Support NeoGAF

[xxjuicesxx]

AFK watching Dax's video of me pooping on your team. (totally off host, lawl)

While you're watching, take notice on who killed each other more, me or you...

 

[vhfive]

No, actually that kinda shit like "You know there is a (GoW3, CoD, Brink, Whatever) game thread is retarded and detrimental to us game players and game developers. NeoGAF is a community of gamers, HaloGAF is a community of gamers within that population that yes play Halo together (sometimes) but years later they develop friendships within that group and may venture to discuss many other things such as society has been doing forever, regarding relationships.

Hell in arguing or analyzing two different games and their differences in how they play and so on, and how players experiences and emotions differ between the two might eventually be helpful to create a better game. Its this kind of discussion the gaming community actually needs. As long as we are able to hold ourselves at a mature level.

Its actually sad in a way that the mods frown upon this. Its very unprogressive for such a progressive forum, but I don't expect much less from the draconian moderation that is allowed to run rampant in this forum. This coming from someone who's been banned 3 times, and 2 of them were pretty unjust and hardly broke any written rule but were rather deemed inappropriate by a personal unnamed anonymous player.

I feel we should be allowed to voice our opinions about other games in moderation here, besides that kinda talk only lasts for a bit. Why not enjoy it?

Here here.

women can't play basketball amirite

 

[xxjuicesxx]

women can't play basketball amirite

haha I feel that was the one that was justified. but no jokes allowed amirite?

 

[Hitmonchan107]

Thanks Wu for putting the links up on HBO. I didn't have the mental capacity last night to write anything more than the bare minimum.

 

[Striker]

Containment, Zanzibar, Relic, Terminal, Headlong -- I considered those BTB maps. True, in Halo 3 and Reach, they would all probably be considered mid-sized compared to Sandtrap, and the Reach's BTB maps.

Sandtrap was the only really large BTB map they had in Halo 3, and even then, most of the space went unused. Valhalla was actually rather small compared to Coagulation, Waterworks, and the like. Rat's Nest wasn't any big, just a large circle and some interior hallways. Avalanche was big, but like Sandtrap, was catered toward a particular section of the map. The Shotgun/Sniper spawns, to be precise.

In Reach, Spire is probably overall the largest, but even then Bungie only uses about 40% of it for BTB. In Invasion it's all used, but only in locked sections. That's the problem, but I key that in on implementation from Bungie, rather than simply blame the map. A map like that should be an ideal asymmetrical 1-flag/1-bomb map, but instead, it's some small map with a massive Spire in between the "bases" and the place to grab the flag is some small tower. It makes no sense. Though, to be fair, I don't think Bungie's gameplan going into Reach's playlists organization made much sense, to be honest. See: BTB filled with Headhunter, Stockpile, Elite Slayer, etc. when BTB is defined by your three selections: CTF, Assault, Slayer. Instead, like Halo 3, we had new gametypes shoved down our throat until we pissed and moaned about it to have it removed. Same for Team Snipers, which should've been a playlist from the get-go instead of having to, again, complain enough to have it changed. We got Snipers back in 2005, why is it not a permanent fixture in the playlists from day 1?

I knew it wouldn't take long. Look, this thread hardly ever stays on topic, and a few posts about a new game that some people might think about picking up is hardly a detriment to this thread

As if the Halo 3 thread was much better, look at oonsk which went on for weeks.

There's a larger group of people posting in the Halo threads nowadays. At that point during Halo 3's peak run, there wasn't many posting regularly save 7-8 people it felt like. Even I barely posted after a year went by, mainly due to the game not being fun to me anymore.

 

[The Librarian]

Yea body running flags is SUPERRRRR. Please Ram tore it up with host and you guys barely managed a body run cap at the end. Greatest game ever? Try boring, bad setting, bad GAF custom.

Even though you whored the hell out of vehicles (39 kills) and grenades (12 kills) to our 26/5 respectively you still couldn't push up and manage a real flag cap because of my awesome defense.

Try and get on my level GAF. 21 assists. Remember when those things worked!? You know in the last 3 games they made and then managed to fuck them up.

Why so serious? (Seriously). It was fun. That's all that matters.

 

[The Antitype]

I think Kuroyume is right that - starting with Halo 3 - there was a growing sentiment among gamers that the Halo series was beginning to stagnate.

