InvincibleAgent
Member
Most allies in the first 3 Halos worship the ground Chief walks on. There are plenty of bits where you have marines assisting you, or other kinds of allies, and there are plenty of bits where you're on your own.
LTTP - Halo: Reach
- Thread starter Squire
- Start date
The Librarian
Banned
Here's what I think is going on. First off, in this post you never really dispute Karl's assertion that you think everything should be handed to you on a silver platter whenever you hop into a vehicle. And if that's not what you're saying, that's how your post come across with comments such as "the only advantage you get is when the AI drive themselves into walls [etc]." If Halo 3 did what you're suggesting, if all of them were as overpowering as the tank, then they wouldn't be fun in the long haul because there would be no challenge to the encounters. Each vehicle has its strengths and weaknesses in different situations, and fighting against other vehicles and infantry. Therefore each will provide a different experience when dealing with the challenges that come from those weaknesses.
Secondly, if you're getting hit by Wraith mortars from "500 yards away," if you think getting into a vehicle puts you at the same level of effectiveness as Covenant infantry, and if you find yourself getting destroyed when you rush into battle, then that's not the game that most likely means you're bad at driving vehicles.
All of the vehicles are an upgrade over the player in terms of maneuverability and firepower. You have a point in that Chief does have more options available to him when he's walking around, but the maneuverability and firepower provided with driving a vehicle are so strong that they're overall effectiveness is on par with the Chief's. So when tackling a certain fight whether you're the Chief or in a vehicle each method of approach has its downsides and thus provides different difficulties.
And even if you were to ignore all of that, here's the thing: If you find getting into a vehicle limits you to such a degree that it's an annoyance, or makes your experience mediocre, then don't get into vehicles. That's the great thing about Halo: You have so many viable options. I really enjoy tackling encounters in vehicles in Halo 3, and I find doing the same situations on foot to be just as fun.
I don't understand your comment of the "ridiculousness" of Scarab encounters. That's a vague complaint, and it's a game. Yes, they're huge war machines, and it may not make sense fictionally for them to have weakpoints like they have, but it's a game.
If we were to break down the large vehicle levels in Halo 3, you'll find that the infantry sections are not just dedicated ways to get the player into another vehicle fight, as you've said. Tsavo Highway: Start off in a vehicle, you roll along until the game greatly encourages you to stop and fight it out the Covenant on-foot, then you roll along again until you get to the final Brute pack battle. The Storm is the only level where you'd probably be right, but I see those large tunnel sections as a nice change of pace rather than just a different way to a vehicle encounter. The Ark: Start off with the sniper-encouraged fights, fight it out until you stumble across Mongooses and Prowlers, all vehicle sections until the last fight in the Cartographer. The Covenant: You're meant to fight the first battle on-foot, then you drive until the first control tower where you're meant to get out and fight, then you drive back and fly the Hornet where you're forced to fight in another control tower, the two Scarabs, then fight in the Citadel.
What of those encounters sound like a different means to another vehicle encounter?
No radar is where it's at. Radars are crutches for people who have bad situational awareness. It essentially does the looking for you (to a certain extend) which makes the game less interesting and more predictable. Radar also encourages people to camp because they don't show up on the radar when they're not moving and they can see people coming towards them making them an easy target.
Source: I've put 1450 hours into Reach, and at least 500 in Halo 3.
Canis lupus
Member
The end still gets me...
Whenever you get marines in warthog, always give the run riding shotgun your Rocket Launcher. Just do it, trust me.
RockmanWhore
Member
I'm not a big fan of Halo, but I really enjoyed Reach. The first Halo had huge problem of level design and variety (not enough weapons, extremely repetitive levels ie the infamous flood archive level). Halo 2 and 3 were much better, but they didn't click on me, I was kinda dispointed by the smaller scale of the levels, in Halo 2 I remember an awesome fight with a giant walking tank, but I can't remember anything memorable in 3 plus it looked like shit (aliased sub HD shit, the lighting and water are nice though). But Reach, I don't know, it's like Bungie finally got it right, I can't really find any flaw, even the space battle level was nice. Maybe it's just me that changed and was finally able to enjoy Halo.
It was also nice to play a console FPS that doesn't really on ADS, it was a nice feature in the first CoD games, but now every damn FPS has that, you don't aim any more, you just press L, and the game auto locks the nearest bad guy, Halo has a very persmissive aiming too, and if you really want accuracy, you'd better play on PC with a mouse, or use a Wiimote/PS Move, but you still need to aim and it takes skill to play properly. I still have problems with the horrible automatic checkpoints system (it's really annoying when I rush for the hell of it, and get a save that forces me to restart long missions, it's especially painful in the first Halo because of the problems of repetitive level design and lack of variety in weapons/ennemies).
