Bungie: Story of Halo Held Them Back
- Thread starter Greg Tito
- Start date
Not worth a buy in my opinion. Got 1, 2, and 3 but i dont think i will be able to buy this one. I played a friends copy of ODST, and that was awful. I dont think i can trust bungie again.
Dayum rite, it was about damn time they dropped master chief...
Oh wait, they didn't.
Goddamnit.
Anyway, I hope they at least do something different this time.
Oh wait, they didn't.
Goddamnit.
Anyway, I hope they at least do something different this time.
This info isn't all that hard to find you know.slowpoke999 said:
But since it apparently is click this link to reveal a comprehensive catalog of Halo: Reach information. [http://www.bungie.net/Forums/posts.aspx?postID=39080803&postRepeater1-p=1]
Halo: Reach doesn't have the Master Chief.The_ModeRazor said:
Yes, I think that a game should be able to stand entirely on it's own merits, particularly when the previous installment was on a different platform. If, without Halo 2, Halo 3 makes as little sense as it did to me, they probably should have just been two halves of the same game. I much preferred the original Halo's story, which was something like "Humanity is fucked. Survive" and everyone's desperate actions grew out of that. I really liked the ending of everyone except you being dead and considering it a victory. I suppose it made the Master Chief seem like a hero, but not a god; there's really only so much he can do and it made him much more human.Eldritch Warlord said:
I don't know, maybe you're right, maybe the story is OK with familiarity of Halo 2, but to be honest, Halo 3 doesn't really compel me to find out.
But the game is being released in Fall, over six months from now. They're hardly going to start advertising it now.slowpoke999 said:
Not a big fan of the Halo Franchise, however I am wary of modular stories. You leave things too seemingly open and develop whatever seems like fun or the fans want at any given time and eventually when the time comes to wrap everything up there will be no way of making everyone happy or even being consistant, and any fan base you achieved will backfire.
I think HALO succeeded in part because of the ongoing storyline and consistincy. The new franchise might very well see some success, but I'm not sure how well it will be thought of in the long run. What's more when messing around with an established universe and doing things "that might upset the fans" dismissively assuming them to come around anyway, is typically a bad idea. I point to the Star Wars prequel trilogy. In the very first movie there was a question about how a couple of Jedi on a planet due to an unlikely series of events, could possibly recognize the potential in Anakin, not to mention his potential power level and such. Especially given the rarity of Jedi and they weren't intentionally looking. Thus mitochlorian were invented, and at that was arguably the beginning of what turned into a pretty substantial fan backlash.
The death of all the "Spartans" is a downer, but integral to the story and what makes "Master Chief" special and able to do the stuff he does as a single "only you can save the galaxy" hero. Just going by the implication here, the idea seems to be to set things up so not all the Spartans died. This would of course begger questions as to why they weren't involved in the central HALO storyline especially when things really got intense. No way you could do that would truely maintain the canon... and I think that's what they are getting at.
Still it would be kind of cool to see Nicole (The Spartan from Dead Or Alive) to be inserted into the canon. Perhaps even time travelling .
I think HALO succeeded in part because of the ongoing storyline and consistincy. The new franchise might very well see some success, but I'm not sure how well it will be thought of in the long run. What's more when messing around with an established universe and doing things "that might upset the fans" dismissively assuming them to come around anyway, is typically a bad idea. I point to the Star Wars prequel trilogy. In the very first movie there was a question about how a couple of Jedi on a planet due to an unlikely series of events, could possibly recognize the potential in Anakin, not to mention his potential power level and such. Especially given the rarity of Jedi and they weren't intentionally looking. Thus mitochlorian were invented, and at that was arguably the beginning of what turned into a pretty substantial fan backlash.
The death of all the "Spartans" is a downer, but integral to the story and what makes "Master Chief" special and able to do the stuff he does as a single "only you can save the galaxy" hero. Just going by the implication here, the idea seems to be to set things up so not all the Spartans died. This would of course begger questions as to why they weren't involved in the central HALO storyline especially when things really got intense. No way you could do that would truely maintain the canon... and I think that's what they are getting at.
