So dissapointed in Halo after watching this...

A member on the Bungie forums made a thread that pretty much hammered why Reach's campaign sucked. After watching this video he provided, I see his point.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZs8ryXP4kE#t=6m30s

I don't think Reach's campaign was bad but I think it could have been so much more. I was dissapointed in the same way with Halo 3's campaign.

Both Halo 3 and Reach should have had way more epic battles like the one's shown in that video. I think that I level where you have to make your way from cover to cover while avoiding fire from a Scarab would have been epic. A vehicular battle that took place on a wide open desert (5x bigger than Sandtrap) would have been epic. I've been dreaming of something like that since the end of Halo 2. The closest thing I got to that was The Ark on Halo 3. The only thing it was missing was the quantity and quality of friendly AI.

Before Reach came out, I remember watching the vidoc on how Reach can have twice as many enemies on screen at once. I just remembered thinking that maybe one day...there would be a Halo game that could have battles similar to the collage promo ad of Halo 3. Dozens on enemies and friendlies on screen at once, blowing each other up. It still nevered happened.

Reach could have a lot of enemies at once on the screen but it still felt like it was all just small skirmished. I feel that the friendly AI should have done just as well as you and to couteract the ownage, make it so that enemies respawned a couple times in order to make the battle feel long lasting and epic.

Instead, we have had dumb AI in the past two Halo games (CE and 2 don't count since the AI was good for the time) that barely hurt the enemy and it always feels like you are a one man army. I know that's how Halo is supposed to be...but I thought Reach was aiming for a sort of "helpless" feel. Instead, I felt about as powerful as the Masterchief (who was a little too powerful since his allies sucked so bad) and it just destroyed the feel of the game.

All in all, the campaign was fun but still hasn't felt like much of a true change since Halo 2. If more content from that PAX footage had made it into the final game, I'm sure I wouldn't be complaining at all.

 

Discussion Info


Last updated July 3, 2018 Views 5 Applies to:

* Please try a lower page number.

* Please enter only numbers.

* Please try a lower page number.

* Please enter only numbers.

Woah, sorry about there not being spaces guys. I thought two spaces would seperate out the paragraphs

This has been the story of all the Halo games, and most games in general. The stuff shown during development NEVER makes it into the final game. Lots of amazingly fun sounding concepts have to be cut to maintain a decent development schedule. There's even an ongoing joke that a video from IGN makes fun of... it had to do with Halo 3: ODST. Basically it's the Live Action trailer with a voice over, and one of the lines talks about how the battle is NEVER that huge when the character in the trailer is fighting off dozens of Brutes.

 

If you think that's disappointing in Halo: Reach, I suggest you check out some of the Halo 2 beta and before-release footage. Looked freaking amazingly crazy and epic, but ended up being a short bridge game between Halo 1 and 3. Tons of features got cut... I believe they even had a Theatre mode for Halo 2.

 

Not even just that, remember the commercials for Halo 2? And the diorama, showing human death and overall the struggle and emotion of war with all the Marines and Elites and Brutes? Yeah, that wasn't shown in the game at all after it released.

 

In the Halo 2 pre-release footage, they showcased massive damage to human cities, massive battles, etc. But in the end, many things get cut out of the game due to time constraints. Of course, if I wanted to wait 8 years for the next Halo game, they could include many of those things.

 

But for now, the system is to have many features WANTED, but only deliver on a few. Over time, many of the features shown BEFORE in past games development cycles will make it into the game released 5 years after it... It's just how things work in the gaming, and overall the electronic/technical world. The Kinect also didn't achieve many of its promises as well. Doesn't make it a bad product, but the claims are to help advertise and hype the game up.

 

I never expect anything from development videos to make it in the final game... you'll just end up disappointed.

prepare to me more disappointed now that activision is publishing new bungie games and microsoft is on track for a "halo a year" release cycle

[quote user="MattKohl101"]

This has been the story of all the Halo games, and most games in general. The stuff shown during development NEVER makes it into the final game. Lots of amazingly fun sounding concepts have to be cut to maintain a decent development schedule. There's even an ongoing joke that a video from IGN makes fun of... it had to do with Halo 3: ODST. Basically it's the Live Action trailer with a voice over, and one of the lines talks about how the battle is NEVER that huge when the character in the trailer is fighting off dozens of Brutes.

 

If you think that's disappointing in Halo: Reach, I suggest you check out some of the Halo 2 beta and before-release footage. Looked freaking amazingly crazy and epic, but ended up being a short bridge game between Halo 1 and 3. Tons of features got cut... I believe they even had a Theatre mode for Halo 2.

 

Not even just that, remember the commercials for Halo 2? And the diorama, showing human death and overall the struggle and emotion of war with all the Marines and Elites and Brutes? Yeah, that wasn't shown in the game at all after it released.

 

In the Halo 2 pre-release footage, they showcased massive damage to human cities, massive battles, etc. But in the end, many things get cut out of the game due to time constraints. Of course, if I wanted to wait 8 years for the next Halo game, they could include many of those things.

 

But for now, the system is to have many features WANTED, but only deliver on a few. Over time, many of the features shown BEFORE in past games development cycles will make it into the game released 5 years after it... It's just how things work in the gaming, and overall the electronic/technical world. The Kinect also didn't achieve many of its promises as well. Doesn't make it a bad product, but the claims are to help advertise and hype the game up.

 

I never expect anything from development videos to make it in the final game... you'll just end up disappointed.

