Zero Punctuation: Halo: Reach

[Spencer Brower]

okay, yathzee that's not fair, the levels have changed since Halo 1, they've gotten progressively SHITIER! Halo 1's levels were fun, had a nice difficulty curve, and gave you a sense of vastness on the levels and sometimes even included free roaming (the island in Halo 1). Halo 1 had great non-repetitive levels.

Excuse me...the same level is used twice...going in the control room and then coming out of the control room...

Yeh doesn't repeat itself at all does it? only difference was the flood lol

I meant the fact that you can go around the whole island, and do what you wanted

You couldn't do what you want...sure you could walk around and tackle the Objective from a different angle, but that wasn't new.

as soon as you kill the covenant their, that's it, nothing more to do, if they kept spawning then fair enough, but they didn't.

But as with most shooters, you can't do anything until you get to/complete the objective.

Halo 2 also had a bit of exploration, the first mission on the New Halo. So did Halo 3 in the Jungle and the first mission you get to pilot a Hornet. ODST had huge exploration and Reach when your Outside Sword Base...

All Halo Games have had some degree of exploration.

I know it wasn't really free roaming, all I wanted to say was that Halo 1 had great level design, which diminished as they came out with new games

 

[BrEnNo1023]

i honestly thought he was gonna be more harsh on this... i found the campaign to be just as if not MORE frustrating... cant wait for Bulletstorm to bring back the badass

on another note he didn't mention the Firefight mode, which CAN be played single-player and it works just fine.

EDIT:

I am frankly amazed that Yahtzee did this, considering how bleh he was about Halo 3 and Halo Wars.

Also, I LIKED Oni.

they made a reference to Oni in the campaign (Oni Sword Base was a place you could fight)

The reference ONI is Office of Naval Intelligence, and it's been in the halo universe since like, forever before this game came out. Now i'd like to find and play Oni, and see what it's about. Talk about subliminal adverts

 

[BrEnNo1023]

Because a game needs to be 100% original to be in any way good? Wrong.
It's a finely polished game, made for the fans of the series and in my opinion the best fps out there.

I'm sorry but I can't agree that this was totally an honest creation for the fans of the Halo universe.
The canon in this game is a total mess up, it makes no sense and most of the events that take place have no relevance to the canon that Bungie supported and adopted when Eric Nylund created The Fall of Reach. It totally restructures HOW Reach fell, where the Pillar of Autumn was when Reach was attacked (the Autumn was in space, not on the ground....); and the space battle was indeed a joke. Where's the 100-something orbital MAC guns and the 300-odd covenant ships? In space we only see a couple of wrecked ships and a couple of covenant ships, no defense platforms (even though Reach was the last stronghold of the UNSC standing before Earth), and certainly no epic space battle.

They make Reach out to be some backwater post: no defenses, just a bit of debris in space, and a handful of covenant ships quietly sneak their way through the clouds onto the surface and overwhelm the planet in the time it took to 'evacuate' a bunch of civilians. It doesn't make any sense. In my opinion the game was just a 'throw it out there, it's good enough and because it's halo people will buy it' final contribution.

I enjoy the halo universe (NO not a fanboy, as you can see i'm not drooling over this game) and i love the story that bungie made, and the efforts that the many talented writers that have contributed to its canon, BUT I agree with the Yahtzee fellow; yawn, shiny explosions, noble death competition....Sad face.

 

[Ampersand]

Because a game needs to be 100% original to be in any way good? Wrong.
It's a finely polished game, made for the fans of the series and in my opinion the best fps out there.

I'm sorry but I can't agree that this was totally an honest creation for the fans of the Halo universe.
The canon in this game is a total mess up, it makes no sense and most of the events that take place have no relevance to the canon that Bungie supported and adopted when Eric Nylund created The Fall of Reach. It totally restructures HOW Reach fell, where the Pillar of Autumn was when Reach was attacked (the Autumn was in space, not on the ground....); and the space battle was indeed a joke. Where's the 100-something orbital MAC guns and the 300-odd covenant ships? In space we only see a couple of wrecked ships and a couple of covenant ships, no defense platforms (even though Reach was the last stronghold of the UNSC standing before Earth), and certainly no epic space battle.

They make Reach out to be some backwater post: no defenses, just a bit of debris in space, and a handful of covenant ships quietly sneak their way through the clouds onto the surface and overwhelm the planet in the time it took to 'evacuate' a bunch of civilians. It doesn't make any sense. In my opinion the game was just a 'throw it out there, it's good enough and because it's halo people will buy it' final contribution.

