More on Halo: Reach

[AceAngel]

Yahtzee, I just think I need to mention this to you:

The reason most developers go to the Mutltiplayer side of the games, is because it's much easier to create, as opposed to a single player game, that's why games like Halo, have no indulgence to create a solid varied SP game, since MP is much more standardized and easier to manage in a small team (ironic choice of words, since the Bungie is pretty big as far as teams go).

i totally agree you can make an intelligent game like fallout 3 that will take one of the most dedicated game studios years to make or you can make a 30 minute long *cough*modern warfare 2*cough* campaign and then spend your time on 10 multiplayer maps and then you can go to outsell every form of entertainment of all time. which sounds more appealing?

Sadly, the latter my friend. Me and a couple of colleges are picking up UDK, but as much as people like to call it 'easy' to use, have to say, it's still hard to do thing correctly.

For example, did you know that you need to create a 8 base Node system, with 8 "Yes/No" Commands inorder to get a simple button working, to say, make a door invisible?

 

[gamerguyal]

Yahtzee should have played with subtitles on. I know Jorge pronounces it "mom" but that's just his accent - he's saying "ma'am."

Anyhoo, I guess Reach can join Half-Life 2 at the Mediocrity Table, eh?

I thought he was saying "mom" and to me it made sense because he's a Spartan II and in a way Dr. Halsey was the mother figure for the Spartan IIs.

 

[ReiverCorrupter]

I'm just going to say this one more time. There is a market for people who only play games for multiplayer. Thus a 'game' is not an automatic failure if it has a crappy single player. Anyone who says so is claiming that their aesthetic values are objective.

THERE ARE NO OBJECTIVE VALUES: NEITHER ETHICAL OR AESTHETIC. READ SOME NIETZSCHE PEOPLE!

THE UNIVERSE DOES NOT PASS JUDGMENTS ON WHO IS GOOD OR EVIL, NOR ON WHAT IS A GOOD GAME OR A BAD GAME.

REALLY. IT'S THAT SIMPLE. YOU GUYS ARE ARGUING PAST EACH OTHER, THERE'S NO WAY OF DETERMINING WHO IS RIGHT OR WHO IS WRONG, BECAUSE THERE IS NO FACT OF THE MATTER.

So... if there is a market for people who don't care about single player, then companies will produce games marketed to those people. Stop trying to burn each other in effigy. This isn't the dark ages. Yet.

Oh. And those of you who are arguing about the Halo back-story... REALLY? REALLY PEOPLE? FOR HALO OF ALL THINGS? YOU'RE TELLING ME THERE ARE HALO NERDS? I've played all the Halo games (except ODST which I only rented briefly because my friends insisted I play firefight) yes this includes Halo Wars, which is awesome on the principle of being a good console RTS, disregarding it's namesake. The story was never designed to be coherent. It was made so after the fact by multiple authors, so there's probably going to be all sorts of inconsistencies. And frankly this is all assuming that the makers of the game bothered to look any of this up. They probably just made up whatever suited them.

 

[PsiMatrix]

Extra Punctuation: More on Halo: Reach

If you thought Yahtzee liked Halo: Reach, you're wrong.

Read Full Article

My only question is: why bother reviewing it when you're such a 'master of pattern recognition'? And I realised either this is one you've been told to OR because it's there.

 

[Redd]

Everyone except those who don't have gaming consoles. I'm willing to bet that the vast majority of people who own a console and play games regularly can afford those other things. If you look at my post above, you'll see that I only rent games for their story, but I buy titles like halo because they are a lasting investment. Games have been moving away from being story based because it's economics. Just look at the numbers, all the best selling games are the games people play for the multiplayer. The numbers suggest the actual facts, developers have relegated single player to secondary importance. You suggest this large market of people who will pay 60 bucks for ten hours of story. I don't know anyone like that, story games are 'renters'. Your economic presuppositions are all wrong. WoW, Starcraft, Halo, Call of Duty. All multiplayer centered games, all dominate the market.

