@ZippyDSMlee:
Halo 1 solidified First Person Shooters as a popular genre on consoles. It did a lot of great things, no argument there. But I can't believe the rest of the things you're saying abut the franchise.
First off, Halo 2's story was kind of a joke. Gravemind? Really, a talking plant? I think a problem with all of the main Halo games (1, 2, and 3) is that they typically do a terrible job on story delivery. It's always hard to follow, with weird things happening here and there that barely make sense. You'd get a general idea of what was going on, but it'd be hard to actually know the details of what you just saw.
I honestly don't remember Halo 2 being all that glitchy. There were some funny glitches in multiplayer that you had to go way out of the way for, but it rarely ever became an issue for me. Care to elaborate on how it was "so damn glitchy"?
And what the hell does the word "bland" even mean here? The mechanics are bland, the level design is bland, etc. What? How? Halo 2's mechanics were the exact same as Halo 1's, but with more weapons added in, the ability to duel wield, more vehicles, and some fine-tunings to balance things out. I understand if you don't like that the reticle was sticky when trying to snipe, but could you please explain what was so bland about the mechanics of Halo 2? Because so far as I can remember, it was exactly what a sequel should have been.
Not to mention how it, you know, single handedly made online multiplayer a major staple on home consoles.
And again, how is Halo 3's levels bland at ALL? What does that word mean? I feel like you're generalizing a lot rather than pointing out specific examples. Halo 3 looked fucking gorgeous. The lighting was awesome, the environments were incredibly vivid and well done, and you never had an issue of thinking, "Where am I supposed to go?" No, Halo 3's levels were not always as gigantic as those in Halo 1, but I'd call that an improvement. They took out the fluff and delivered a tighter package. The story was slightly easier to follow this time, too, and there were quite a few epic set pieces.
I'm really having a hard time seeing any substantial evidence for your complaints.
"ODST was kinda fun in the generic mindless shoot im up sense but I am comparing it to a more full or whole game like Halo 1, even Halo 2 was better."
Did you PLAY ODST? Mindless shoot 'em up? I don't even understand. If nothing else, ODST forces you to play more strategically. You aren't a Spartan in these games, meaning that you're not able to jump into the shit like you could before and expect to come out alive. It's the same exact combat, except without the ability to just jump into a group of brutes and melee you're way out. Bungie actually did a fine job crafting a story this time around, too. The atmosphere and story telling feels consistent. But on what level are you comparing it to Halo 1 or Halo 2 games? ODST was never meant to be a full-fledged sequel, it was just an overpriced expansion pack. Go back and look at the news coverage. You're drawing unfair comparisons between ODST and the full games of the franchise.
I'm not even going to comment on your random jump to Fallout and Bioshock, especially considering that the ONLY thing those games have in common with Halo is that you have a gun and you shoot from a first person perspective. These games are different from each other in just about every other way you can think of.
Halo: Reach is EXACTLY what a AAA game should be. Halo: Reach looks and feels GREAT. You say it's short, but what exactly are you crying for? 8-12 hours for a proper FPS campaign has been an acceptable norm for years. The story is well-told, easy to follow, and interesting to those with any stake in the Halo plot lines and lore. If you're going to complain about it, you're going have to be specific. The level design was great and did exactly what it was supposed to do: allow the player freedom to approach enemies and situations in multiple ways while still funneling them towards their ultimate goals. The pace of the game is great, with plenty of on-foot action broken up with awesome vehicle combat levels. I give a prompt "Fuck You" to anyone who says flying in space and shooting alien ships down isn't fun.
Regardless of all this, the one indisputable fact that everyone should take away from the campaign is that Bungie has crafted some of the finest enemy AI ever to be seen in a game. play this game on Heroic as it was intended to be played, and there can be no complaints. The enemies in this game are challenging and intelligent, and the tactics they use to bring you down are often surprising and impressive. If there's something I'd think to do in their position, I see them do it. The Covenant FEEL like a force to be reckoned with for once, which ends up contributing very nicely to the overall feel of the single player experience.
The multiplayer is great. Again, if you're going to complain, I want to hear some solid reasons. The maps are great, offering plenty of situations to occur between players. Giving players load outs makes the game feel more balanced since you don't have to worry about just one player constantly getting the active camo and killing everyone else. The power ups all have their advantages and disadvantages that are fairly obvious. The weapons feel great, and the wide variety of guns allows for tons of different play styles. Halo multiplayer takes strategy, thought, and skill. You're not going to kill another player with two shots to the body like in CoD games. If one player is better than another, it's going to show. The playing field is level and fair, and the only way to get better is practice. You won't see one team dominating after 2 minutes because they keep constantly getting kill streaks and special abilities that allow them to further dominate the other team until the end of time.
If you don't like single player campaign, you have co-op. If you don't want to do co-op on the story, then you can play Firefight, competitively or cooperatively. If you don't want to do Firefight, you can play matchmaking online in a variety of different game types. If someone makes a good game type, Bungie finds it and adds it to their roster. Matchmaking makes it so that the players have a choice on what variant of a certain game type they want to play, and it ensures that everyone gets to experience everything at some point or another. Daily and weekly challenges motivate players to keep on playing, and the Armory provides a fair level of enjoyment for players to customize their own Spartan and show off what they've earned without having an unnatural advantage over other players.
Like it or not, Bungie threw the gauntlet down with their last Halo game. This is their best Halo yet, and it was made to last for years. I'd really like to see the faces of the guys who have to follow this game up next.