I enjoy the halo universe (NO not a fanboy, as you can see i'm not drooling over this game) and i love the story that bungie made, and the efforts that the many talented writers that have contributed to its canon, BUT I agree with the Yahtzee fellow; yawn, shiny explosions, noble death competition....Sad face.

I kind of disagree. Although i wasn't 100% happy with the way the story played out( because i really liked the fall of reach book), I felt that the chances they made were necessary. Mostly because the battle for reach in the book was really frantic and intense which was good but if they'd done it like that in the game it would have lasted like an hour and a half tops. Not to mention the fact that most of the actual fighting took place in space, it just wouldn't have made sence to have a campaign based around a ground war when there were 300 covenant battle ships in orbit.

When i said it was made for the fans I wasn't refering to the story, but rather the feel of the gameplay (which they have polished to a shine) and the massive amount of customization they made available to the player, they basically gave us a big box of toys to play with for lack of a better term.
I don't think there is anything that has ever been asked for by a halo fan that is not represented in this game. The forge world almost seemed like they're way of passing the torch on to the people who have been playing their game for the last 10 year.

 

[imnot]

Also... SPOILERS!?!

oh cram it, everyone knows how Halo Reach ends before they play it. It's a prequel to a franchise thats been going on for a decade, if you didn't get the message then you deserve it be spoiled, lol.

also this is Yahtzee he dosent give a shit about spoilers.

 

[EndlessSporadic]

I was rather pleased by this game. It combined a fair amount of difficulty with diverse gameplay. Also, if you were to play this game and then play combat evolved, the storyline flows together almost seamlessly (which is quite hard to do).

 

[Klydefrog]

It is Combat Evolved, not Combat Evolving. I think they implying that the combat has evolved to it's fullest and is now at it's peak although clearly it hasn't. I'm not trying to defend Halo because I've never liked the games, I'm just pointing that out.

 

[Amaury_games]

Haha!

Nice to see Yahtzee pointing out how everyone knows how to use alien weapons and vehicles without trouble. Although I have only played the Campaign of Halo 3 and don't know much from the whole story, so they might have an answer to that. Still, thinking about this possible plot-hole makes me laugh. XD

 

[mythtech]

i don't know if this has been mentioned (i read the first page and it hadn't been) but...
A)millitary vehicles if unarmoured go completely the other way as much as possible so the occupents can leave very quickly and B) seat belts are not nessasary in helicopters etc because of centrafugal force

 

[Mojohobo]

they made a reference to Oni in the campaign (Oni Sword Base was a place you could fight)

That actually was not a reference to ONI, ONI is the Office of Naval Intelligence, essentially its the CIA/FBI of the Halo universe.

 

[BrEnNo1023]

I kind of disagree....

yeah I guess i was just bummed that they'd gone against their own canon, and all that work Eric Nylund put into The Fall of Reach. It seemed a little insulting to the writer...but I'm sure he would have been notified and he would have been fine with it and all that. Bungie had to make an entertaining game, and for the most part they succeeded. They really outdid themselves with the visuals (even if the framerate on my 360 drops from time to time when things start getting shiny) and the open-ended gameplay allowing for nearly endless creative approaches to combat (there's an interesting bunch of videos on Halo Waypoint exploiting all the different ways to attack a certain level, for example the Ninja challenge, and getting vehicles in where they aren't supposed to be). I was resistant to the storyline changes, but looking past it, it makes sense.
I agree the multiplayer flexibility is great, and the amount of stuff possible with Forge World blows my mind the more i look into it (take a look at all the race tracks, Donkey Kong V2, and Rock Climb in the most common downloads for example!). I actually feel compelled to progress through the challenges, earn those credits, get those expensive armor aesthetics, it just feels worth it.
Halo Reach could have been different, it could have been better, it could have made mention CASTLE base and the Spartan IIs and the PoA could have been in space, like it was supposed to be, but it is what it is...it's an alternate fall of reach, and it's not half bad.

 

[Ross B]

I'm surprised. He didn't hate Halo Reach...

No, he hated it. But, it's nowhere near the level of hate that he has for games like Too Human and the Wolfenstein Reboot.

Also, I've never liked the Halo games precisely because there's no iron-sights aiming. In FPS games, I specialize in sniping and long distance single shot kills. So, a game that forces me to get up close with an underpowered weapon and stand there like a slack-jawed mental patient holds no appeal to me, whatsoever.