Still it would be kind of cool to see Nicole (The Spartan from Dead Or Alive) to be inserted into the canon. Perhaps even time travelling .
So they are basing Reach on a fanfict book? Maybe it is me, but doesn't this seem like a lazy approach to developing a new game? I'm glad they want to release a different Halo game and I'm all for them doing so to incorporate a different view of the story, but the first Halo did drop us into a situation with no prior information. You were a space marine with a shield, they pointed you at the enemy and told you to kill them. Cortana was introduced as some sort of AI to aid you, and you had the various red shirt lower level marines to use as human shields.
I don't think any of us will argue that this sounds like just a plot to continuing to make money on the Halo franchise, but hopefully it will be a lot better than ODST. We like to play as the hero in games, not one of the faceless and nameless guys who are there as backup.
I don't think any of us will argue that this sounds like just a plot to continuing to make money on the Halo franchise, but hopefully it will be a lot better than ODST. We like to play as the hero in games, not one of the faceless and nameless guys who are there as backup.
So they are basing Reach on a fanfict book? Maybe it is me, but doesn't this seem like a lazy approach to developing a new game? I'm glad they want to release a different Halo game and I'm all for them doing so to incorporate a different view of the story, but the first Halo did drop us into a situation with no prior information. You were a space marine with a shield, they pointed you at the enemy and told you to kill them. Cortana was introduced as some sort of AI to aid you, and you had the various red shirt lower level marines to use as human shields.
I don't think any of us will argue that this sounds like just a plot to continuing to make money on the Halo franchise, but hopefully it will be a lot better than ODST. We like to play as the hero in games, not one of the faceless and nameless guys who are there as backup.
I don't think any of us will argue that this sounds like just a plot to continuing to make money on the Halo franchise, but hopefully it will be a lot better than ODST. We like to play as the hero in games, not one of the faceless and nameless guys who are there as backup.
Yall can stop being trolls now.
Not enough? http://halostory.bungie.org/marathon.html
If you can say that the halo franchaise has no story, its like saying that you ordered a sundae and you complain about it lacking nuts when the waiter just offered you some.
That being said, I also have to say this: Poor Bungie. Just because they made a hugely successful console game series, they have had to butcher their original intentions because Microsoft wants moar money and then get spurned by their original audience, the computer gamers, because they feel the need to be elitist jerks.
Money doesn't change how it feels to ruin your work of art because of a whim of another.
I thought ODST was the best in the series. It's short campaign wasn't worth 60 dollars, no, but it was still the funnest campaign.Vigilantis said:
- Apr 1, 2009
- 14,960
- 3,835
- 118
- Gender
- Whatever, just wash your hands.
I just hope they dont shit on the cannon like halo wars appanretly did (I didnt play it but Im fairly sure that halo was supposed to be the first time the flood was around that and the covenant were stupid villinous... at least thats how it looked)
I still would rather see a real sequel, maybe not starring the chief but I wouldnt mind playing the arby again, putting down the remains of the covenant and looking for the mc or something
I still would rather see a real sequel, maybe not starring the chief but I wouldnt mind playing the arby again, putting down the remains of the covenant and looking for the mc or something
...Seriously? Like, really. You said that sentence. And you saw... NOTHING wrong with it?T said:
"Well, gosh, I never saw the first two LotR movies, but gosh darnit I didn't have a clue what was going on in the third one!"
Jesus Christ.
Let me refer you to this other post I made:The Bandit said:
Maybe I just come from an era when a game was a game, rather than half a game or a third of a game and I have unreasonable expectations nowadays, but this still seems like a pretty shitty cop-out to me. Maybe if the games were several dozen hours long each, there would be a reason to split them up, but they're not; they're not like LotR where each installment is about as long as a film can reasonably be. I've played plenty of games where I've come into the series part way through and they made perfect sense and actually encouraged me to check out the previous installments because it was interesting, so why shouldn't I hold Halo up to the same standards?
You're right actually, it did have the best campaign out of the 4 games but it still didn't break away from the Halo formula. I'm not going to be buying Halo Reach unless Bungie can mix it up a bit, I don't need another generic FPS.The Bandit said:
