More on Halo: Reach

[Moriarty70]

He's judging Halo Reach based on story. Despite openly admitting he has never played Halo or Halo 2. Yeah... Thats like me saying Dragon Age sucked because the story of Mass Effect was bad.

No, it's nothing like that. The point is, a story set before any other Halo game shouldn't require knowledge of "future events" to make sense. In a game set during WWI, a passing reffernce to missing the shot at that messenger during a trench raid is a cute reference. Having someone say that he's going to kill millions because you didn't kill him is violating logic.

A cake needs to be a good cake without the frosting.

hmm i don't know about that! XD bad frosting can certainly ruin the cake
a bad multiplayer does not a bad game make on the other hand

But that only increases the agrument that multiplayer is only a perk and not a standard for games to be judged by. To quote the great Colbert "I accept your surrender."

 

[nYuknYuknYuk]

You shouldn't judge Reach solely on its single player just like you shouldn't judge Bioshock 2 solely on its multiplayer.

 

[SPARTANXIII]

You know Yahtzee, you can complain and complain about how Halo hasn't changed much in 9 year's, but people will pay for what they want.

If they want a Iffy story set on a doomed planet with one of the greatest endings known to thinking man, with a fan base consisting primarily of 20-something-stay-with-they're-parents till-they-eventually-die men, or shouty 12 year old's (Halo: Reach), they can.

If they want a story so long and thick they could replace it with Cloud's buster sword and he wouldn't know the difference, it's characters mainly consisting of emo teenagers who constantly grind xp and item's so they can get their +5 pen knife of self cutting (Final Fantasy VII), they can.

If they wan't a Shit story, a dull as can be score mode that makes you collect stars (the second most over-used score system since F£%$&!G points) and a multiplayer so full of the same "macho", and I use that term as loosely as the law allows, men, the same 12 year old children (only more fowl mouthed) and hackers that never get detected (Modern Warfare 2), then they can. But if they do I would hit them for filling Bobby "I don't know when to shut my mouth and stop ripping off my own costumers and company's" Kotick's pockets.

There, I have made my point. Now I just need to remember what it was in the first place.

 

[Super Jamz]

Yahtzee is just so tired and predictable. I'm sick of hearing him blather on about how multiplayer doesn't matter. It sure as hell seems to matter to a lot of other people.

I've grown so tone deaf to Yahtzee's profanity-laced ramblings that they start to sound something like...

Spoiler: ...this.

I concur with this.

Also, it is ridiculously short, but you know what? I liked the increased number of Spartan characters, it made the game feel a bit more than just you (along with a couple of puny humans) kicking alien ass. And while it was probably not the best idea to know that you, your squad and the entire planet are ultimately buggered, it kind of added a sense of desperation during the final levels that i quite liked.

I CAN see where he's coming from with the multiplayer. It's pretty decent and keeps things fresh, but i can't see myself playing it permanently (considering the average amount of time it takes to fucking get ONE rank up).

 

[Fortuan]

I for one like Halo, I like the multiplayer (its the only thing I've got to play so far), but I don't disagree. Games shouldn't have to stand on their multiplayer, it does for me but I don't exactly own the game either it is my neighbor's. We play together and have a blast. So honestly I think Yahtzee has a point when Reach played it safe, they did assume some things but bungie from all of their bravado of the game really tailored it to those fans of Halo. They took all that feed back and hyped everyone for the game, they played it safe.

 

[WaderiAAA]

I had a feeling extra punctuation would be about this since I read the comments and saw the wrong impression some people got.

So, wait, what? Does this mean Yahztee actually reads comments on his videos? Huh, you learn something new every day I guess.

You haven't noticed how many times he's been quoting comments from one of his videos in extra punctuation before?

 

[Electrogecko]

Thanks Yahtzee. Even if it seems like you hate every game you've ever played, none deserve a smackdown more than the Halo franchise. Although I haven't played Reach at all, I think I know enough about it to know that I wouldn't like it. I've played dozens of FPS' in my life and Halo is no more extraordinary than any of them. I will say that I prefer Halo's more colorful and shiny aesthetic to CoD's, (even though it's entirely unrealistic/stupid how much spartans stand out against their background) but the satisfaction of a kill and the strategy involved in GoW or CoD greatly surpasses Halo's, and I can't fucking stand the way jumping up and down like a retarded hippo is a key aspect of gunfights.