Economy? Sir, Cigarettes make huge bathing swathes of money every year - does that make Cigarettes a good thing? Just because something makes more money than God doesn't mean that it's any better. Pyschonauts has No multiplayer to speak of whatsoever, and I rate it as one of my top 3 games I've ever player.

However, your Console based arguement is somewhat subverted when you use Starcraft and WoW as an example. I don't use Consoles myself, neither do many of my friends - all avid gamers I might add, who enjoy very much playing Single Player games moreso than multiplayer.

I don't disagree that such games make Huge amounts of money - but that's because they charge HUGE chunks of money for the privelage. Starcraft? Around a hundred Australian dollars. Psychonauts? 10-20 off Steam. And I love Both games, but never play Starcraft online multiplayer because I'm in it for the campaign.

Not every gamer is an online adrenaline junkie who wants to verbally tea-bag people of all nations and creeds - there are plenty of gamers who want to have a game that they can enjoy on their own, or possibly with one or two good buddies. The reason Multiplayer games make such a Huge chunk of money is because they generally tend to be hideously expensive by comparison to account for the online support. You pay less for Single-Player games because they're only that: single player. (Console games excluded because they'd be expensive even if you were buying Farmville, god forbid.)

Everyone is different - and I know for a fact that things like this new Knights of the Old Republic game coming out I'm going to sadly miss out on because as far as I can tell, it's an MMO - and no doubt they'll be charging monthly for it. I Loved KOTOR and KOTOR2 because of their story, they were delicious victory wrapped in a lovely buffet of single player character extravagance. And now what - they're bringing out the so called 'third' game, and making it Entirely multiplayer based?

I assume by your comments that you own Halo Reach, (and if you don't something similar). If one day a new Halo sequel was released and they suddenly decided to change the entire format to Single Player ONLY - you'd be a bit miffed... but not as miffed as the gent who finds his beloved sequel focuses on the Multiplayer, something he can't play.

I seem to have gone on a bit of a rant here - but the point is, Multiplayer is not everyone's cup of tea. The only Multiplayer online games I play with regularity are TF2 and L4D (1&2), and of the two of them, only TF2 is exclusively Multiplayer.

Like many others, I purchase games because they have charm, character - or an appealing storyline. TF2 I paid for the art-style and the engrossing characters, and I've never once regretted my decision.

You praise Call of Duty for its multiplayer, but the only reason I bought COD4 was because I'd heard the single-player had an epic story - Single Player.

Don't get me wrong, I understand that Multiplayer is popular - it really is. But by focusing on Multiplayer at the expense of the Single Player, you're cutting out a Huge quantity of potential buyers.

After all, the Half Life series hasn't got a multiplayer (aside from Deathmatch, an entirely different game), and MANY agree that it's one of the best - if not The best - series of FPS games ever released.

Anyway - this block of text has gone on for a bit, I'm going to go for a walk and buy me a sandwich.

That was, unbelievably brilliant. And that's really all I have to say in this matter.

 

[RexoftheFord]

Ok, call me a fanboy, because I probably am, but he's already stated that he hasn't followed the series and this is a fan game. Bungie would've been happy not having to do another Halo if people had shut up about it. The Spartans aren't meant to be relatable, and they were trained to die if need be to give a significant advantage to their team members, all of which is covered in those wonderful little books that I'm sure Yahtzee refuses to read. I'm not saying Halo Reach was perfect, it's far from, but I think Yahtzee is letting his own personal experience(or lack thereof) and feelings get in his review. I thought Halo 3 was the pinnacle of the series and has since gone downhill. It would've been a lot better if they'd gone with ODST's or Marines, because most people I've talked with are tired of playing as Spartans. They've been predictable since before Halo 3 when the first book series came out. I hope this isn't the last in the franchise since I'd like to see something done outside the Spartan story arcs, and maybe it'll be fresher since it won't be Bungie's child anymore. Maybe something along the lines of playing a Marine from his first deployment out of boot and taking us through a career we can choose depending on what our preferred play style is.

