Well, I've played a lot of Invasion and a bit of Slayer since my last post in this thread, and my opinion of Reach in its beta state is largely unchanged. The gameplay is uneven due to a host of little quirks that individually can be managed or overlooked but together make the overall experience only tolerable most days, and sometimes so frustrating that I stop playing within the first hour. If I had to describe my beta experience in brief, I might say my avatar often fails to react the way I want or expect it to, so I die more frequently than I feel I should and in ways I feel I shouldn't.
I know I'm speaking in general and subjective terms; my purpose at this moment is to express my latest impression of the beta, not submit a report that will help Bungie balance the game. I like to think both forms of feedback are welcome. Let me emphasize that I didn't have these complaints with any of the previous Halo games. Nearly everything had a rightness I've found in no other FPS series.
It's relieving yet somewhat troubling that most of my current complaints apply to a version of Reach that is unlikely to represent its complete form. Relieving because many of the beta's problems will probably be resolved to the satisfaction of most players, and troubling because there is no way to know what the final result will be until the product is finished and shipped. The behavior of grenades, melee attacks, armor abilities and weapons will all be changedthe big questions are, to what extent and to what effect. I trust Bungie to do the best they can. The original Halo is a masterpiece. If Bungie can get back into the headspace that produced such a prize, where innovation and ruthlessly economic design were the only practical ways to realize an ambitious vision with limited resources, I think Reach could be the best Halo yet.
I would, if Bungie is listening, ask them to bear in mind three lessons from their older games: Halo 1 confirms that simplicity can be a great strength. Halo 2 demonstrates that change for its own sake, paired with compromise, can be ruinous. Halo 3 shows that the new is more likely to work when it supports and refines the old. Yes, I'm being general again, and while I wouldn't presume to lecture experienced designers about the thing they do best, I do think these statements are based on reasonable characterizations of each game.
soldat7 said:
Tough beans. They're fun weapons and the game is more fun and varied because of them. I wouldn't mind if they were tweaked or reduced in power somewhat, but to rip them out of the game wholesale makes no sense.
I agree. I enjoy the Hammer and the Splazer and I'd hate to see them gone. But clearly they need to tempered in some way, because when the wielder knows what they're doing these weapons give him or her a ridiculous advantage.