" @Rockdalf: I think the game is probably pretty good if you're into Halo, but for the most part since they didn't change a whole lot to the formula it'll be really hard for me to consider this game since it's so similar to past entries in the series.
@Kahnero: I don't think he's trying to belittle the game by calling it formulaic. The game definitely has a formula that has persisted since the very first Halo. Even the developers called the formula their "30 seconds of fun". It works for those who really enjoy Halo. Unfortunately, I have not since Halo 2 (Well, I really enjoyed the singleplayer of ODST) so this game is not for me. "
Well, I haven't played Reach yet, but Bungie's "30 seconds of fun" philosophy of game design seems to be much better use in Reach than any of CE's sequels. Bungie have said that CE was their biggest inspiration for Reach, and it shows with it's large environments. The problems I've had with Halo 2 & 3, were how incredibly linear and close the environments were. It just didn't make the combat versatile. Of course, Reach probably wouldn't appeal to those who aren't already big fans of the series.
Let's take the opposite approach of what Gerstmann said about ODST. If you don't like the way Bungie makes shooters, you won't like Halo: Reach.
I could hardly consider Halo Reach to be formulaic, as very few first-person shooters have copied it's style of play. While many have burrowed elements from Halo, few provided the same adaptive sandbox combat formula as Halo. I don't really mind Reach carrying out the same fundamentals of what makes a Halo game, considering this is Bungie's last Halo game. Almost every popular game franchise maintain their same fundemental game design that gives their distinct identity. The Mario series has done the same thing in each installment in the main series, and it has worked for them. I'm not counting Super Mario Bros. 2, as I would barely consider it to be a Super Mario Bros. game, as it was basically a reskinned Doki Doki Panic for the U.S. Halo: Reach should just refine the gameplay formula to perfection as the last installment of Bungie's Halo, to make Bungie's own baby to go out with a bang. I haven't played Reach yet, but I'm sure it will be great. I believe it will be much better than Halo 3. If Bungie's Halo series ended with 3, I would have been disappointed. "
Contradict much friend? :P
@CaptainCody said:
" @Kahnero: Halo has never been a 10/10 you trollbait, plus your alignment is Xbox 360 so i'll just assume you came from xboxrepublic and decided to troll at how halo is THE BEST FRANCHISE EVER. "
As someone who owns every console that's been worth owning sense an NES (gamecube being the sad exception) I can assure you that Halo CE is definitely worthy of a 10/10 score, especially within the context of the time it was released. I will even go out on a limb in fear of being corrected and state that the only game that's probably done more for the FPS genre as a whole is Goldeneye 64. Halo 2 was an even more perfect multiplayer experience, however it was at that point the campaign began to lose merit in my eyes and it didn't get better than that. Anyways, all of that to say that the only troll I see is you. Good day, sir! "
I would only consider it only formulaic if the series has been running out of steam, but I say it hasn't yet. I sincerely don't mind if Bungie aren't trying to reinvent the wheel here, they just want to make the definitive installment for the series that is made by a decade's work on a iconic and popular franchise. I really didn't think Halo 3 was a fitting end to the series, as it had the weakest or second weakest campaign in the series. It really didn't refine much if you ask me. It had too many problems, that I felt were addressed in Halo: Reach.
I enjoyed the Halo: Reach beta far more than Halo 3's multi-player. Hell, I even enjoyed it more than Halo 2's multi-player.
EDIT: Don't bother with him. He's a troll, and giving him the attention is what the wants the most. He's intentionally trying to ignite a flaming argument for his own amusement. It's best to ignore him, even if he responds to our comments.