Halo 1 solidified First Person Shooters as a popular genre on consoles. It did a lot of great things, no argument there. But I can't believe the rest of the things you're saying abut the franchise.
First off, Halo 2's story was kind of a joke. Gravemind? Really, a talking plant? I think a problem with all of the main Halo games (1, 2, and 3) is that they typically do a terrible job on story delivery. It's always hard to follow, with weird things happening here and there that barely make sense. You'd get a general idea of what was going on, but it'd be hard to actually know the details of what you just saw.
I honestly don't remember Halo 2 being all that glitchy. There were some funny glitches in multiplayer that you had to go way out of the way for, but it rarely ever became an issue for me. Care to elaborate on how it was "so damn glitchy"?
And what the hell does the word "bland" even mean here? The mechanics are bland, the level design is bland, etc. What? How? Halo 2's mechanics were the exact same as Halo 1's, but with more weapons added in, the ability to duel wield, more vehicles, and some fine-tunings to balance things out. I understand if you don't like that the reticle was sticky when trying to snipe, but could you please explain what was so bland about the mechanics of Halo 2? Because so far as I can remember, it was exactly what a sequel should have been.
Not to mention how it, you know, single handedly made online multiplayer a major staple on home consoles.
And again, how is Halo 3's levels bland at ALL? What does that word mean? I feel like you're generalizing a lot rather than pointing out specific examples. Halo 3 looked fucking gorgeous. The lighting was awesome, the environments were incredibly vivid and well done, and you never had an issue of thinking, "Where am I supposed to go?" No, Halo 3's levels were not always as gigantic as those in Halo 1, but I'd call that an improvement. They took out the fluff and delivered a tighter package. The story was slightly easier to follow this time, too, and there were quite a few epic set pieces.
I'm really having a hard time seeing any substantial evidence for your complaints.
"ODST was kinda fun in the generic mindless shoot im up sense but I am comparing it to a more full or whole game like Halo 1, even Halo 2 was better."
Did you PLAY ODST? Mindless shoot 'em up? I don't even understand. If nothing else, ODST forces you to play more strategically. You aren't a Spartan in these games, meaning that you're not able to jump into the shit like you could before and expect to come out alive. It's the same exact combat, except without the ability to just jump into a group of brutes and melee you're way out. Bungie actually did a fine job crafting a story this time around, too. The atmosphere and story telling feels consistent. But on what level are you comparing it to Halo 1 or Halo 2 games? ODST was never meant to be a full-fledged sequel, it was just an overpriced expansion pack. Go back and look at the news coverage. You're drawing unfair comparisons between ODST and the full games of the franchise.
I'm not even going to comment on your random jump to Fallout and Bioshock, especially considering that the ONLY thing those games have in common with Halo is that you have a gun and you shoot from a first person perspective. These games are different from each other in just about every other way you can think of.
Halo: Reach is EXACTLY what a AAA game should be. Halo: Reach looks and feels GREAT. You say it's short, but what exactly are you crying for? 8-12 hours for a proper FPS campaign has been an acceptable norm for years. The story is well-told, easy to follow, and interesting to those with any stake in the Halo plot lines and lore. If you're going to complain about it, you're going have to be specific. The level design was great and did exactly what it was supposed to do: allow the player freedom to approach enemies and situations in multiple ways while still funneling them towards their ultimate goals. The pace of the game is great, with plenty of on-foot action broken up with awesome vehicle combat levels. I give a prompt "Fuck You" to anyone who says flying in space and shooting alien ships down isn't fun.
Regardless of all this, the one indisputable fact that everyone should take away from the campaign is that Bungie has crafted some of the finest enemy AI ever to be seen in a game. play this game on Heroic as it was intended to be played, and there can be no complaints. The enemies in this game are challenging and intelligent, and the tactics they use to bring you down are often surprising and impressive. If there's something I'd think to do in their position, I see them do it. The Covenant FEEL like a force to be reckoned with for once, which ends up contributing very nicely to the overall feel of the single player experience.
The multiplayer is great. Again, if you're going to complain, I want to hear some solid reasons. The maps are great, offering plenty of situations to occur between players. Giving players load outs makes the game feel more balanced since you don't have to worry about just one player constantly getting the active camo and killing everyone else. The power ups all have their advantages and disadvantages that are fairly obvious. The weapons feel great, and the wide variety of guns allows for tons of different play styles. Halo multiplayer takes strategy, thought, and skill. You're not going to kill another player with two shots to the body like in CoD games. If one player is better than another, it's going to show. The playing field is level and fair, and the only way to get better is practice. You won't see one team dominating after 2 minutes because they keep constantly getting kill streaks and special abilities that allow them to further dominate the other team until the end of time.
If you don't like single player campaign, you have co-op. If you don't want to do co-op on the story, then you can play Firefight, competitively or cooperatively. If you don't want to do Firefight, you can play matchmaking online in a variety of different game types. If someone makes a good game type, Bungie finds it and adds it to their roster. Matchmaking makes it so that the players have a choice on what variant of a certain game type they want to play, and it ensures that everyone gets to experience everything at some point or another. Daily and weekly challenges motivate players to keep on playing, and the Armory provides a fair level of enjoyment for players to customize their own Spartan and show off what they've earned without having an unnatural advantage over other players.
Like it or not, Bungie threw the gauntlet down with their last Halo game. This is their best Halo yet, and it was made to last for years. I'd really like to see the faces of the guys who have to follow this game up next.
