you value more from a Halo game - multiplayer or the campaign. If you're more of a single-player fan, then I guess I can see why Halo 3 could have felt like a letdown.
Avatar image for ikannibal
iKANNIBAL

602

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 1

#39  Edited By iKANNIBAL

Halo 3 campaign: ........Ok 
Halo 3 multiplayer: Fully awesome 
Halo ODST campaign: Better than Halo 3's 
Halo ODST multiplayer: Suckfest 
 
 
I'm just glad were not playing as Master Chief, i feel Master Chief by being so silent, he's sorta limited gameplay wise, hopefully Halo Reach is successful and they pick up the idea that we really DIG the whole group of Spartans thing, and maybe more spin offs like it will come out in the future. 
 
Look at Gears of War 2, main thing i loved about that game was the relationships between delta and the conversations.

Avatar image for professoress
ProfessorEss

7962

Forum Posts

160

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 11

#40  Edited By ProfessorEss

I think Halo 3 was what Halo 3 was supposed to be, I'm always surprised when people say it fell short what with it's full campaign 4 player co-op, huge multiplayer options, forge, theater and the awesome features and tracking of bungie.net. I'm not the world's hugest Halo fan, but I always enjoy them and I'm always impressed by the scope of their releases (not just the game, but all the stuff that goes with it).
 
I'm sure Reach will succeed in impressing me as well.

Avatar image for thehbk
TheHBK

5674

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 6

#41  Edited By TheHBK

For me it will be what Halo 3 should have been.  Halo 2 was fine because it introduced online multiplayer which made the game.  The games crappy ending ruined the campaign and I never went back to it . 
For me, the graphics of Halo 3 were too clearly just the Halo 2 engine with the res bumped up a little with better lighting.  Leaving the game at 600p and for them to say it was for lighting reasons sounded lazy.  The jaggies were way too noticeable and the fade out distance stuff they used got annoying. Hopefully here they made dratic imporvements and show me what Halo is really supposed to look like on the 360.  Also, maps on the multiplayer.  I missed blood gulch and hope that we get something like Waterworks from Halo 2.
Avatar image for professoress
ProfessorEss

7962

Forum Posts

160

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 11

#42  Edited By ProfessorEss
@TheHBK:  Off-topic, but your forum avatars never cease to impress. ;)
Avatar image for thegreatguero
TheGreatGuero

8881

Forum Posts

918

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 4

#43  Edited By TheGreatGuero

No. I thought Halo 3 was pretty great overall, though I still prefer Halo 2's multiplayer and Halo 1's campaign.
 
Based on what I played in the beta, I think Halo Reach is going to be a disappointment. I felt like it was a downgrade in most ways.

Avatar image for tofford
Tofford

718

Forum Posts

134

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 31

User Lists: 6

#44  Edited By Tofford

I loved Halo 3 at launch I think perhaps it has aged badly but the multiplayer is still fun. Lately I have been most excited for Forge that new Vidoc looked sweet.

Avatar image for dannycool
DannyCool

98

Forum Posts

3

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

#45  Edited By DannyCool
@T00MuchSteeze said:
@T00MuchSteeze said:
" Seems like Bungie is really cramming a lot more into this game.
 You really think so? I thought their Halo 3 marketing and hype was ALOT Bigger.
Avatar image for thordain
thordain

980

Forum Posts

1955

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 5

#46  Edited By thordain

Well I've never had any love for the very generic Master Chief and while the characters from ODST were at least people instead of a shell of a man, they weren't very interesting. If this game can make the Spartan team seem like characters I would care about, then I might be pretty interested in the story. The one thing I really want out of the campaign though is more massive vehicle levels. If Bungie can make those fun then I am in.

Avatar image for boj4ngles
boj4ngles

302

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 8

User Lists: 0

#47  Edited By boj4ngles

I suspect that Reach's sp will be better than Halo 3's because people complained about a lack of set pieces, and quasi boss encounters that had made Halo CE and Halo 2 so awesome.  Hell they're sending you into space so I think they got the message of making things bigger and more epic. 
 
As far as story is concerned, I hope they don't try too hard to make an emotionally involving story based on characters.  Video game creators almost never pull off real empathy for their characters and Bungie is no exception.  It's better when things are intentionally left at the cartoon level.  Halo CE and 2 were essentially adventure stories, with some political intrigue thrown into the Covenant side story, and it worked fine.  Characters like Cpt. Keys, Sarge, the marines, the arbiter and of course Masterchief were simple, one sided, comical, and supported by cheesy but good one-liners.  Halo 3 really fell apart when they tried to make us care that Cortana or Masterchief might die.  ODST's side story about the relationships between the characters was just plain stupid, and makes me worry that whatever drama is going on in Noble Squad might be just as bad.  I cared more when my marines from Halo CE died during the Island Level.
Avatar image for doctoroptimist
DoctorOptimist

535

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#48  Edited By DoctorOptimist
@TheGreatGuero: No Halo game will be as downgraded as Halo 2. 
 
  
  The Halo Reach beta was much better than any Halo game's multi-player to date. 
 
@boj4ngles: Halo: CE didn't have boss battles, I don't think the series should have boss battles. The boss battles in Halo 2 were pathetic,  and out of place for Halo's combat system. Which involves adapting to the environment, weapons, and enemy A.I. 
 
As your thoughts concerning the story, I have to agree. However, I hope they create well developed characters, where you get a lot of indepth view of their personalities. I really want these characters in Reach to feel humane, I don't want clice machoeqsue action super stars. Halo: Reach could have the most empathetic characters in an FPS since Half-Life 2, or it could have forgettable Hollywood action move archetypes like in most games. One thing is for sure though, Emile looks pretty badass. :P
Avatar image for boj4ngles
boj4ngles

302

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 8

User Lists: 0

#49  Edited By boj4ngles
@DoctorOptimist:
When I mentioned bosses in CE I was thinking about the encounters with Hunters, invisible sword sword Elites, tanks, etc.  I know they weren't exactly bosses per se, but they were especially difficult encounters that required special tactics and in the case of a nood like me, several attempts to pass.
 
I'd argue they were quasi bosses.  But regardless of what you call them, I think there's a strong arguement that the set-piece encounters in Halo CE and Halo 2 were way better than 3. 
 
I'd love nothing more than to have empathetic characters in Halo Reach, I just doubt that Bungie can pull it off.
Avatar image for taliciadragonsong
TaliciaDragonsong

8734

Forum Posts

2

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 8

Horrible question, without the experience and player feedback from Halo 3, I doubt Reach would be as good as it would be now.
 
But yes, I do believe Reach will be a great game that will make me come back to it for years to come, like I kinda never stopped playing Halo 3.

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.