Now, Halo 3 was a polished product with TONS of innovations in terms of building fan community (Forge, capturing and sharing movies, deeper Bungie.net integration, etc), and it offered an OBSCENE amount of content for the money (awesome campaign, 4-player co-op, campaign scoring, multiplayer, forge, etc). So reviewers rightfully gave it praise and high scores.

The thing is, MOST reviewers didn't really put the same number of hours in Halo and Halo 2 that gamers did. They have a ton of games to review, and many of them have different leanings when it comes to the games they play in their spare time. So while your average gamer was pouring time in Halo 2 online, reviewers were off playing other games.

When they play Halo 3 after a 2 or 3 year hiatus from Halo 2, it doesn't feel nearly as familiar or stale to them as it does the players that jump right from Halo 2 to Halo 3. For gamers though, there was a pretty immediate sentiment expressed on message boards that Halo 3 was Halo 2.5...very similar to Halo 2.

And then CoD came out. For the first time, Halo had serious competition in the console FPS online space. And they lost ground, because many gamers that had been playing Halo for years, wanted something new.

Diehard Halo fans, those who appreciated the nuances of Bungie's combat model and their particular brand of shooting, obviously stayed with Halo and felt nothing was wrong. But Halo 3 created a lot of 'lapsed' Halo fans that were once super into the games, and eventually lost interest.

I think some of the changes that Bungie made with Halo: Reach were done to freshen up the series. I think many of the changes were made simply because Bungie thought they would add to the fun and satisfaction of the experience. I agree with many of their changes. Halo: Reach is probably my favorite Halo. But then, I was putting fewer and fewer hours into Halo with every subsequent game....so I was one of those lapsed Halo fans...or getting there.

Just my take.

 

[Ramirez]

While you're watching, take notice on who killed each other more, me or you...

From my memory last night, you never left the base, and I never made it off the hill most of the time.

 

[The Librarian]

You're stupid.

That's not productive for whatever you're arguing.

 

[kylej]

That wasn't the point. The whole game was fun and the way we tied it up in the end was awesome.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZn9BiJ-Z3s

Get on my awesome ending level lil nub.


BRINK TONIGHT BABY. GET READY Y'ALL.

 

[GhaleonEB]

I think Kuroyume is right that - starting with Halo 3 - there was a growing sentiment among gamers that the Halo series was beginning to stagnate.

And yet, epic ongoing arguments about the many changes made to the combat from Halo 1 to Halo 2 to Halo 3 to Reach rage here and elsewhere. The gamers that put the most time into the games see just how much changed from game to game, in detail. I'd actually argue the opposite: the more you play them, the more you appreciate and understand the differences. The games all play very differently, and as you said have a mammoth feature set built up around them to boot.

I don't see any justification for that sentiment, from the reviews, gamers, or otherwise. The people that argued for Halo to evolve more dramatically often just wanted it to turn into something else.

 

[The Librarian]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZn9BiJ-Z3s

Get on my awesome ending level lil nub.

Nice run.

Spoiler

I'll throw a Covenant sword at you.

 

[A27_StarWolf]

And yet, epic ongoing arguments about the many changes made to the combat from Halo 1 to Halo 2 to Halo 3 to Reach rage here and elsewhere. The gamers that put the most time into the games see just how much changed from game to game, in detail. I'd actually argue the opposite: the more you play them, the more you appreciate and understand the differences. The games all play very differently, and as you said have a mammoth feature set built up around them to boot.

I don't see any justification for that sentiment, from the reviews, gamers, or otherwise. The people that argued for Halo to evolve more dramatically often just wanted it to turn into something else.

I personally feel that changing up the formula was a great idea, I don't mean a huge drastic change. You might argue Reach did that. I personally felt it was time for at least a little change.

 

[neoism]

And yet, epic ongoing arguments about the many changes made to the combat from Halo 1 to Halo 2 to Halo 3 to Reach rage here and elsewhere. The gamers that put the most time into the games see just how much changed from game to game, in detail. I'd actually argue the opposite: the more you play them, the more you appreciate and understand the differences. The games all play very differently, and as you said have a mammoth feature set built up around them to boot.

I don't see any justification for that sentiment, from the reviews, gamers, or otherwise. The people that argued for Halo to evolve more dramatically often just wanted it to turn into something else.

This is why I think the series is sooo awesome. If not I would probably stopped at H3. Reach rejuvenated the series for me again.

 

[Kujo]

Just wanted to say that I would be fine with throwing out Firefight if that meant double the multiplayer maps on disc.