So instead of being a steroid pumped super soldier, you would rather play as a Marine. A man, who without all the steroid pumped super soldiers running around, would be dead ten seconds after stepping onto the battlefield? Why not just play Call of Duty then?

Personally, I can't relate to anyone who regenerates health by walking over a health pack, or anyone that only jumps 10 feet in the air as opposed to the 40 feet Spartans seem to manage. If you change it to a marine, it would just feel like ODST where your Stamina's basically your shields and your health is your health. You're still taking about 20 shots before you die, so you're still a steroid pumped super soldier.

Oh, nice use of one of Shamus's "You have to know every detail from every form of media even remotely related to the game before you can review it" thing from his Fanboy Guide.

Lemme guess, you're a Cod fan that views Halo as the root of all evil. Allow me to explain my position a bit better. If I wanted to play in a sand pit and shoot at terrorists in a realistic setting down to the grain of the round, I'd enlist in the military. But since I want to play a sci-fi game where instead of being an unstoppable military juggernaught, you play as the underdog that's slowly but surely loosing the fight. I'm merely trying to say how the franchise can be improved instead of whining that there's another game out to compete with CoD. Realism isn't the most important thing to a game, I regard Bioshock higher than I do Halo, and the original Dark Forces, an old game you probably don't remember, was what first got me into the genre. MW2 was a very good game, but it wasn't perfect, particularly because I like huge battles to take part in, not get suckered into a half-assed stealth bit.

Well, actually, I'm a fan of both games. CoD has its good points. Halo does too. Why would you want to play a Halo game that is more like CoD though? Realism in gaming does suck at a certain point in gaming, but wouldn't making you a marine, one of a million, just make Halo more about realism with just a hint of scifi added to it? I did play Dark Forces, I played Jedi Knight, and Jedi Outcast and Jedi Academy. They were all good games. Instead of wanting to play Halo as a marine, why not just go play Doom? It's got scifi setting and you're just a lowly marine. Would satisfy your desire. Halo won't improve beyond where it's at until people stop buying it up everytime they release the same fuckin' game, slightly different story repeatedly. But whatever. By the way, Bioshock was pretty badass. I agree with you there.

 

[Oliver Pink]

Snip

That was, unbelievably brilliant. And that's really all I have to say in this matter.

Why thank you sir =D - I appreciate that.

 

[beema]

hehehe delicious!

 

[TornadoADV]

I'm not really sure what to say. Even though Yatzhee is incredibly wrong on all points about the HALO storyline (Yes, there is a cohesive plot that ties the whole series together.) and the characters with-in said storyline, he is entitled to his opinion, even though I disagree with it.

 

[Irshy]

So this shirt does make me look fat!

Thanks! Been stressing me all day.

 

[Irshy]

In regards to the story.

There are low fantasy writers trying to write hard sci-fi and well obviously failing.
Game devs making a game irrespective of the story.
And a mix of the two trying to maintain the aloof manner of a hard sci-fi story without any real attempt to write one.

There is so much 'background' information we're meant to know presented like a Hal Clement hard sci-fi novel, except the background isn't real science and they don't tell us about it or why its there or anything of it.

Spartan's weighing a ton is a perfect example, the way its treated is: "You know this, its science, it explains things and the end" except it doesn't hold up to science. So either get off the high-horse, make it make sense, or make up your own mythology THEN EXPLAIN IT!

The core story isn't BAD really it isn't, the idea of spartans the idea of the covernent, the concept of the halo rings, the flood, the prophets - there is the core ideas of an amazing story - its just getting presented by about 3-4 different groups all trying to do the wrong thing and it gets messy and sloppy and sadface.

Its so much wasted concepts, ideas and development.

