-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Halo: Reach |OT6| There Are Those Who Said This Day Would Never Come
- Thread starter GhaleonEB
- Start date
Deputy Moonman
Member
This, pleaseGabotron ES said:
Bleah... I can't seem to pull many good teammates when I play solo. I think trueskill really is just a sympathy
/punishment
(K)
)Devin Olsen
Member
Are any Halo GAF'ers buying Dead Island? I am planning on picking it up for 360 today, and it would be fun to co-op it with someone.
The Real Napsta
Member
Ken said:
Is that the MLG monitor?
Devin Olsen said:
Didn't that get like a 3/10 from Edge?
squidhands
Member
Yeah, Edge seemed to really, really dislike it. So sick of zombie games, anyway.The Real Napsta said:
king picollo
Member
There's a problem with the PC version, apparently they released a dev kit build on steam.
Bit of a cock up.
Bit of a cock up.
Devin Olsen
Member
lol people over react to bad reviews.The Real Napsta said:
The game has a 75/100 on Meta Critic (for 360).
90/100 - Team Xbox
85/100 - Game Informer
85/100 - Game Trailers
80/100 - OXM
80/100 - Multiplayer.it
80/100 - IGN
Etc
Etc
Etc
3/10 - Edge
So no, better focus on the Edge review.
Edge is the only publication whose reviews I actively seek out. For the rest, I look at the general consensus. Personally, their opinions carry a lot of weight. Which is not to say I always agree (they panned Guardian Heroes when it came out, FFS).Devin Olsen said:
More than any other outlet, they certainly understand Halo. But looking at the spectrum you've posted, they sure seem like an outlier here; were I looking to buy the game I'd want to read the review to see whether their issues are likely to bother me. More often than not, I agree with Edge over the consensus (See: Bioshock).
Slightly Live
Dirty tag dodger
Devin Olsen said:
I'd trust Edge over the rest of those sites/sources combined.
Read it yourself.
http://www.next-gen.biz/reviews/dead-island-review
Blue Ninja
Member
He was never actually part of BioWare. They just didn't ask him to do the music for ME3, instead giving the honor the Clint Mansell.PooBone said:
Neil Davidge did the music for the H4 announcement trailer. The way Frankie worded it made me think he might be doing the score for the game, too.
squidhands
Member
Dani said:
ouchEdge said:
Demoncarnotaur
Member
Ken said:
Hm. I really hope that Halo isn't being held back from moving forward and evolving at all for the fear of upsetting the fans. Its natural to change the way things play and feel to a degree, and Halo needs to move forward, change, in some regards. I hope this isn't a bad sign for the franchise or the studio.
I personally would love for some radical changes to the Halo formula, while I love Halo it has grown stagnant and needs some fresh life. I know I will be eaten alive for a statement like this but I still stand by this opinion.
thezerofire
Banned
I don't think you will. A while back I was saying how much I'd love to see a Metroid Prime like thing for Halo, and I remember a couple other people agreeing.Demoncarnotaur said:
The changes from Halo 1 to Halo 2 were quite drastic, and I wouldn't worry much either way. Changes are fine for this type of FPS as long as they are balanced, provide longevity for fans, and most importantly, fun. We've had changes all along in the series from Bungie - it seems some people only tend to look mostly at Reach as the new change and reflect as if it is damaging (in regards to change in the series).Demoncarnotaur said:
Demoncarnotaur
Member
thezerofire said:
I too would like that direction. Or rather, that direction mixed with other fresh takes on the franchise. The Halo 4 panel has me worried that they wont take enough risks though. If they wont stray too far off the trail with Halo 4 I really hope we get another side project like ODST that is even more willing to change things up.
Dont get me wrong, Im sure Halo 4 will be solid, I just hope the franchise moves forward.
Striker said:
True. although Halo 1, 2 & 3 set a certain feel that basically hasn't been deviated from. I hope they dont take that exact same approach and I really hope they change things up a bit.
Demoncarnotaur said:
So you would say Reach did not depart from the formula enough?
Ugh... I miss Halo and want it back. While I'm all for some interesting things being added to the equation, Halo has stood alone in the type of FPS it was at it's core. Halo has moved from that with each successive release. Emphasizing that good old golden triangle of gun, melee, grenade coupled with team play in a shooter that takes real skill to master is something that is harder and harder to find.
While other devs copy and evolve the CoD style of play to treat to the masses... I emphatically hope that 343 moves more towards historic Halo play in the multi-player. Let spin-offs address radical changes to that formula...