I hope that 343 Industries will do a good job with Halo 4. The fact that it's a new studio kinda afraid me, especially with Bungie finally making a great game :lol I just hope that they really had the time to make a great game, the yearly sequels might make a lot of sense financially speaking for Microsoft, but it's never a good thing when it comes to the player experience. I guess that's one of the reason why Bungie bailed out.
It was also nice to play a console FPS that doesn't really on ADS, it was a nice feature in the first CoD games, but now every damn FPS has that, you don't aim any more, you just press L, and the game auto locks the nearest bad guy, Halo has a very persmissive aiming too, and if you really want accuracy, you'd better play on PC with a mouse, or use a Wiimote/PS Move, but you still need to aim and it takes skill to play properly. I still have problems with the horrible automatic checkpoints system (it's really annoying when I rush for the hell of it, and get a save that forces me to restart long missions, it's especially painful in the first Halo because of the problems of repetitive level design and lack of variety in weapons/ennemies).
I hope that 343 Industries will do a good job with Halo 4. The fact that it's a new studio kinda afraid me, especially with Bungie finally making a great game :lol I just hope that they really had the time to make a great game, the yearly sequels might make a lot of sense financially speaking for Microsoft, but it's never a good thing when it comes to the player experience. I guess that's one of the reason why Bungie bailed out.
Not specifically only directed to you, but just wanted to comment on this. I never understood the comment about the resolution making Halo 3 worse. Ive seen people complain more about that aspect then the actual game, like its a universal dig that the game is lesser quality because the resolution is lower. It just baffles me to be honest, every thread the same thing is quoted verbatim, while the levels and design in the game are often brought up nobody really comments on them specifically.
Halo 3 has some of the best and most open levels ever. More even then Reach.
Tsavo Highway:
The Storm:
The Floodgate:
The Ark:
The Covenant:
Pictures courtesy of Electric Blue Skies.
Halo 3 was monumental in its design, scale and enemy encounters. Resolutions and business reasons do not make it any less amazing.
Monocle
Member
The Storm and Floodgate are super linear. Not really the best examples to illustrate Halo 3's open level design. Still good missions though, and subject to all the benefits of Halo's signature sandbox gameplay (well, The Storm is anyway).
But yeah, to criticize Halo 3 for the scale of its campaign is absurd. It's such a diverse set of levels, vast not only in terms of playable space but also their variety of strategic possibilities. The two major exceptions are Floodgate and Cortana. It has to be admitted that they're much more restrictive in both senses. Still, most of the missions are very strong, with enough standout moments and well conceived encounters to set Halo 3's campaign slightly above that of Reach.
But yeah, to criticize Halo 3 for the scale of its campaign is absurd. It's such a diverse set of levels, vast not only in terms of playable space but also their variety of strategic possibilities. The two major exceptions are Floodgate and Cortana. It has to be admitted that they're much more restrictive in both senses. Still, most of the missions are very strong, with enough standout moments and well conceived encounters to set Halo 3's campaign slightly above that of Reach.
The Librarian
Banned
Halo 3's scale greatly eclipses anything in Halo 1, as evidenced by OddOne's pictures.
The Storm is only linear in the hangar bay parts, and those sections are broken up by the open level design Halo 3 is known for.
I disagree about The Storm, even though it was split up in “rooms”, those sections were quite large and open compared to other games. They way you could approach them is up to you, which is why the level is so good.
I have a hard time arguing that Floodgate is not linear though, but even in its linearity the freedom to roam and do your thing is still hugely evident.
Monocle
Member
Yes, The Storm is broken up into cells or modules of open space that are connected by corridors. It seems very linear to me because I find I'm always conscious of being funneled through the map. But you do have a point that those open sections give you quite a lot of freedom.
Maybe I've watched too many speed runs of that mission.
I see that a lot of people admires the AI on Legendary.
I just want to point out that enemies have the same AI regardless of difficulty level. It's just that they aim better and takes more damage before they go down on Legendary. This causes players to believe that the AI is better, when in fact it is not.
At least this was the case with Bungies games, and it's something that Bungies AI-programmers have stated several times.
I just want to point out that enemies have the same AI regardless of difficulty level. It's just that they aim better and takes more damage before they go down on Legendary. This causes players to believe that the AI is better, when in fact it is not.
At least this was the case with Bungies games, and it's something that Bungies AI-programmers have stated several times.
InvincibleAgent
Member
They don't take more damage, they do more damage. You need the Mythic skull for them to take more damage.
Zeouterlimits
Member
Perhaps, but you're misconstruing it slightly.
By being tougher in Legendary, the battles are longer and therefore you get to see more of the combat A.I. and how it reacts in different situations.
This is what I've heard too. It's not a case like the original Uncharted where entire AI routines were changed on higher difficulties. Uncharted eventually ditched this in the sequel in favor of having those "smart" AI routines present in all difficulty levels with the only thing changing being enemy health and accuracy.
RockmanWhore
Member
I think it's because these levels aren't as memorable as Halo 1 was in its time. I clearly remember running arround in huge island in Halo 1, going from place to place with the warthog, and messing around. I have memories of that in Reach too, but Halo 3? I don't know, my memory has definitely played me tricks though, those screenshots show pretty big levels. I guess it has to do with the expectations of next gen, and the fact that Bungie didn't really deliver.
You should really replay Halo 3, forget about everything you have heard. My problem with Reach wasn’t the levels and scale and enemy encounters, those were fantastic. The only iffy thing about it was the forced vehicle sections.
Some of my favorite sections:
The rest was "ok".Winter Contingency
That you could freely walk all over that level was awesome.
ONI: Sword Base
Driving around with the warthog in this level, so good.
New Alexandria
Flying around and tackeling everything at your own pace is good design.
Reach looks so dull. People can say what they want about Halo 3's graphics but at least it's a lot more vibrant. ODST is still my favorite Halo game in terms of environments, though. The city looks incredible during the night if you don't have VISR mode on. The last level also looks beautiful at times.
Blue Ninja, go make some screenshots of ODST during the night, stat.
Really couldn't find any good pictures. 
king picollo
Member
The only advice I'd give is take your time, have a look around at the scenery in the distance and the close up level around you, there is detail packed in everywhere so it's a shame to have your head down and walk a linear path.
MikeE21286
Member
Agreed. Reach got me excited about Halo 4 (and Halo in general) all over again.
Blue Ninja
Member
They don't upload to Waypoint anymore and my ex-gf broke my USB stick a while back, so I can't transfer them either.
Not to sound rude but did you even play 3? You fight the Scarab like... 4 times in Halo 3 (The Storm, The Ark, The Covenant x2). Unless you mean it being a constant presence throughout the level, but I don't see how that has anything to do with the scale of the levels.
Barrow Roll
Member
I'm replaying Reach as part of my lead-up to Halo 4 and because of this damn scene, I crack up every time I get to that part.
Oh, spoilers in that video, but you should be fine if you just close the vid after the scene I linked.
Oh, spoilers in that video, but you should be fine if you just close the vid after the scene I linked.
Raptomex
Member
Reach is excellent. Fantastic gameplay.GAF, I've never been into shooters. I've found the first-person perspective awkward and I know I'll never last in MP.
But I'm tired of feeling that way. It's seems like every year there's an FPS that looks awesome that I really want to get into, but I'm scared I just won't be able to and who wants to waste $60?
This year that game is Halo 4 - and I wanna play it so badly, I'm changing my ways.
I'm playing my free download of Reach from when I bought my 360 and... I'm really liking it!I'm three missions in and I think I'm pretty much used to the controls. I have my aiming sensitivity turned up to 4, my crouch set to toggle, and my difficulty is Normal. I'm dying, but not too much and not in ways that make me feel like the gsme's not being fair. I'm Reslly enjoying finding the "combat loop" in each encounter, as they call it.
So, is there anything I need to know GAF? Any sudden spikes in difficulty? This gsme was divisive, right? Could my time be better spent elsewhere?
Any tips in general?
NullPointer
Member
ODST at night is great, and even better when it all contrasts with the dawn as you approach the end. So good.
I also loved the firefight-like encounters in the ODST campaign. Frantic firefight encounters release all that FPS dopamine into my bloodstream.
I'm four or five chapters into Reach as well, prepping for Halo 4.
It's a beautiful game with a feel all it's own. Coming back my only real complaint is that the vehicles still needed more work. Their center of gravity felt off and they ping ponged around in a way that doesn't feel realistic. They're still not apart of the world in a way that's immersive. It's always been like that.
It's a beautiful game with a feel all it's own. Coming back my only real complaint is that the vehicles still needed more work. Their center of gravity felt off and they ping ponged around in a way that doesn't feel realistic. They're still not apart of the world in a way that's immersive. It's always been like that.
BigTnaples
Todd Howard's Secret GAF Account
Both Ally and Enemy AI changed based on difficulty in Halo 2. Can't find them any more but IGN did a few video features showcasing the differences.
Not sure on Halo 3, but I know they said in Halo Reach the AI was the same.
It's actually worse in Reach compared to the other games, because they rewrote and changed much of how the vehicles react and act in the world.
You just reminded me I need to play CE. I've had the Halo itch lately before 4, and was considering Reach but I think I"ll download CE and play that shit instead baby.
Muffdraul
Member
Halo 1 will always be my favorite, I eventually stopped expecting/hoping for them to top it. But Reach is a very close second, I've played through that campaign a hundred times and will probably play it a hundred more. So brutal yet so polished. So satisfying. I'm a campaign-only freak (yes a few of us do actually exist,) so all of the gnashing of teeth and rending of garments over the changes to MP are completely lost on me. Fuck 'em, that's what they get for treating it like a goddamn professional sport says I.
The Antitype
Banned
I've put hundreds of hours into every Halo game. Yes, that includes Halo Wars.
Halo Reach is far and away my favorite. Some of the gameplay mechanics were divisive (bloom and armor abilities), but it's definitely the most balanced, fully featured, and fun Halo game IMO, with a fantastic campaign and fantastic multiplayer. Emphasis on the balance.
It's only real problem IMO was that the multiplayer maps out of the box weren't great. The DLC maps that came out were great though.
Halo Reach is far and away my favorite. Some of the gameplay mechanics were divisive (bloom and armor abilities), but it's definitely the most balanced, fully featured, and fun Halo game IMO, with a fantastic campaign and fantastic multiplayer. Emphasis on the balance.
It's only real problem IMO was that the multiplayer maps out of the box weren't great. The DLC maps that came out were great though.
Barrel Cannon
Member
ODST firefight is the best firefight/horde/wave gametype of any fps/tps game ever thus far. The adrenline rush you get in that mode as it climaxes during each set is fantastic. The weapons in ODST felt like they were made tailored for the firefight mode. Every weapon had scenarios where it was really useful or where it was bad which forced you to keep a mental map of where weapons were dropping from the enemies you killed or swapped. The level design in ODST firefight was spectacular as well. It funneled enemies in while giving you a bit of leeway through specific choke points that you had to manage to survive. If you let the enemies push beyond those choke points they could easily overrun you. And ODST firefight with friends provides some of the best gaming highs you can get. Being down to one last life on the final wave of a set with all your teammates dead and using their ghost cams to aid you from being flanked is insanely awesome.
The encounters may be smaller compared to every other halo game but they are some of the best and the A.I was truly given room to shine in it. I actually consider it better than Reach's A.I(but those skirmishers are still badass)
I couldn't get into halo 1 when it came out, but I liked halo 2. The dull competitive levels, and the flood did it for me. I've hated the flood ever since the first one. They have never been fun for me to fight. Really liked all the others though. Loved reach's campaign, but I think I liked ODST's campaign the best. I liked having a close knit likable squad (full of scifi tv show actors) being a major part of the story. Also the ODST's being physically weaker to the spartans, made fire fights a bit more interesting. Definitely had to rethink the tactics a bit with those guys after playing as chief.
Halo 1 has the best gameplay, the repetitive levels are definitely a problem though. Just playing the game is still amazing 10 years down the line.
There really needs to be a game with Halo 1's gameplay, Halo 2's storytelling, Halo 3's encounter design and ODST atmosphere and music.
There really needs to be a game with Halo 1's gameplay, Halo 2's storytelling, Halo 3's encounter design and ODST atmosphere and music.
Muffdraul
Member
I honestly didn't even realize that the second half of Halo 1's levels were just the earlier levels backward until I saw people bitching about it on forums. Next time I played it I was all "Holy shit... it's true." Still never became an issue for me. The pure fun of the combat itself just shuts everything else out.
This would be a good time for me to admit... I actually like The Library. It's the one single most unique level in the game. It's the only one that doesn't have any of its architecture recycled in any other level, and it's the only one with zero Covies.
Barrel Cannon
Member
Don't forget my skirmishers
Barrel Cannon
Member
I actually loved that level too. I loved being stuck in those small rooms while spark opened the door. For about a minute and a half it was just me, my shotgun, and an armada of flood. Co-op on that level was left 4 dead before it even existed. Fun stuff.
NullPointer
Member
I'd take skirmishers over drones any day of the week.
JonathanPower
Member
I loved Reach more than any other Halo game in the series. I loved Reach because it makes you feel like you really are inside of a war. The atmosfere was also darker than the tipical Halo game. I really enjoyed the power ups, especially the hologram which I used a lot to find the hidden enemies. Reach was also the Bungie's last Halo game so it kinda feels like it closes a cycle; if you are an Halo fan, it really needs to be played.
Finished mission nine, part way through ten and I definitely agree. This game did an awesome making me like a soldier in a conflict.
Umm... Is that doctor who I think she is?
Man Reach could've done a much better job making you feel like you're at war =\
I like what they did though, don't get me wrong