At this point, I can't stand the genre any more. It's unbelievable to me that there's a new CoD coming out soon that's almost exactly the same thing as the prior, but people will go out and buy it anyway, and a lot of those people probably complained about how Galaxy 2 is too similar to Galaxy 1. (idiots) This genre is so incredibly undeserving of it's popularity and Halo is even more. I believe it's popularity is self-perpetuating. Everyone buys it cuz they know all their friends will.

I agree that a game must be able to stand as a single-player experience, but the best part of Halo is multiplayer, and in that aspect I agree with Yahtzee that running around a map with a bunch of random people (some of which are sure to be assholes) to find out who's best at a game that's mediocre is a waste of my gaming time. Local play can be fun with friends, but only if you LAN and make custom games that don't suck.

"Co-op is one thing, but that's basically just single player with a ball and chain" You've obviously never played a good co-op game, or else all your friends (or whoever you play with) suck. I have a feeling Portal 2 will be a meaningful co-op experience.

 

[Giest4life]

Yahtzee is just so tired and predictable. I'm sick of hearing him blather on about how multiplayer doesn't matter. It sure as hell seems to matter to a lot of other people.

Exactly....and then there are tonnes of people that don't care--like me--about the multiplayer. So he should take a poll before doing each game, and then cater that video specifically to the audience that love the game? Isn't that what fan-sites are for?

You're not making a whole bunch of sense there, buddy.

 

[Shameless]

I think Yahtzee has some legit points and from what I see he sees Halo from a perspective different than many other reviews, I respect his opinion but I don't exactly agree with him on everything, yes the Halo series has thin plots but as games it's way better than many other FPS games out there in terms of design (even though I still think Half Half 2 is the best FPS ever made)

 

[repeating integers]

I had a feeling extra punctuation would be about this since I read the comments and saw the wrong impression some people got.

So, wait, what? Does this mean Yahztee actually reads comments on his videos? Huh, you learn something new every day I guess.

You haven't noticed how many times he's been quoting comments from one of his videos in extra punctuation before?

I only started reading XP last week, so no. I haven't.

 

[Solon5694]

Halo reach was run of the mill. It was well put together, gameplay that wasn't routine and had great graphics, but the storytelling and scripting was bad. The only exception to this was the final death of your character (which was epic). Though as yhatzee pointed out, many of the scenes could have been improved by keeping things in the first person. The entire reveal of the covenant on reach was underwhelming. Bungee had a great opportunity to do something different with these opening scene, but instead it was more of the same covenant drop ships bombing your location. Also, at times I felt confused as to why I was doing what we were doing.

The first halo made it very clear what the objective of each mission was. 1 defend battleship from covenant boarding crew, 2 land on halo and rescue landing pods you saw flying in, 3 keyes has been captured rescue captain, 4 find the map room, 5 find the control room, 5 super weapon (flood) so on and so fourth. And that was from memory a game I played years ago.

If I try to do the same for Halo Reach things aren't as clear
1. defeat covenant patrol, turn on disabled radio. Warn hq of covenant.
2. recapture sword base (how did we lose that anyway?) Destroy cruiser
3. Sniper mission, general recon? I actually can't remember

Just didn't have the same feel to it. I'll probably replay Halo reach a few more times, just to confirm these opinions

 

[Oh That Dude]

Personally I can't take Yahtzee very seriously as a reviewer if he refuses to review more than half the game.

I mean, disregarding his lack of logic in refusing to accept that multiplayer is worthy of consideration when talking about a game, he also fails to acknowledge two pretty hefty elements of the game: Forge and Firefight. That's not even multiplayer but it's heaved into the "ignore" bin anyway.

And rightly so. Firefight is a massive waste of time. I played it single player, all I did was run around and try to stay alive. Got to the 4th wave, killed about 40+ guys and what did I get? 60 credits and nothing else? What's the point??? I'd rather kill 40 guys on the single player campaign where there's actually a reason for fighting.

All completely subjective opinion, and nowhere a reason he shouldn't have paid it some attention and delivered a judgement, regardless of what that would be.

 

[LordSnakeEyes]

My Shirt Does Not Make Me Look Fat! *angry scorn*

Waitaminit... they say they weigh 1 ton!? Bungie needs a lesson in physics; weight = heavy.

Finally; I fully and completely agree that a game that cannot stand up on single-player alone is insufficient/ thus inferior to a good single player experience.
I like to view videogames like a good book; Do I *have* to tell someone else about my book to like it? No. Do I need validation as to my book's qualities or do I believe my own tastes are deserving of their own merit and thus require no second-guessing? No I don't and yes they are.

 

[General Vagueness]

Co-op is one thing, but that's basically just single player with a ball and chain (and if you've never gotten that impression of co-op, it's because you're the ball and chain).

