Halo Reach

[JohnMcL7]

Is your xbox dying?

Slow dash and Halo crashes...

It's happening to me on a brand new slim and it's at similar times to other people (just after a host reconnect) so I suspect it's something in the game rather than a fault with the Xbox as I can play hours of Firefight without an issue.

I like how it's now three rounds of Firefight rather than just one although I've been having some serious slow down as well at times, usually when it's bad it kicks everyone into separate games which is fine but this one just kept painfully going on. It felt like I was on an ice rink with a two second lag on all my controls.

I didn't realise the bonus round was random, I was horrified to see Phantoms unload scores of Hunters on a normal Firefight (no unlimited rockets or snipers) with the mythic skull enabled. I emptied my fuel rod gun and grenads on the approaching mass but didn't slow them down at all!

Initially I didn't like that they forced you to use the sniper in the sniperfight on score attack but it does make sense and now I've been forced to use the sniper rifle I'm much better with it. I'm surprised though that they haven't done the same in the Firefight version though as most people just end up with the fuel rod gun making the sniper aspect pointless.

John

[moonwhistle]

I've just finished Reach. I really wanted to love this one but ultimately I found it just as disappointing as the rest of the Halo sequels. Only Halo 1 had that magical quality. It's not only because it was the thrill of the new. Going back to Halo 1 now, it just feels more atmospheric, most cohesive and more compelling. It had the most minimal and best weapon balance (in campaign). It also had the best music by a country mile.

I found Reach a chore to be honest. I had to force myself to play it all the way through and I could only handle one level at a time. I think it may be a little more enjoyable than Halo 3 but I had more fun with ODST. The weapon balance is totally out the window with many guns making other guns redundant. There are also far too many different weapons. Less is more I think. I thought the story was uninvolving and very badly told just like all the other sequels. The dialogue was the usual generic crap that does nothing for me. Perhaps the biggest let down was the music. Not a single memorable piece. I found it utterly bland and it did nothing to enhance my enjoyment. Halo 1 had a superb soundtrack with so many memorable tunes. ODST is the only game in the series which had music that actually added the atmosphere. I still remember the bit in Halo 2 where I just knew that it would never match the first game. The first hunter battle where it had a bull**** macho voice over and plays a rubbish modern sounding song, it just felt so staged and contrived. It completed shattered the illusion and felt like the design idea of a teenager.

I know this all sounds very harsh. Being such a massive fan of Halo 1 I just find all these sequels incredibly lacklustre. They've watered down the original design more than Principal skinner's orange squash. I wanted a bit of magic. For me Reach is competant, nothing more.

RIP Halo.

[MJ]

I've just fired up Reach and they've unlocked the other ranks. Commander is next and it's taking a lot of cR to get there, even with what I had already amassed while they were locked.

[SUMIRE]

I just bought and completed this on Herioc and had a blast. It started off superb, dipped a bit in the middle, then picked up slightly near the end.

My only complaint was the graphics in some of the areas later on looked a bit dated, some areas looked stunning though especially the backdrops. Music was great, I love how it picked up as the action started and really added to the excitement.

I thought it was the best in the series overall.

[EvilBoris]

I finished legendary today, it was rather easy for the most part, just a few super frustrating areas. Heroic was definitely cranked too high as it didn't seem any easier

[JohnMcL7]

I've just fired up Reach and they've unlocked the other ranks. Commander is next and it's taking a lot of cR to get there, even with what I had already amassed while they were locked.

I'm still just a Captain Grade 3

I find it difficult to play the game for any length of time due to network connection issues, some games are great but some are just rubbish. I don't like it when other people quit so I don't want to do the same myself, I tend to end up in score attack which is now in need of some variety as it's getting dull.

John

[EvilBoris]

That's the problem with firefight matchmaking, if others have dodgy connections you suffer too.

Played some of the new arena playlists today and yesterday, really liking no radar. Games are much more frantic as a result.
It does mean there is the same old get a 4 point lead and then camp with a shotgun problem from halo 2. Seems like a big boring waste of time when people do that

[JSR]

I know this all sounds very harsh. Being such a massive fan of Halo 1 I just find all these sequels incredibly lacklustre. They've watered down the original design more than Principal skinner's orange squash. I wanted a bit of magic. For me Reach is competant, nothing more.

Completely agree.

What made Halo (the first one) special was how open the game was. In almost every level, the player was introduced to a wide, open terrain filled with enemies, maybe some towers, a couple of vehicles, a frozen lake perhaps and load of other cool stuff. It was then up to you to determine how to proceed. You could hop in the nearest vehicle (which may or may not be occupied) and fly/drive across the landscape - maybe killing some thugs at same time, you could take the methodical route and snipe every enemy from a distance or you could run in guns and grenades blazing and take them out in a frenetic shootout. The choice was yours, and no matter what choice you made, no two situations ever felt alike. This gave the game a unique feeling actually deserving the pretentious subtitle "Combat Evolved".

