Other people have already said it, but yeah. It was a Fuck You to anyone who's taken the effort to read the books, it muddies the waters of the canon much more than it needed to and was just very frustrating. Also, retconning the details would maybe be ok, if it wasn't for the fact that the original canon was much better than the one presented in Reach.Rainboq said:
Halo 4 Review
- Thread starter Slycne
- Start date
Well if you didn't read any of the novels before hand then of course you won't have a problem.Jesse Billingsley said:
Despite my grievances, I still like Reach. Some of retcons made were given reasonable explanations that prevented them from negating previously established facts. However, what annoys me is that Bungie didn't have to retcon anything. I can understand that sometimes retcons are made because lore can severely limit what the writer can do with a story. The problem is that there was plenty of room. In the "Fall of Reach" novel most of what was described was the space part of the battle with little attention to the ground battle since Master Chief was not there. All we really knew was that about 20 some Spartan IIs were sent to defend these generators that were powering the MAC cannons that were giving the UNSC a fighting chance against the Covenant and they eventually got over run (though some survived). Bunige had a very lax guideline on how they could tell the story from the beginning and they did not follow it.
Another problem some fans had was that when Reach was first announced many fans thought they would finally get to see certain Spartan II's that had only ever appeared in the novels, like Fred and Kelly, as well as other Spartan II's that were never really characterized before. This could have been the first time that elements from the novels that many of the fans enjoyed made it into a Halo video game. To many fans Reach was like going to see a movie adaptation of one of your favorite novels only find out that several liberties had been taken with the source material.
In the end Reach's continuity issues did not break it for me but at the same time they could have easily been avoided.
Edit: And yes, those were Spartan III's as it was established by Bungie even before the game came out.
Mangles69 said:
That's not the post he got suspended for. It was in fact this one:
That post belongs on YouTube with the rest of the inarticulate comments.The Fonsz said:
OT: Well, sounds like an alright game. Might check it out when I have more spare time.
Just one quick question. How casual are you? Seriously, how many times did you die when you needed 10 hours to finish that campaign? 7 hours on the hardest difficulty and if you proceed really slowly.
Since the game isn't out yet, you are either A: clutching at straws, B you're admitting to pirating a leaked copy and have actually played the game, which is against site rules.BiH-Kira said:
Also, from what I have read on other sites, not just the Escapist, is that on normal it takes like 8-10 hours. But I guess all these reviewers are just dirty casuals...
OT: This game is getting some very good review, so I guess I'll have to get this game. If some of my friends get it I'll definitely be buying it almost at launch
Really? 10 hours for a single player game? Are the devs just not putting in any effort for games these days?
10 hours at the very max. Many people I know who got the leaked beat it in 6.008Zulu said:
I played it, it's really nothing special. The single player plot leaves much to be desired, and while they at least tried new things with multiplayer, it deviates too much for the core "teamwork beats all" aspect of Halo.
I just looked at the score of a Machinima review because I was too busy to read and saw it got 10/10. I thought "Wow, I'm pretty sure they said that about 2 and 3, and they were shit" (well Halo 3 wasn't that bad but it wasn't as good as the first).
Music and single player not up to the standards set by previous Halo games?
That's a real bummer, because with most of the Halo games I've played, the campaign and the soundtrack have been the personal highlights for me.
That's a real bummer, because with most of the Halo games I've played, the campaign and the soundtrack have been the personal highlights for me.
It's Homefront all over again.RadioactiveMicrobe said:
The story had a lot of potential. Seems like they are making a multiplayer game with single player shoe horned in. It'd have been better to split the game and have a team for both, that way you get two quality products.
Honestly, I have heard people who played it on Reddit said it's only 6 hours if you literally rush through it completely. Everyone who doesn't just play it to finish it says it takes them longer, Halo usually can be completed very fast. Hell if you wanted to you can beat Anniversary in 1 hour without any glitches.008Zulu said:
One hour might be pushing it a little, but I ddi search around out of curiosity and I did manage to find one guy who beat Anniversary in 5 hours.Korten12 said:
From the people I've talked to, 6-8 is the time. 6 is on the low end, and 8 is just playing through it normally.Korten12 said:
Either way, not a fan. Huge Halo fanboy here, and I knew it'd be subpar, but I wasn't going to say it for lack of trying.
Don't forget that we have Spartan Ops too, they say that it's actually longer than ODST.Korten12 said:
Korten12 said:
May I recommend some insightful reference material?OhJohnNo said:
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/jimquisition/4966-Hate-Out-Of-Ten
I liked this review because it is very balanced.
Other reviews I have seen have hailed Halo like it signified the reaching of some form of plateau on the mountain of gaming.
This positive, but nevertheless critical review sounds much more honest and has actually had greater appeal to me - aka increased the likelyhood that I will buy this game - than those other AAA+ reviews.
I get that 343 industries cannot afford to fail with this and so pressure on all press outlets is high to give the game a good review (or forever fuck up with the publisher/developer) but in the longrun this way of open criticising "the little things" that are wrong with a game will give you greater credebility and make the reviews on this website that much more worth in advertisement.
While I leave other magazines and sites unsure whether or not I can trust the 10/10 rating the game has got (together with 3 other AAA games) your websites provides me with valuable information that I feel I can trust and this furthers my relationship with both you and the games you really promote.
If I was a company I would value this honesty of yours, because it means that a B from you is worth much more than an A+ from some yay-sayer on the other end of the web.
Cheers.
Other reviews I have seen have hailed Halo like it signified the reaching of some form of plateau on the mountain of gaming.
This positive, but nevertheless critical review sounds much more honest and has actually had greater appeal to me - aka increased the likelyhood that I will buy this game - than those other AAA+ reviews.
I get that 343 industries cannot afford to fail with this and so pressure on all press outlets is high to give the game a good review (or forever fuck up with the publisher/developer) but in the longrun this way of open criticising "the little things" that are wrong with a game will give you greater credebility and make the reviews on this website that much more worth in advertisement.
While I leave other magazines and sites unsure whether or not I can trust the 10/10 rating the game has got (together with 3 other AAA games) your websites provides me with valuable information that I feel I can trust and this furthers my relationship with both you and the games you really promote.
If I was a company I would value this honesty of yours, because it means that a B from you is worth much more than an A+ from some yay-sayer on the other end of the web.
Cheers.
Great review, although I'm dissapointed that Michael Salvatori isn't making the soundtrack this time around (read, MASSIVE dissapointment), the game still looks like lots of fun, as for the story, I don't think it'll be any worse than Halo 2 (yup, that game had a campaign).