 

[Sope]

I don't understand why some of you are bringing up the books, because they aren't relevant to the work being reviewed. You review something as a stand-alone, not as part of something greater. If a game needs to support itself on past works, than its relying on too much from the past. Reach is not able to support itself with it's own interesting and flowing story, and add something, anything to Halo's legacy. Each new entry in a series has to add something, or it isn't worth anything. The books are not relevant to Reach, have no business in a review about Reach, and aren't required reading before playing the game. If I can't hit the ground running with no prior knowledge, I have to go out and buy a copy of Halo: Printed to even fathom this assuredly deep and meaningful narrative about a human colonized planet overrun by a warring alien empire, where I follow and participate in an uphill battle to save the beautiful planet of Reach from its fall, Than it is not worth my time. It suffers from MW2 syndrome, where the multiplayer is worth more than the single-player. A game is supposed to have a story, a little at least, that new players can understand without having to dig through past games and novels to make sense of. Even Team Fortress 2 has a meaningless story, just to add some motivation( You are on one of 2 sides,Red or Blu, each controlling half of the world's government.). Stories that are "you kill things. The End." have no business in a $60 dollar purchase.

Did I contradict myself several times? I think I did. TL;DR Version the books are worthless and don't belong in this game's review. "Well, if you read the books..."

 

[KhakiHat]

Know you may never read this Mr. Y, but I think I can clarify the Cortana bit, at least in English.

Halo: Reach didn't convey this very well, but Cortana is a rare breed of AI. In the Halo 'verse, AI are the result of some crazy gobbly gook that takes a person's personalties and empties them into the computer to provide a lattice for the virtual AI. Dr. Halsey's DNA provided the material, via melting space clones, to make what usually kills the original person possible without 'human' loss of life and brain mass.

Now you see where the writers of Bungie REEEALLLLYYYYY want off the Halo train.

Anywho, they wanted Cortana cause she knows things. She knows how to find Earth, a task even humans aren't trusted with (something about mind reading and hostile space colonies). She's also shares Halsey's character, which is somehow important to the rest of the series. We do know she's smart and committed to the cause, which is a hit and miss with the other smart A.I. that were made with kidnapped children brains who couldn't cut muster in SPARTAN summer camp.

Finally, her namesake is a sword mentioned in the legends of Charmane and his knights, cast of the same steel as... DURANDAL, a sword that has such importance to Sir Roland that one can easily start to see phalic references. I haven't gotten too far in the book, but it's safe to say that those knights really loved their swords, and Cortana is indeed the weapon of the future.

A damned sexy weapon.

 

[Kingjackl]

It's priceless how Yahtzee dismisses the co-op in halo Reach as being 'single-player with a ball and chain', even though he's spoken up the co-op in games like Left 4 Dead and Guitar Hero as being fun with friends. It's actually a bit depressing, as if he thinks being a sad, opinionated loner makes him cool.

 

[Gormers1]

Yes, it is rather boring. There are new weapons and vehicles. (Or should I say old). I much prefered ODST's characterisation. I only starting liking Noble team (a little) after about half of them were dead.

Ew didnt think the characters in reach were that likebale, but I thought even less of ODSTs characters. Cept for the story told through the audio diary you could find, those characters I kind of liked :}

I liked Reach better than halo 3, but like halo 3 it referenced the books (especially fall or reach) too much, and tried to pull our heart strings (which they more often than not failed at) and make it all about the characters. I preferred it when you didn't really have to have any back story as in the first game.

Yahtzee did you actually READ that "ancillary media", because it also explains away the floaty movement feel and the first half of the book makes the whole "mum" thing completely false. Next time make use of all the facts there, just taking the ones that support your argument shows narrow-mindedness.

No one should have to read a novel to understand the plot of a video game...or a movie or whatever. Singular works of fiction should stand on their own, otherwise it all just becomes a closed, fanboy-centric loop.

He shouldn't have referenced the book like that then. But the whole cortana-aunt thing was, amusingly accurate yeah.

 

[Karilas]

"...and that shirt you're wearing makes you look fat."

Actually I'll have you know it's got nothing to do with the shirt and everything to do with my lardy gut, mate.

 

[runnernda]

I enjoy playing Halo, and I agree about games having to stand up on single-player. Multiplayer and co-op are important, but sometimes I just prefer to play by myself. Gaming sometimes constitutes my "me time," so if a game isn't worth playing when it's just me, what's the point?

Not to mention, I look fantastic in this shirt.