Whereas the later games have gone the Call of Duty route. By this I mean that they are essentially super linear, hoping to pleasure the player with impressive set pieces instead of the overwhelming feeling of choice and actual involvement. Even the vehicles have been stripped of their appeal, as they are only available at predetermined times, and when they are, you know you are in for fifteen minutes of driving through desolate terrain battling other vehicles. The same can be said for the airborne engines. A welcomed choice in the first game, now confined to linear and mandatory flying levels.

I find it a bit sad actually. The developers never understood what made the first game so special, and probably never will, as the games sold tons because of the multiplayer and brilliant, overwhelming marketing from Microsoft.

[JohnMcL7]

I'm with the developers in that I never understood what made the first game so special either and to be honest it's something I'm grateful for. I didn't find the level design anything like as open as you claim and to be honest if you hadn't mentioned the name of the game I would never have matched it to Halo. While a couple of the levels were wider, it always felt an incredibly linear game to me as there was only ever one route through the game. It was particularly bad in the ships and buildings where the artists had gone a bit loopy with the copy/paste tool given an impression of a non-linear map but in reality wasn't at all as most doors were locked and you couldn't go the wrong way. The ships and buildings had poor designs as they just felt like lots of corridors, the Covenant ship in particular never felt at all like it was a ship just a variety of corridors.

I don't think Reach has a great single player but I don't think it's any worse than the dull and drab Halo1 campaign which always felt like a rush job rather than the carefully designed masterpiece some consider it as. It's not bad in co-op but otherwise I had difficulty not getting bored of the lack of design and constant repetition.

John

[MJ]

I just got 7,866 cR from the slot machine after a Team Objective Crazy King match!

[moonwhistle]

Completely agree.

What made Halo (the first one) special was how open the game was. In almost every level, the player was introduced to a wide, open terrain filled with enemies, maybe some towers, a couple of vehicles, a frozen lake perhaps and load of other cool stuff. It was then up to you to determine how to proceed. You could hop in the nearest vehicle (which may or may not be occupied) and fly/drive across the landscape - maybe killing some thugs at same time, you could take the methodical route and snipe every enemy from a distance or you could run in guns and grenades blazing and take them out in a frenetic shootout. The choice was yours, and no matter what choice you made, no two situations ever felt alike. This gave the game a unique feeling actually deserving the pretentious subtitle "Combat Evolved".

Whereas the later games have gone the Call of Duty route. By this I mean that they are essentially super linear, hoping to pleasure the player with impressive set pieces instead of the overwhelming feeling of choice and actual involvement. Even the vehicles have been stripped of their appeal, as they are only available at predetermined times, and when they are, you know you are in for fifteen minutes of driving through desolate terrain battling other vehicles. The same can be said for the airborne engines. A welcomed choice in the first game, now confined to linear and mandatory flying levels.

I find it a bit sad actually. The developers never understood what made the first game so special, and probably never will, as the games sold tons because of the multiplayer and brilliant, overwhelming marketing from Microsoft.

Some very good points mate.

Alot of the real excellence of the first game was the emergeant situations you would find yourself in. They just don't seem to happen in the sequels.

It does feel like Bungie may have fluked the brilliance of Halo CE. I only say that because no matter how hard they tried with the sequels they could never recreate what made the first game so special. I think it was a combination of simplicity, the less is more approach, the stunning music and sense of involvement and wonder that was unhindered by excessive chatter and lame story telling.

Or perhaps Bungie have just spread everything to thin in the sequels in an attempt to please everyone. Which, has worked for them financially but certainly not artistically.

I remember in edge's review of the first game (their only review of the series that I think is accurate) they were talking about how the limited number of weapons was superbly balanced and really enchanced the gameplay. Most of the regular weapons had their uses and none of them felt like mere upgrades of other weapons. They all had thier uses and were all viable. I think they may have discussed how that messing with this really would be detrimental to the game's structure. However this is exactly what Bungie did. They had the winning formula and they made it so bloated by adding loads of unessecary weapons. Reach is the culmination of this, the battle rifle makes the pistol pointless, the plamsa repeater makes the plasma rifles pointless. More often than not it just seem a case of picking the most powerful weapons not the most tactical ones. Also with the introduction of battle rifle and covenant carbine you basically had 2 perfect weapons that could do everything, were so obviously better than everything else and made the rest of bloated weapon selection even more frivolous. The was no need to makes tactical descisions, just pick the same weapons at every juncture.