That won't happen though, but I at least want all original multiplayer maps in Halo 4, nothing from the campaign, or visa versa.

 

[GhaleonEB]

Just wanted to say that I would be fine with throwing out Firefight if that meant double the multiplayer maps on disc.

I get why non-Firefight players would have this sentiment, but it doesn't even make sense in context. In both ODST and Reach, the Firefight maps were carved out from Campaign spaces so that Bungie did not have to build separate maps for them. The resources weren't there. Cutting Firefight wouldn't mean newly designed and built maps for Multiplayer, because there weren't those resources applied to Firefight to begin with.

It is disappointing they still couldn't have more MP maps than Halo 2 and that game released over six years ago. We should be at the point of multiplayer getting at least 30.

I think it's clear that Bungie just didn't have the art and design resources applied to Reach necessary to support all of the game modes and other content they wanted. Forge World exists because they didn't have enough budget for five separate sky boxes and environments, Boneyard was lifted from Campaign to support Invasion and the shoehorned into BTB, Firefight maps were all lifted from Campaign. Not all of Bungie was on Reach (more like half), and it showed in some ways. The MP maps definitely took the biggest hit.

 

[Major Williams]

Cryptum Forerunner DLC

Link

This is as good a confirmation as we have got for future Reach DLC, but I'm surprised that it's gone largely ignored.

So, maps either based on locations from the first Forerunner novel or maps which include direct references to actions, persons or events in the novel.

One thing that's important to note, Defiant left us with a very distinct message for fans and that message is that the extended fiction is no longer off-limits when it comes to main game itself. Whilst Unearthed largely does its own thing, Highlands and Condemned both feature a rich colour of extended fiction paint. Most players will either not know or even care about where the maps came from but bookworms get that extra special nod.

I'm pretty confident that we'll see this trend continue due to the above quote and I'm pretty happy about it.

So what do you think we'll get? Remakes are possible. Invasion and Firefight maps are also possible. I would like to see a shift in focus to smaller, Arena style maps as Reach has a distinct lack of them so far.

Without spoiling the books, any particular locations you'd like to see or any particular remakes?

Two locations in particular I think would be sweet but there's no chance in hell we'll ever see would be:

EDOM - a volcanically active desert world home to the Forerunner miners. I would image the crust of the planet to be crisscrossed with scores of winding tunnels filled with powerful Forerunner machines processing the rock and soil.

CHARUM HAKKOR - an ancient Hub world which predates the Forerunners by millions of years. So many awesome things about this planet that would spoil the novel several times over by describing.

So much potential for future Halo play spaces.

This was talked about last week when the interview came out.

I second Charum Hakkor - it would be sweet to see the 'tomb' if you know what I'm talking about, and play in it.

 

[Striker]

It is disappointing they still couldn't have more MP maps than Halo 2 and that game released over six years ago. We should be at the point of multiplayer getting at least 30.

 

[A27_StarWolf]

It is disappointing they still couldn't have more MP maps than Halo 2 and that game released over six years ago. We should be at the point of multiplayer getting at least 30.

Troll post?

how would you sell DLC?

Its not like video games become easier and easier to develop overnight.... I...

this has to be a troll attempt

 

[Striker]

Troll post?

how would you sell DLC?

Its not like video games become easier and easier to develop overnight.... I...

this has to be a troll attempt

The fuck? I didn't say 30 maps at launch. Put it around 15.

 

[Kujo]

I get why non-Firefight players would have this sentiment, but it doesn't even make sense in context. In both ODST and Reach, the Firefight maps were carved out from Campaign spaces so that Bungie did not have to build separate maps for them. The resources weren't there. Cutting Firefight wouldn't mean newly designed and built maps for Multiplayer, because there weren't those resources applied to Firefight to begin with.

True, I guess Forge World took up more resources. I would have taken 5 real maps over that any day.

 

[A27_StarWolf]

The fuck? I didn't say 30 maps at launch. Put it around 15.

Not what I read

edit-Any stargate fans here? https://www.facebook.com/SaveSGU

I'm shocked at the amount of people they are getting.

 

[The Librarian]

It is disappointing they still couldn't have more MP maps than Halo 2 and that game released over six years ago. We should be at the point of multiplayer getting at least 30.

30? That's absurd. You can't keep expecting more MP maps with each new Halo game.