" I'm kinda in the same boat as Jeff. I want more major changes to Halo and I felt like this was Bungie's chance. On the other hand, if they added multiplayer bots, I'd be all over that game! "
Why would they even think of changing the formula. It says Halo: Reach on the box, when I put the disc in the console, it should boot up Halo-ass Halo. Sure, they should add features, fine tune the physics and sparkle up those same maps they've been using variants of for three games, but any significant changes make this less worthy to end the franchise. This game should be the Halo of all Halo and you don't get that by reinventing the formula on the last title. There is a lot of individual love and care that has been put into making this game everything it deserves, but it doesn't change the fact the halo is very formulaic at this point, and it's a great formula they've fine tuned for nearly ten solid years. Now Bungie's next game and next IP, I expect major changes, nothing resembling Halo in fact, but for now, this is what I want, the best of ten years in halo rolled in to one game, from the most experienced people in the business. "
I could hardly consider Halo Reach to be formulaic, as very few first-person shooters have copied it's style of play. While many have burrowed elements from Halo, few provided the same adaptive sandbox combat formula as Halo. I don't really mind Reach carrying out the same fundamentals of what makes a Halo game, considering this is Bungie's last Halo game. Almost every popular game franchise maintain their same fundemental game design that gives their distinct identity. The Mario series has done the same thing in each installment in the main series, and it has worked for them. I'm not counting Super Mario Bros. 2, as I would barely consider it to be a Super Mario Bros. game, as it was basically a reskinned Doki Doki Panic for the U.S.
Halo: Reach should just refine the gameplay formula to perfection as the last installment of Bungie's Halo, to make Bungie's own baby to go out with a bang. I haven't played Reach yet, but I'm sure it will be great. I believe it will be much better than Halo 3. If Bungie's Halo series ended with 3, I would have been disappointed.
Before Halo, the talented developers of Bungie created one of the greatest first-person shooters of the 90's. The original Marathon was the Mac's answer to Doom, and it was better than Doom in my opinion. It combined the fast-paced action of Doom, but added variety of mission objectives and puzzle solving. It even had a cohesive narrative, unlike the majority of first-person shooters at that time. The way the story is told is rather archaic by today's standards, but it's engrossingly written. Marathon 2: Durandal was better than the original in every way. Bigger battles, multiplayer, co-op, a far more compelling story, and faster action. My favorite in the series. Marathon: Infinity was rather a disappointment. Don't get me wrong, it's a good game. However, the storytelling was rather convoluted and the level design was mess.
Did anyone play Marathon before during the 90's and before Halo came out?
Few of them do provide reasoning to validate their arguments, but most of them are just typical fanatical Halo jargon. I can't say much, as I haven't played the game yet. However, the game looks so much superior than Halo 3, which received much higher critical reception.
" To avoid this discussion whether Halo takes effortless skill or not, I'm just going to answer the question. I say maybe, the single-player may not grab your attention, but the multi-player might. I suggest to give it a rent when it comes out. "
The REAL issue is that he is asking weather or not Halo: Reach is worth buying an XBOX 360 for.
My opinion on this is yes. Halo: Reach is the killer app for the console. "
I thought Gears of War was the the Xbox360's killer-app. *shrugs* Oh well.
@NekuSakuraba said:
" @TimesHero said:
" @Kahnero said:
" To avoid this discussion whether Halo takes effortless skill or not, I'm just going to answer the question. I say maybe, the single-player may not grab your attention, but the multi-player might. I suggest to give it a rent when it comes out. "
The REAL issue is that he is asking weather or not Halo: Reach is worth buying an XBOX 360 for.
My opinion on this is yes. Halo: Reach is the killer app for the console. "
I just feel it is pointless buying a 360 for one game when many of the exclusives are on PC. "
Well the way each version of the game function are quite different. As consoles have a much more broad accessible appeal, and the controllers allow for a much more comfortable button layout. The PC allows for multiple for more options and it's far more advance tech wise. However, the PC suffers compatibility and performance issues that don't plague most console games. I'm not saying the console gaming is superior than PC gaming, but what I'm saying is that both have their merits and disadvantages over one another. The PC is the best choice for gaming if you're tech savvy, but the console is the best choice if you're not. I can understand why some prefer playing games on the consoles, than on the PC.
EDIT: Know that I'm neither primarily a console gamer or a PC gamer, I'm multi-platform. There are some game genres I prefer on each platform.
I absolutely find it hysterical how detractors irrationally assume big corporate publishers bribe critics, as it shows that they have no insight or knowledge on gaming buisness.
If they didn't like the game and if they were actually "bribed", the game would have scored 7's. Hell, highly independent and non-corporate sponsored websites that given highly positive reviews to Reach. I guess they must've been bribed by Microsoft too. The critics just happen to a like the game, deal with it unless you have anything to validate your arguments.
Log in to comment