[MJ]

"Hail to the king!" I love it!

[EvilBoris]

They had the winning formula and they made it so bloated by adding loads of unessecary weapons. Reach is the culmination of this, the battle rifle makes the pistol pointless, the plamsa repeater makes the plasma rifles pointless. More often than not it just seem a case of picking the most powerful weapons not the most tactical ones. Also with the introduction of battle rifle and covenant carbine you basically had 2 perfect weapons that could do everything, were so obviously better than everything else and made the rest of bloated weapon selection even more frivolous. The was no need to makes tactical descisions, just pick the same weapons at every juncture.

I disagree with almost all of this. The game is only as tactical as you make it, playing through on legendary I was carefull choosing all my weapons at every opportunity. Certain enemies require certain strategies and certain weapons work better than others against certain enemies.

As for the DMR making the pistol pointless, I'd argue that in multiplayer especially the pistol makes much more sense for close range combat. And I really like the fact that the multiplayer and campaign weapons are consistent in strengh.

As for Halos weapons being perfectly balanced and limited in number, I'd think harder, the needler and plasma rifles were comedy weapons, it was just an embarrassing way to die for your enemies and the Pistol made every other weapon obsolete as it was so powerful and had a scope. There were only 3 weapons worth using because everything else was so feeble.

I actually think Reach's weapon set is far more versatile and thought out than any previous Halo game , the only weapons that serve no specific function or offering any advantage in combat scenarios being the plasma rifle and the brute spiker, which as far as I'm concerned are still just remnants of the 'his and hers' matching humans vs covenant weapons from Halo 3 , where they felt compelled to make a purple version of all the human weapons.

[iloveannie]

I know this all sounds very harsh. Being such a massive fan of Halo 1 I just find all these sequels incredibly lacklustre. They've watered down the original design more than Principal skinner's orange squash. I wanted a bit of magic. For me Reach is competant, nothing more.

RIP Halo.

That speaks volumes for me. The first Halo was played by myself so many times for so many many months. Revisited countless times. Reach found itself sat on the shelf after a week or two.

What it it that makes a game fun?

[moonwhistle]

I disagree with almost all of this. The game is only as tactical as you make it, playing through on legendary I was carefull choosing all my weapons at every opportunity. Certain enemies require certain strategies and certain weapons work better than others against certain enemies.

As for the DMR making the pistol pointless, I'd argue that in multiplayer especially the pistol makes much more sense for close range combat. And I really like the fact that the multiplayer and campaign weapons are consistent in strengh.

As for Halos weapons being perfectly balanced and limited in number, I'd think harder, the needler and plasma rifles were comedy weapons, it was just an embarrassing way to die for your enemies and the Pistol made every other weapon obsolete as it was so powerful and had a scope. There were only 3 weapons worth using because everything else was so feeble.

I actually think Reach's weapon set is far more versatile and thought out than any previous Halo game , the only weapons that serve no specific function or offering any advantage in combat scenarios being the plasma rifle and the brute spiker, which as far as I'm concerned are still just remnants of the 'his and hers' matching humans vs covenant weapons from Halo 3 , where they felt compelled to make a purple version of all the human weapons.

In which games do you mean that the plasma rifle and needler are crap? I agree that the plasma rifle is pretty bad in the all the games but it's still better on a fully shielded elite on legendary than the assualt riffle. Although both of these weapons are pretty poor on elites. I found the needler very useful on Halo 1 legendary, the only thing preventing me using it more often was limited ammo. At mid range against elite it can be leathal, far more so that any of the "normal" weapons. The needler is a god send against those uber dangerous sword elites. When they charge you just run backwards and pump them full of needles.

I agree the pistol was over powered in Halo 1 but it was not available that often in campaign and when it was ammo was limited. The battle rifle completely replaced it in later games anyway. That is with the exception of dual wielding a plasma pistol and magnum. I thought dual wielding was another rubbish inclusion anyway.

In general I'm speaking only of campaign modes anyway. The sequels may indeed have better multiplayer but I only care for single player mode.

I'm trying to think of a single weapon in Halo 1 that was redundant in campaign mode. Arguably the plasma rifle but that's it imo.

The Reach weapon set is indeed more versatile. I don't think that makes the game more fun though. Sure, you could use any weapon but there's no reason not to always have the battle rifle in hand in campaign mode, particularrly on legendary. Plus there's almost always one available. It makes the huge selection of weapons feel even more pointless. It's like a throwback to the doom scenario where each successive weapon is not a strategic alternative just a more powerful variant. Halo 1 forced you to make use of the most of the small weapon set which I feel is far more interesting.