 

[Major Williams]

In both ODST and Reach, the Firefight maps were carved out from Campaign spaces so that Bungie did not have to build separate maps for them. The resources weren't there.

One of the most profitable gaming franchises, employing only hundreds of people (not thousands), and they couldn't make time and budget for more reasonable maps that aren't just cut from campaign? Sounds like they just lowered the quality bar and hoped their customers would love it regardless.

Sounds like just an excuse to cut overhead, when they clearly don't need it for the sake of customer satisfaction. But what do I know, I just help hospitals run their business.

Flex the budget just a little bit to give stickers to the children - it makes them happy.

 

[A27_StarWolf]

One of the most profitable gaming franchises, employing only hundreds of people (not thousands), and they couldn't make time and budget for more reasonable maps that aren't just cut from campaign? Sounds like they just lowered the quality bar and hoped their customers would love it regardless.

Sounds like just an excuse to cut overhead, when they clearly don't need it for the sake of customer satisfaction. But what do I know, I just help hospitals run their business.

Flex the budget just a little bit to give stickers to the children - it makes them happy.

sounds like they were also working on another game.

 

[Hypertrooper]

This was talked about last week when the interview came out.

I second Charum Hakkor - it would be sweet to see the 'tomb' if you know what I'm talking about, and play in it.

My wish: A DLC campaign about the "Blue Team"in the shield of onyx would be a dream. 343i could show us a lot of new forerunner things. New side stories in form as the Halo 3's Terminals. etc. Damn. That is just a daydream for me. Btw I would be happy to see the location from the Cryptum book, too.

I can't wait for the E3.

 

[GhaleonEB]

Major, maybe you could contact Bungie and let them know that with your extensive hospital running experience you can advise Bungie on how to better plan and resource multiple game projects at once.

 

[Striker]

30? That's absurd. You can't keep expecting more MP maps with each new Halo game.

Yes, six more maps than what Halo 2-3 had is "absurd".

Forge World should have been released in sets of 3-5 maps built separately with distinct locations. This would have at least allowed less of a lag spike in certain maps, and more variations from many maps across the selection. Or, releasing five "real" maps set with their own unique geometry and artwork.

ps... No way they could have completed all of those on time and within budget.

 

[A27_StarWolf]

Major, maybe you could contact Bungie and let them know that with your extensive hospital running experience you can advise Bungie on how to better plan and resource multiple game projects at once.

Yes, six more maps than what Halo 2-3 had is "absurd".

Forge World should have been released in sets of 3-5 maps built separately with distinct locations. This would have at least allowed less of a lag spike in certain maps, and more variations from many maps across the selection. Or, releasing five "real" maps set with their own unique geometry and artwork.

Wait, what about all of those DLC maps... No way they could have completed all of those on time and within budget.

 

[Account Attempt #4]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZn9BiJ-Z3s

Get on my awesome ending level lil nub.


BRINK TONIGHT BABY. GET READY Y'ALL.

Fantastic camera work! Teh tension... I can feel it.

 

[Havok]

Yes, six more maps than what Halo 2-3 had is "absurd".

Forge World should have been released in sets of 3-5 maps built separately with distinct locations. This would have at least allowed less of a lag spike in certain maps, and more variations from many maps across the selection. Or, releasing five "real" maps set with their own unique geometry and artwork.

This. Using 'limited resources' as an excuse for a list of what, nine mostly shitty maps at launch? is ridiculous and insulting when you're building a game that nets you hundreds of millions of dollars in its first 24 hours alone.

30 maps after DLC, especially given the abysmal quality of the majority of the maps on-disc, isn't outrageous. Hell, Halo 3 could have hit 30 if the DLC strategy imposed on Bungie hadn't been completely moronic.

 

[Hitmonchan107]

I figured you guys might appreciate this:

Ah, but there's the rub. It's all well and good for an audience to appreciate the effort to bring something genuinely new to the table, but if they just spent sixty bucks on your game and feel cheated because the eighth iteration of Halo is a side-scrolling puzzle-RPG hybrid with Master Chief's 12-year-old daughter as the protagonist, then that appreciation is flushed down the toilet faster than you can say I Miss The M6D Pistol From Halo: Combat Evolved. (For the record, I'd play that version of Halo 8.) (link)

 

[Major Williams]

Major, maybe you could contact Bungie and let them know that with your extensive hospital running experience you can advise Bungie on how to better plan and resource multiple game projects at once.