Demoncarnotaur
Member
Risen said:
Reach is the same formula with just slower speed, some unbalanced Armor Abilities and poorly implemented bloom. Yes, they changed melee damage among other things, but those still all felt Halo... Just generally, not as fun. Otherwise its the same game. Seriously.
I am talking a game that plays good, feels good, feels "halo" but yet is still something very different. So no, Im not saying Halo needs slower movement speed, or smaller jumps or anything along those lines. Rather it just needs changes across the board while still retaining a similar feel. Also, Im talking more on a campaign level. But yes, MP needs to evolve as well while still catering to past fans. If done correctly everyone will benefit.
What I am not saying is make the game play more like COD the way all other shooters do. I mean something new and fresh for Halo and games generally. Think outside the box, take risks, but balance them out.
ElRenoRaven
Member
Ken said:
I may sound cold for what I'm about to say but you know after reading the article on the guy walking off Halo 4 development I say goodbye. Won't miss ya. Sounds to me that he wanted to make halo into something it wasn't and they said no. That to me shows that 343 aren't going to fundamentally change it and do honestly intend to keep Halo Halo.
Now I'm sure the guy is a nice guy even though that article does make him sound a bit pompous but it's the studio that is in charge of Halo now. Did he think they wouldn't make a Halo game Halo?
What forumula are you even discussing? There are so many variables to distinguish, vehicle-infantry combat, weapons, base settings, grenades, and so on. In terms of those characteristics alone, Halo 1 and Halo 2 were so far off, but at the same time, in my mind, they're the last two that were stand alone Halo games that were stemmed off as a primary weapons-grenades-melee game. Each iteration has changed so much, both for good or bad.Risen said:
Indeed. The chasm from Halo 1 to Halo 3 is vast, from the content to the abilities, yet the core elements of what defined the game as a Halo title were preserved. (I should note I'm focusing on Campaign here.) The features added and gameplay tweaked make up a pretty enormous list.Striker said:
I hope more than anything 343 is looking at a new mission structure. ~10 mostly linear missions in sequence has grown a bit stale. More open missions are very difficult to design and more expensive from an art/design standpoint, but I hope they look more to the hub in ODST, or even the second mission in the first game (or New Alexadria, writ large) for inspiration. The concept art they showed makes me want to go exploring.
Demoncarnotaur said:
If changes are made across the board I doubt seriously a game could have the same feel.
Halo is a huge separation from other FPS titles... to the point of almost being outside the box by default. Developers should take risks in the development of new franchises, not already established franchises. You don't take one of the best shooters to ever be created, and turn it into another franchise entirely - you build on what you have without changing what makes the game so great.
Which is terribly hard to do...
Thinking outside the box gave us bloom, AA's with busted implementation, poor default movement, and all played in a palette of awful maps. It also gave us a Grenade Launcher that is a power weapon, that takes skill, that is well balanced.
I want "Grenade Launcher" new ideas, not "AA's that break core Halo game play" kind of ideas.
Striker said:
I was specifically talking to his use of "formula" in his spoiler part of the quote - and just dealing with MP as a whole.
Risen said:
The problem with this is perception. You and others perceive the Reach changes as "thinking outside the box" or "trying new things". I am thinking Bungie sees it as "building on what you have without changing what makes the game so great" or at least that's what their goal was.
I still think Reach feels very Halo like and I loved it at first, but I am now ready for a more classic approach.
Captain Blood
Member
This is how I feel. Halo is uniquely Halo and it has been missing from the FPS landscape since Halo 3. I want it back.Risen said:
Edit: Reach wasn't a complete departure by any means but to me it seems diluted.
senador said:
Well it's not so much perception... but a definition of what the "box" actually is - in this case I'm essentially defining the box as the initial Halo MP offering and the core values within...
I think when looking at going from no bloom to bloom - that's an outside the box variant within a Halo game - and going from no AA to AA's as implemented in Reach - again - outside the box for a Halo game... neither would be outside the box in say... Shadowrun.
Reach is still Halo-like when comparing Halo to other franchises - but less so when comparing Halo of 10 years ago with Halo of today. I'm not saying I don't want a game to change, to evolve, or have fresh ideas... I just want them implemented in a way that does not change the core game play that makes Halo... Halo.
Edit:
I also think there are a number of things in Reach that I enjoy... I love Sprint, I like the idea of Evade, I like the DMR as a starting weapon. I love the return of Rockets as a power weapon. I love the Grenade Launcher. Needles being powerful... I loved the pistol in the Beta. These are evolutions - or a return of a great mechanic that fits the sandbox.
Demoncarnotaur
Member
I agree that Reach was more built up on the fundamentals of Halo rather than changing them. Gameplay issues aside, it had a very similar feel.
I have nothing against AA's like sprint or even jetpack. Armor lock getting changed has me excited although I doubt we will see that in future titles. That said, I do miss equipment like the bubble shield and regen which cannot really work as an AA. Im not sure where to go from there.
This. I would love for a non linear style of play, with a lot of exploring. I also wouldn't mind earning upgrades to your armor (campaign only) which gave you different abilities as you went along.
When it comes to set pieces though, I really hope they can better tell the story and have interesting things happen without forcing us on a guided trail. Even Reach left me disappointed on how small scale it felt when the planet should have been being destroyed before our very eyes, as we play.
I have nothing against AA's like sprint or even jetpack. Armor lock getting changed has me excited although I doubt we will see that in future titles. That said, I do miss equipment like the bubble shield and regen which cannot really work as an AA. Im not sure where to go from there.
GhaleonEB said:
This. I would love for a non linear style of play, with a lot of exploring. I also wouldn't mind earning upgrades to your armor (campaign only) which gave you different abilities as you went along.
When it comes to set pieces though, I really hope they can better tell the story and have interesting things happen without forcing us on a guided trail. Even Reach left me disappointed on how small scale it felt when the planet should have been being destroyed before our very eyes, as we play.
Except Halo 3 introduced and slowed game the game further than previous iterations. It's just changing each time. People nitpick on one game, Reach, and act as ifs it changes were the only severe ones throughout the series. Halo 1 was so far different in vehicle combat, gun-play, and base settings than games that followed.Captain Blood said:
ElRenoRaven
Member
You know while I'm not a fan of all the changes made in Reach, I'm looking at you armor abilites, Reach feels as much a Halo game as all the others and I feel a damn good end to Bungie's run with the franchise. I really think that some get a little too hung up on small things and a lot of the time forget to look at the bigger picture that is Reach.
And when it comes to 3 I thought if felt every bit like Halo except Equipment. In fact other then the first game Halo 3 was perfect to me even with equipment since nobody hardly used it.
And when it comes to 3 I thought if felt every bit like Halo except Equipment. In fact other then the first game Halo 3 was perfect to me even with equipment since nobody hardly used it.
Significant changes can be made while still keeping Halo's core intact. I think Halo 2 & 3 did that. (Everything from base trait tweaking to dual wielding, vehicle boarding, equipment, support weapon class, new weapons, destructible vehicles, man cannons, etc.). It still felt like Halo.Striker said:
Reach, much more than the other games, alters the core of the game. How melee works, how shooting works, how vehicle health works, how we can move. It all added up to a game where encounters play out very differently than before; not just slower, but clunkier. My first reaction when I played the Halo 3 beta was, this feels like Halo, and it feels great. My very first post on GAF after playing the F&F beta for Reach was along the lines of, 'this does not feel like a Halo game'.
The problem isn't change in the abstract, but what gets changed and how that reshapes the game.
Halo 3 was a stepping stone to what we see in Halo Reach right now. They started out in Halo 3 with the slow base speeds compared to the faster ones from Halo 1 and 2. It introduced bullshit deaths. Equipment brought along something new, and in my view, not something that was necessary for the series. It provided more ways for a player to escape death, and win a battle that they should have died from seconds earlier. Then they bring in Fair gameplay like simultaneous beatdowns, and when getting boarded, you were stunned immediately - instead of allowing the user to avoid getting killed by delivering a quick exit and killing the attacker.
As for vehicle health, it was only Halo 2 and Halo 3 they decided around the player health. People tend to use the "Halo formula" term for something that isn't quite explainable. What is the Halo formula? Is it Halo 1? Halo 2? Halo 3? They're all vastly different games in many aspects. All it boils down to is, in some instances, the similarities are most keen in Halo 2 and Halo 3 with rengerating shields, vehicle health died to players, and melee bleed through. Everything else is different.
As for vehicle health, it was only Halo 2 and Halo 3 they decided around the player health. People tend to use the "Halo formula" term for something that isn't quite explainable. What is the Halo formula? Is it Halo 1? Halo 2? Halo 3? They're all vastly different games in many aspects. All it boils down to is, in some instances, the similarities are most keen in Halo 2 and Halo 3 with rengerating shields, vehicle health died to players, and melee bleed through. Everything else is different.
ElRenoRaven
Member
Who has a grunt plushie, extra goodies, and the hugest damn grin known to man?
THIS GUY!!!
THIS GUY!!!
I still feel like supporting them, Class3 is too far away. Dead island seems like a horrible mess, but at least they tried to go in the direction I want zombie games to go. Survival, desperation, tension, open world exploration, provisions gathering. There's a million zombie games in the market but they're all shooting galleries.Dani said:
This is really good. Every Halo game does feel a bit different and unique (for the better or worse), but Reach was the first one where upon picking it up it felt like a different game in a Halo skin.GhaleonEB said:
PsychoRaven said:
For me those details that change core game play are important... it's why after 3 months of play I left for 9 ish months and didn't play a single Reach game. I'd never done that with a Halo title.
I played Black Ops - where I have actively hated on the Call of Duty franchise for years... I find CoD easy and not well balanced... but I found a niche I could enjoy in MLG game types, Gamebattles, and the Tactical playlist. Coming back to Reach after a number of small changes in Playlists like MLG, Objective, and Arena, with the future changes in the TU have had me enjoying Halo again... Just not as much as previous titles. Halo CE, 2, and even 3 had me wanting to play every night... there was a drive to get on and play even if no one was around. With Reach - I don't have that drive as I did with previous Halo iterations.
It's small details that affected that moving from and back to Halo.
It's not nit-picking - I hesitate at picking at small flaws that don't really affect game play that I enjoy - rather it's a reaction to changes that affect core values of the style of game I enjoy.
Striker said:
I think most people use the term "Halo formula" to describe the collective core values of the game without actively listing them out. Now some may have different ideas of what those core values are... but I'd say the Halo formula is that which was created in HCE and separated it from every other FPS out there.
It starts with controls on a console, then the interplay between that triangle (gun, grenade, melee), then implementation of matchmaking... from there, each successive Halo game that has been released tweaks that formula. Some merely change it, or add to it, while others are radical departures from it...
The Halo formula is to inform the player how close they are to death. In Halo 1, Ghosts and Banshees had their own health meter. Get in one, you see it has one bar of health left, you might want to get out. Otherwise, use your own health as the basis while in the indestructible vehicles. In Halo 2 and 3, player and vehicle health were linked. You knew you were going to die by keeping a watch on...your health.Striker said:
How do you know you're going to die in a Reach vehicle? I have no idea. The vehicle and player health is decoupled, and the visible vehicle damage is far too imprecise. From a functional standpoint, once you do a pass in a Warthog and it gets beaten up, it's best left abandoned because of it. Even with non-linked health, we need a clear reading on how much danger we are in. Reach forgot this.
The signs are still there but as you said, unfortunately, they are no longer precise or as immediately obvious as they were previously. Covenant vehicles have their plasma leaks, the Warthog has a bright red light on the dash when you're about to eat it. You're right in that it should be conveyed better, but it's just one of a million issues with vehicle balance in this game. I think not knowing exactly which DMR shot will blow the vehicle up wouldn't be an issue if the DMR wasn't an effective anti-vehicle weapon in the first place (it's crazy that that decision was ever made).GhaleonEB said:
Edited for clarification. I'm not arguing against your point - you're fundamentally right.
squidhands
Member
GhaleonEB said:
Fun read as the beta wears on.GhaleonEB said:
Devolution
Member
I'll be cynical as hell and honest, Reach felt to me like a grab at CoD's gamers and suffered for it. The community got worse, quitters are everywhere and instead of everyone starting out on the same foot which is what makes Halo great, we have loadouts.
Fail all around in that regard.
Fail all around in that regard.
I was on a seesaw the entire time. :lolsquidhands said:Fun read as the beta wears on.
I am now able to articulate with much greater clarity why certain things work better than others, while back in the Beta I didn't have enough time with it. Since then I've seen how Reach Multiplayer can, under many conditions, play like a great Halo game. But most of the time, partly due to the playlist implementation, it doesn't gel.
Steelyuhas
Member
Happy Birthday Plywood!
When the long night comes, at least you made it to 21.
When the long night comes, at least you made it to 21.
Devolution
Member
What's the phrase? Hindsight is 20/20? Plus you guys just came off playing H3, which was worse than h1/h2. I'll be honest at the time Reach seemed like a good direction. Then I played enough of it and the cracks started to show.
K
kittens
Unconfirmed Member
Hah, good times. Or not, in some cases.squidhands said:Fun read as the beta wears on.
PS: DAMN IT, why do I ever open Gaming side Halo threads. I swear, never again, haha.
RebornYeti
Member
squidhands said:Fun read as the beta wears on.
I decided to read the Beta thread, and here is my first impression:
-Yeti said:So far this is the best experience I've had with a Multiplayer game. That's saying a lot.
I was so young. :lol
For real though, I really did have a lot of fun with the Beta. I really wish the Honeymoon stage would have lasted a little bit longer though.