I'm going to start by saying thank you. I now have an actual quote from a real person detailing what I think is wrong with most of the anti halo brigade. You sir are wonderful.
In halo and in the multiplayer especially your best sticking to mid or long range battles. And my definition of mid range starts about double the length of your average CoD map. If you feel forced to get up close and personal with an underpowered gun I say this: firstly the guns aren't underpowered, you just have to work for your kills and frankly its so much more rewarding. Secondly if you need to get that close, well Mr sniper guy, it actually means you can't aim worth a damn, or play with your feet or something, I dunno. The thing about iron sights is that it makes people feel like they're doing something cool and getting skill shots, when in reality, it slows down your mobility, makes your target appear bigger and makes your aimer move slower. Aka its easy mode.

More on topic I'll give him that the story wouldn't make entirely bucketfuls of sense to someone new to the series, but hey I don't see whats wrong with a developing storyline in any other way. For example he complains that everyone knows how to use covenant vehicles and weapons, well you would if you've been fighting them for 27ish years already, Reach wasn't the start of the war, it just explains the events of the Pillar of Autumn finding Halo and what had to happen for that to come about.

 

[R315r4z0r]

I would have enjoyed this review more if he wasn't wrong on a few of factual points...

For example, this game isn't the the start of the war between humans and Covenant, it just shows the fall of Reach, which is like Earth #2.

The war had been going on for some time before the setting of this game. More than 20 years, as a matter of fact. Look at Halo Wars, the setting of that game takes place WAY before Halo: Reach.

But anyway, that's why they weren't exactly super surprised when Covenant first showed up. They were surprised that the Covenant were on Reach, but it isn't like they've never seen them before. It is also why they knew how to operate Covenant vehicles without much problem - they have already been dealing with them for decades already...

In addition, Halo 1 literally takes place hours after the ending of this game. Meaning, the weapons used in this game should mimic the ones in Halo 1. If they were different, it would be inconsistent and stupid. Bungie has always been good with consistency. Look at the Covenant Dropship designs in this game. They haven't been seen since Halo 1... and since this game is back to back with that game, that's why they made an appearance.

(and no, I didn't make an account just to post this. I actually already had an account on here for a while, this just happens to be my first post.)

 

[Stealth Prawn]

I would have enjoyed this review more if he wasn't wrong on a few of factual points...

For example, this game isn't the the start of the war between humans and Covenant, it just shows the fall of Reach, which is like Earth #2.

The war had been going on for some time before the setting of this game. More than 20 years, as a matter of fact. Look at Halo Wars, the setting of that game takes place WAY before Halo: Reach.

But anyway, that's why they weren't exactly super surprised when Covenant first showed up. They were surprised that the Covenant were on Reach, but it isn't like they've never seen them before. It is also why they knew how to operate Covenant vehicles without much problem - they have already been dealing with them for decades already...

In addition, Halo 1 literally takes place hours after the ending of this game. Meaning, the weapons used in this game should mimic the ones in Halo 1. If they were different, it would be inconsistent and stupid. Bungie has always been good with consistency. Look at the Covenant Dropship designs in this game. They haven't been seen since Halo 1... and since this game is back to back with that game, that's why they made an appearance.

(and no, I didn't make an account just to post this. I actually already had an account on here for a while, this just happens to be my first post.)

This is exactly what I was going to post. Although he was correct about some things, such as the cliche of the plot and characters, it does have good consistency regarding weaponry, as well as the Spartan's ability to use Covenant technology. Though I guess Yahtzee doesn't have his limited edition Cortana wanking cloth, so I can't blame him for his lack of knowledge.

 

[Dude log on]

Ok so I am a huge Halo fanatic and loved all the games but I do agree with quite a bit of stuff he said about both Halo reviews there are alot of glitches. However, and here comes my fanboy part, he doesnt go into depth to explore the Easter eggs, he gets annoyed if something is repeated ever(come on how much can a game do to make every single enemy you kill new when you have an army your fighting) and lastly and I could be wrong about this but I don't think he quite understands Bungies personality as a game creator. I'm not trying to be the huge fanboy I am in this post but that's my thoughts.

 

[Dude log on]

Yeah I agree with you full heartedly the vehicles for example if you read the books Spartans are trained to use covenant weaponry and vehicles. Also if you are going to judge a video game that has three other games that help to explain the story alot you should probably play them first(and yes I know he played and reviewed Halo 3 so don't start hating on that one little subject all of you fucking overly obbsessed CoD fans god seriously talk about an overhyped game)

 

[Dude log on]

Yeah I agree with you full heartedly the vehicles for example if you read the books Spartans are trained to use covenant weaponry and vehicles. Also if you are going to judge a video game that has three other games that help to explain the story alot you should probably play them first(and yes I know he played and reviewed Halo 3 so don't start hating on that one little subject all of you fucking overly obbsessed CoD fans god seriously talk about an overhyped game)

 

[Dude log on]

Ok so I am a huge Halo fanatic and loved all the games but I do agree with quite a bit of stuff he said about both Halo reviews there are alot of glitches. However, and here comes my fanboy part, he doesnt go into depth to explore the Easter eggs, he gets annoyed if something is repeated ever(come on how much can a game do to make every single enemy you kill new when you have an army your fighting) and lastly and I could be wrong about this but I don't think he quite understands Bungies personality as a game creator. I'm not trying to be the huge fanboy I am in this post but that's my thoughts.

 

[Dude log on]

I'm surprised. He didn't hate Halo Reach...

No, he hated it. But, it's nowhere near the level of hate that he has for games like Too Human and the Wolfenstein Reboot.

Also, I've never liked the Halo games precisely because there's no iron-sights aiming. In FPS games, I specialize in sniping and long distance single shot kills. So, a game that forces me to get up close with an underpowered weapon and stand there like a slack-jawed mental patient holds no appeal to me, whatsoever.

I'm going to start by saying thank you. I now have an actual quote from a real person detailing what I think is wrong with most of the anti halo brigade. You sir are wonderful.
In halo and in the multiplayer especially your best sticking to mid or long range battles. And my definition of mid range starts about double the length of your average CoD map. If you feel forced to get up close and personal with an underpowered gun I say this: firstly the guns aren't underpowered, you just have to work for your kills and frankly its so much more rewarding. Secondly if you need to get that close, well Mr sniper guy, it actually means you can't aim worth a damn, or play with your feet or something, I dunno. The thing about iron sights is that it makes people feel like they're doing something cool and getting skill shots, when in reality, it slows down your mobility, makes your target appear bigger and makes your aimer move slower. Aka its easy mode.

More on topic I'll give him that the story wouldn't make entirely bucketfuls of sense to someone new to the series, but hey I don't see whats wrong with a developing storyline in any other way. For example he complains that everyone knows how to use covenant vehicles and weapons, well you would if you've been fighting them for 27ish years already, Reach wasn't the start of the war, it just explains the events of the Pillar of Autumn finding Halo and what had to happen for that to come about.

Ross B I absolutely and utterly couldn't agree with you more like for one how many soldiers in the army do you see running around with a gun with iron sights. I can tell you personally that I have never seen any. And CronoT I'm guessing when you mean an underpowered weapon I'm guessing you mean any weapon not in CoD or having to attack against anyone other then the guys in CoD who seem to run around with skin as easily tearable as moist paper. Also war and good fps games force you to get up close and personal and actually learn to either use the weapon your holding (because trust me your not if you can only kill people at range) or to GET A FUCKING SHOTGUN. Seriously if you play Modern Warfare which I'm positive you do equip a shotgun as a secondary. And Ross B if you hate CoD fans go check out a YouTube video series called "How to Annoy People in Call of Duty Black Ops" the guy is funny as hell

 

[Dude log on]

Yay! Gay-lo Reach-around !

Seriouly its just another FPS... they all were ... big deal why?

Yeah, it's just another FPS game, just like Half-life, TF2, Call of duty, Medal of honour, BFBC2, Bulletstorm, crysis, killzone, duke nukem, borderlands etc...
So we should disregard them all, because they're all the same thing right?

No, that's like saying fallout: new vegas shouldn't get any hype because its 'just another RPG', they're all different games and if everyone had the same attitude as you then there would be about 10 games in existance.

Halo didn't bring anything new unlike many of your other cited games. The shield system was out waaay before gaylo.

Because a game needs to be 100% original to be in any way good? Wrong.
It's a finely polished game, made for the fans of the series and in my opinion the best fps out there.

Hmm lets see some new stuff Halo brought us (an I'm talking about starting from the first one) well it pretty much revolutionized multiplayer in Halo 1, we also got self made mini-games inside the game. Halo 2 well yeah I'll admit it was just made to explain the elites joining you and them being on earth, oh well actually Halo 2 did have some of the sickest vehicles ever made and dual-wielding. Halo 3 yet again revolutionized multiplayer matchmaking, gave us ways to take pictures and videos from a game you played recently, it allowed us to make our own custom maps and custom games to play with our friends. Halo Reach completely evolved the way fights are fought with armor abilities and assassinations and also gave our Spartans complete and utter personality as I have yet to see any people with same Spartans in the thousands of games I played (with the exception being the starter Spartans but even then different colors and emblems) Oh and oh my god how can I forget one of the biggest contributions a videogame ever gave us was from Halo and that is *drum roll* TEABAGGING