Not enough desire. It's not going to change the world - just make me a little happier. I'm still going to buy their games regardless.

I'd like to see them address it themselves.

And you don't know what I do for a living... I actually advise C-suite all the way down to managers how to better employ their resources. Hence all of the traveling. Oy.

 

[Striker]

30 maps after DLC, especially given the abysmal quality of the majority of the maps on-disc, isn't outrageous. Hell, Halo 3 could have hit 30 if the DLC strategy imposed on Bungie hadn't been completely moronic.

13 maps at launch? Absurd!

Halo 3's maps also could've hit 30 if they included more variants in MM from Forge. I'll take that if they're solid enough maps. But instead, we got what, default Foundry, default Sandbox, Smashed (worst map in the Halo series sans Orbital), and some map underground in Sandbox. So awful.

15 maps at launch with the rest coming via DLC. Outrageous.

 

[Ramirez]

30? That's absurd. You can't keep expecting more MP maps with each new Halo game.

But we can expect and accept less? Good lord dude.

Brink is awesome btw guys, slight lag in one of my games, hopefully they nail down the cause of that. I would give anything if a company could some how license out their netcode, heh.

 

[The Librarian]

But we can expect and accept less? Good lord dude.

Don't put words into my mouth. There's a huge different between expecting less and not expecting more. I don't think it's reasonable for a Halo game to be expected to have more maps than its predecessor with each release. Rather, a Halo game should be expected to have a certain amount of DLC and total maps 20-24, in the Halo 2-3 range.

 

[GhaleonEB]

Don't put words into my mouth. There's a huge different between expecting less and not expecting more. I don't think it's reasonable for a Halo game to be expected to have more maps than its predecessor with each release. Rather, a Halo game should be expected to have a certain amount of DLC and total maps 20-24, in the Halo 2-3 range.

Personally, I think the map count should be proportional to the game types on offer. The main issue with Reach is that it added a number of game types to support, and did not proportionally increase the maps to support them.

That is, of course, a hugely expensive proposition from a development standpoint. Which is one argument for paring back the game types or at least rethinking them (Invasion did huge damage to BTB, for instance), so the maps that ship better support the games.

 

[Major Williams]

Don't put words into my mouth. There's a huge different between expecting less and not expecting more. I don't think it's reasonable for a Halo game to be expected to have more maps than its predecessor with each release. Rather, a Halo game should be expected to have a certain amount of DLC and total maps 20-24, in the Halo 2-3 range.

I agree with your sentiments in this post, if it were true from the start.

Halo 3 HAS 20+ maps now. The first 2 years of it's release, in its hay day, it did not. That was super frustrating for all of us.

 

[The Real Napsta]

I agree with your sentiments in this post, if it were true from the start.

Halo 3 HAS 20+ maps now. The first 2 years of it's release, in its hay day, it did not. That was super frustrating for all of us.

Less than a year after launch it had:

Guardian
The Pit
Construct
Isolation
Narrows
Epitaph
Sandtrap
Valhalla
Snowbound
High Ground
Last Resort

Standoff
Foundry
Rat Race

Blackout
Avalanche
Ghost Town

That's 17 right there. By April 08.

 

[bobs...onGaf]

And yet, epic ongoing arguments about the many changes made to the combat from Halo 1 to Halo 2 to Halo 3 to Reach rage here and elsewhere. The gamers that put the most time into the games see just how much changed from game to game, in detail. I'd actually argue the opposite: the more you play them, the more you appreciate and understand the differences. The games all play very differently, and as you said have a mammoth feature set built up around them to boot.

I don't see any justification for that sentiment, from the reviews, gamers, or otherwise. The people that argued for Halo to evolve more dramatically often just wanted it to turn into something else.

100% agree with this, it always seemed to be people who disliked Halo who 'bitched' about Halo 3 being basically Halo 2.5. The guys that I personally knew who said this never actually touched Halo 3 (and had barely played Halo 2), but when people are going to hate on something its the easiest way to do so.

If anything Halo 3 put hardcore Halo fans off because the flow was too different, not too similar. I personally love Halo 3 but I can understand why Halo 2 vets would dislike it. Same with the Halo 1 vets who disliked Halo 2 for being too different.

Essentially when your really into something, you kind of want more of the same, just on a grander scale. Halo 2 -> Halo 3 was good because even though the core gameplay didnt drastically change, it changed just enough to be a new experience, and the ancillary modes like Forge/ Theatre/ Expanded Custom game options really helped flesh the options out. Totally redesigning what worked is just going to piss off people who liked the original design I.e. the original fans.