Can someone explain this to me? I don't get it.

None of the Halo difficulties are challenging enough that you need two people to succeed and the hardest settings tend to send you both back to the last checkpoint whenever either of you dies so it becomes a game of the superior player trying to complete the objectives before their partner wanders his uncoordinated ass right into the path of some sniper fire. The bottom line is that if you've never noticed your friend obliviously driving you both off a cliff then you're the "ball and chain" that's constantly getting in their way.

ah but in Reach the difficulty is scaled up if there are more players, the AI even acts differently

While YOU dont see the appeal of Multiplayer, SOME people do. And a LARGE ammount of people bought the game JUST for multiplayer, cause they dont care about story. If you want to call yourself a reviewer, you have to acknowledge all aspects of the game, or atleast enough to get the grasp. The story mode =/= CTF, so get your ass on Multiplayer or stop reviewing games that have Multiplayer.

So, if he dubs it Halo Reach: Singleplayer Review, will you be happy?

more so, yes

Spartans are basically enslaved Super Soldiers. They are captured young, and raised to accept orders and to be as effective as possible. THATS why they are so willing to throw their lives away: their job is to get the MISSION done. Period.

No matter the odds, no matter what needs to happen, YOU have a job to do, and no one else is gonna do it. If anything, the ending of Reach fit extremely well into the overall story; they gave their lives for hope.

I find it extremely disturbing that slavery is the hope of mankind. Disturbing the audience can be a great narrative tool, but I get the impression that the whole slavery angle is downplayed in favor of maudlin military sentimentality about sacrifice.

Slave is the wrong word, the Spartan IIs were kidnapped and convinced they had to do it for the good of humanity and they believed in what they were doing, even when that was killing human insurrectionists, and it's not like they're mindless killing machines, it was noted in stuff put out before the games that Jorge understood the insurrectionists' plight and had sympathy for them but not for their actions of murder, theft, and sedition, and he's shown in the game to have a heart, even if the others aren't so much. The Spartan IIIs were a bit older when they were grabbed and they were (as far as anyone can tell) all orphans from places destroyed by the Covenant, and were given lesser hardware but slightly better training and odds of surviving the process whole because of experience with Spartan IIs, though more of them were, well, produced, and they were sent on more dangerous missions and has less likelihood of coming back than Spartan IIs. I've completely gone into a ramble, sorry.

I CAN see where he's coming from with the multiplayer. It's pretty decent and keeps things fresh, but i can't see myself playing it permanently (considering the average amount of time it takes to fucking get ONE rank up).

If you're playing for rank you're doing it wrong, games are supposed to be for fun, if I had fun looking at numbers and little symbols I'd go do algebra or sudoku or play an RPG.

Anyway, Yahtzee should really play some Firefight (and try tweaking the options), it's a nice and relatively sizable portion of the game's pie.

 

[Painful illusion]

I think reviews should have a system where they rate the campaign and multilayer separately and they give one rate with the combined ratings of both modes

 

[Thunderhorse31]

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.

I felt the same way, the ODST cast seemed to at least have clearly different personalities, whereas Noble team had... different colored armor. Oh, and terribly shitty fake accents.

Not surprisingly, many of the deaths felt completely contrived, not least of which was

<spoiler=Just in case>The random bullet through the open roof. Who took the shot, and why? ONE bullet? Really? Seems like a perfect opportunity to introduce some sort of uber-antagonist which might have helped add to the story, but nope. We just needed her to die, RIGHT NOW.

 

[Tom Carlyon]

your right!! i do need a new shirt!

 

[Agiel7]

I'm a bit irked by Yahtzee sayin MGS3 was the best in the series. I think 3 was when the series started to get too much for people.

I'd like to ask you people, do you think a boss that kills people with killer bees *okay*? What about the layers upon layers of Xanatos gambits that are tenuously toying with the very threads of probability and causality?

 

[SatansBestBuddy]

HA!

Got you there, Yahtzee!

I'm not wearing a shirt, and I still look fat!

 

[Falseprophet]

Though I think the idea of humanity's only hope being people who were brutalized into becoming little more than killing machines would make a better story than Lt. Bravey McValient nobly sacrificing etc etc. Even Marathon did a better job at that idea, and pretty much all it had for story were text screens.

So they should have lifted the plot from John Scalzi's Old Man's War quadrilogy instead? (Those aren't slave soldiers per se, but are definitely kept in the dark about the big picture.) Or maybe Warhammer 40K...