EDIT:

Gears Code gone.

 

[Tunavi]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZn9BiJ-Z3s

Get on my awesome ending level lil nub.

And that is why I play Halo.

 

[Hydranockz]

Some good posts in here dudes.

I agree with whoever suggested Forge World should have been 5 separate maps. Besides some epic race maps, that still are not in MM, what maps use more than one area of FW? Do five separate map spaces really equate to one large one in terms of assets and resources saved? Even 2 covie styles squeezed into one and another two unsc ones squished together would have been so much better.

When you really think about it, have the teams working on each main Halo title increased greatly in size since Halo 2? Considering new IPs and ODST would have used up quite a large subsection of Bungie.

 

[Striker]

Essentially when your really into something, you kind of want more of the same, just on a grander scale. Halo 2 -> Halo 3 was good because even though the core gameplay didnt drastically change, it changed just enough to be a new experience, and the ancillary modes like Forge/ Theatre/ Expanded Custom game options really helped flesh the options out. Totally redesigning what worked is just going to piss off people who liked the original design I.e. the original fans.

The lack of hitscan, slower movement speed, floatier jump, inclusion of eqiupment, and poor maps generally changes it a lot for many people.

 

[Lake Minnetonka]

I think it's clear that Bungie just didn't have the art and design resources applied to Reach necessary to support all of the game modes and other content they wanted. Forge World exists because they didn't have enough budget for five separate sky boxes and environments, Boneyard was lifted from Campaign to support Invasion and the shoehorned into BTB, Firefight maps were all lifted from Campaign. Not all of Bungie was on Reach (more like half), and it showed in some ways. The MP maps definitely took the biggest hit.

Do you honestly believe this?

If they really can't pull off more than did they need to reevaluate their design pipeline. I can't think of a series with Halo caliber sales, budget, or dev size that could get away with shipping as few (poorly designed) maps and still have delusional fanboys defend them.

 

[bobs...onGaf]

The lack of hitscan, slower movement speed, floatier jump, inclusion of eqiupment, and poor maps generally changes it a lot for many people.

Just to point back to that post:

If anything Halo 3 put hardcore Halo fans off because the flow was too different, not too similar. I personally love Halo 3 but I can understand why Halo 2 vets would dislike it. Same with the Halo 1 vets who disliked Halo 2 for being too different.



I was arguing that too different is worse than too similar (in my opinion). If your going to quote me at least quote my whole post and not bits of it out of context.

 

[wwm0nkey]

Halo 1, 2 and 3 while all different still felt like the core Halo, Reach however just goes WAY too far away from that feel.

 

[GhaleonEB]

Do you honestly believe this?

Dude, you stopped bolding (and perhaps reading) too soon. Let me help you out.

I think it's clear that Bungie just didn't have the art and design resources applied to Reach necessary to support all of the game modes and other content they wanted.​

Bungie was a much larger studio during Reach's development than they were during Halo 3's. But not all of them were working on Reach. My point was, the art and design resources devoted to Reach were insufficient to support the scale of content the project called for, and that it shows in the curtailed multiplayer maps and reused Firefight spaces (and in a few other areas as well). Reach was a huge project and it was a bit outsized for the team working on it.

Do you disagree? I think this is stating the obvious.

This is one of the reasons I'm glad the entire studio is going to be working on their new IP. They're ambitious people, and the more they can focus on it, the better.

 

[HiredN00bs]

I think Kuroyume is right that - starting with Halo 3 - there was a growing sentiment among gamers that the Halo series was beginning to stagnate.

Now, Halo 3 was a polished product with TONS of innovations in terms of building fan community (Forge, capturing and sharing movies, deeper Bungie.net integration, etc), and it offered an OBSCENE amount of content for the money (awesome campaign, 4-player co-op, campaign scoring, multiplayer, forge, etc). So reviewers rightfully gave it praise and high scores.

The thing is, MOST reviewers didn't really put the same number of hours in Halo and Halo 2 that gamers did. They have a ton of games to review, and many of them have different leanings when it comes to the games they play in their spare time. So while your average gamer was pouring time in Halo 2 online, reviewers were off playing other games.

When they play Halo 3 after a 2 or 3 year hiatus from Halo 2, it doesn't feel nearly as familiar or stale to them as it does the players that jump right from Halo 2 to Halo 3. For gamers though, there was a pretty immediate sentiment expressed on message boards that Halo 3 was Halo 2.5...very similar to Halo 2.

And then CoD came out. For the first time, Halo had serious competition in the console FPS online space. And they lost ground, because many gamers that had been playing Halo for years, wanted something new.

Diehard Halo fans, those who appreciated the nuances of Bungie's combat model and their particular brand of shooting, obviously stayed with Halo and felt nothing was wrong. But Halo 3 created a lot of 'lapsed' Halo fans that were once super into the games, and eventually lost interest.

I think some of the changes that Bungie made with Halo: Reach were done to freshen up the series. I think many of the changes were made simply because Bungie thought they would add to the fun and satisfaction of the experience. I agree with many of their changes. Halo: Reach is probably my favorite Halo. But then, I was putting fewer and fewer hours into Halo with every subsequent game....so I was one of those lapsed Halo fans...or getting there.

Just my take.

Very well put. Personally, I've been playing more Halo with each iteration, and I've welcomed the modifications to gameplay (equipment & armor abilities). The more options, the better, in my opinion. I also feel that the games have become significantly more refined with each iteration (although my experience with Halo: CE multiplayer was limited, so this is more of a comment on the progression from Halo 2 to Halo 3 to Halo: Reach).

 

[Lake Minnetonka]

Bungie was a much larger studio during Reach's development than they were during Halo 3's. But not all of them were working on Reach. My point was, the art and design resources devoted to Reach were insufficient to support the scale of content the project called for, and that it shows in the curtailed multiplayer maps and reused Firefight spaces (and in a few other areas as well). Reach was a huge project and it was a bit outsized for the team working on it.

Do you disagree? I think this is stating the obvious.

When I think resources I think development budget. A game with Reach's development budget cannot have so little content. Microsoft threw millions at Bungie to create a kick-ass Halo game, Microsoft wasn't trying to fund Activision's multiplatform IP. Even a fraction of Bungie's 200+ people should have delivered more content, dev teams a fraction of their size (with much less experience) have done more. I'm confused on where you stand, you made fun of Major Williams implying that Bungie did a decent job allocating their resources when I can't understand how someone could defend that. Yes, they had up to two franchises in the work, but are they that inefficient that they have to settle on as little content as they did?

Very well put. Personally, I've been playing more Halo with each iteration, and I've welcomed the modifications to gameplay (equipment & armor abilities). The more options, the better, in my opinion. I also feel that the games have become significantly more refined with each iteration (although my experience with Halo: CE multiplayer was limited, so this is more of a comment on the progression from Halo 2 to Halo 3 to Halo: Reach).

I'm hoping for your sake that you simply don't know the definition of refined.

 

[Doodis]

Cryptum Forerunner DLC
Link

This is as good a confirmation as we have got for future Reach DLC, but I'm surprised that it's gone largely ignored.

So, maps either based on locations from the first Forerunner novel or maps which include direct references to actions, persons or events in the novel.

One thing that's important to note, Defiant left us with a very distinct message for fans and that message is that the extended fiction is no longer off-limits when it comes to main game itself. Whilst Unearthed largely does its own thing, Highlands and Condemned both feature a rich colour of extended fiction paint. Most players will either not know or even care about where the maps came from but bookworms get that extra special nod.

I'm pretty confident that we'll see this trend continue due to the above quote and I'm pretty happy about it.

So what do you think we'll get? Remakes are possible. Invasion and Firefight maps are also possible. I would like to see a shift in focus to smaller, Arena style maps as Reach has a distinct lack of them so far.

Without spoiling the books, any particular locations you'd like to see or any particular remakes?

Two locations in particular I think would be sweet but there's no chance in hell we'll ever see would be:

EDOM - a volcanically active desert world home to the Forerunner miners. I would image the crust of the planet to be crisscrossed with scores of winding tunnels filled with powerful Forerunner machines processing the rock and soil.

CHARUM HAKKOR - an ancient Hub world which predates the Forerunners by millions of years. So many awesome things about this planet that would spoil the novel several times over by describing.

So much potential for future Halo play spaces.

I've been gone from the Halo threads forever, but just now got around to finishing Cryptum and wanted to pop in and post my approval. Glad to see Dani's post here, but is there any info on how the Defiant maps tie into Cryptum? I bought them but haven't spent hardly any time on them yet.