[/quote]I think this is total crap. I see why Bungie left M$ now because they were tired of the schedules. Honestly, I think it is really just laziness that those features got cut. All those levels, though incomplete, only needed a bit more polish. I remember the Halo 2 E3 demo and the reason why that didn't make it into the final game is because the Xbox couldn't run it (it was made off the dev kit instead).

 

I really hate to side with the Halo haters but it really does seem like all the Halos are rehashes of one another. They had the potential to evolve as shown by pre release features but because of laziness, it never happened.

[quote user="x sNe x JeNo"] I think this is total crap. I see why Bungie left M$ now because they were tired of the schedules. Honestly, I think it is really just laziness that those features got cut. All those levels, though incomplete, only needed a bit more polish. I remember the Halo 2 E3 demo and the reason why that didn't make it into the final game is because the Xbox couldn't run it (it was made off the dev kit instead).

 

 

I really hate to side with the Halo haters but it really does seem like all the Halos are rehashes of one another. They had the potential to evolve as shown by pre release features but because of laziness, it never happened.

[/quote]

 

Well in all honesty I think you're wrong. These developers are under so much stress trying to jam as much content and balance and fun as possible while under very strict deadlines. Dozens, if not hundreds of features and gameplay get cut due to time constraints. This is common practice in the gaming business.

 

Oh and all the Halo haters complain that the Halo's are way too different and should all be exactly like Halo (Insert number 1-3 for whatever Halo you played first here). I wouldn't say they're rehashes, but the gameplay needs to evolve a bit more. People are going to whine and whine and whine about anything they change, but damnit I want a NEW Halo game, not Halo 1.5/3.5

The single player needs to evolve. There needs to be more variety than just moving through the level and killing aliens. The firefight esque parts (the cave fight on exodus) were actually the most enjoyable part of the game. The space battle was cool but felt lacking. There should have been a huge fight between multiple covenant cruisers and multiple human ships where the ships would actually slowly destroy each other. It would be up to you and your squadmates to attack the cruisers and fighters in order to turn the tide of battle and win. Instead, it seems that your the only ship that can even kill enemy spacecraft and that is all you do.

 

And most of all, there should have been huge vehicle battles. Not just one warthog vs the entire covenant like on Sword Base. Halo 3 had it better than that.

 

The multiplayer can evolve but it seems in Reach, the multiplayer took a step backwards. Number rank was removed, bloom creates randomness, vehicles can be destroyed by small arms fire, and the maps don't really have any cool functions like they did in Halo 2 and Halo 3 (gates opening, falling stalagmites, moving floors, elephants).

 

Honestly, I don't mind some of the changes. I think bloom could actually increase the skill gap but only if it loses the random factor by making it so that shots only land on the outside of the reticule rather than within it. Fall damage doesn't bother me though I do think there should be a toggle. I prefer the melee. If anything, the game should have had a greater variety of objectives than the same ones we have had since Halo 1. Invasion would be better if it felt more like campaign where you respawned inside of a phantom flying in and dropped out to attack or if you had a pelican that would hover and shoot at enemies (though not accurately).

 

I'm really not seeing change. I would have prefer Bungie to cut out more of the same ol' same ol' content and leave the cool new stuff.

Single-player changes wouldn't bother me at all.

.

I personally fell in love with H3 so I wouldn't mind H3.00001 for the rest of eternity, but I do understand the idea .

.

The 'One Warthog' idea has been annoying and... well, just silly, to be honest, for almost all the games but that's not a problem only Reach has had.

Of course Sne Jeo, I would love what you're talking about. Absolutely massive battles, the friendly A.I. being actually helpful instead of meat shields (I've realized that the only game that has great A.I. teammates is the Left 4 Dead games, even then they're basically just aimbots that can't use strategy), the driving of A.I. teammates being better, etc.

 

But Halo has never REALLY been about that, albeit a few scattered missions here and there. When you're flying in Pelican's in Halo: Reach you get to see quite a few massive battles, but nothing along the scale of Battlefield or something.

 

Also, I agree with them expanding on the changes they've implemented. Balance and improve the Armor Abilities, add more Objectives and maps to Invasion and expand on that playlist's ideas, bloom being a GREAT feature to implement (Close range DMR NEEDS to be tweaked though, more like the Pistol or Needle Rifle).

 

We definitely agree on most, if not all of your points. But the fact of the matter is that these developers are on very strict time constraints. Halo 4 ABSOLUTELY NEEDS to be out in 2012, regardless of any situations. Because by the time the next Halo comes out, a new Xbox console will be out. Halo will make Microsoft very, very rich. It's a system seller. Halo 1 and 2 basically made the Xbox successful and created Xbox Live, Halo 3 was a system seller for the Xbox, and Halo: Reach expanded even more on the Xbox Live features. Halo 4/5/6 will do the exact same thing.

 

I REALLY do hope they implement that one system in the video you posted, the Global Warfare type thing where you fight for territories/locations and the winner is determined at the end of the day. But that would require a ridiculous amount of man power and time...

 

The one thing Halo 4 100% needs to get right is the foundation. The story arc needs to at least match Halo 1-3's, they need to nail down the Multiplayer and Firefight, they need to nail down the Campaign in general.

 

For Halo 5/6, I'd expect some massive changes. But trying to make huge, fundamental changes with a brand new story arc and trilogy would be irresponsible, to say the least. Once they have the core gameplay nailed down, then I'd suggest many of the things you're talking about!

Oh, you must have seen a thread made by a realist, and not a fanboy. Probably a 3 Legged Goat.

.

Agreed, I enjoyed Reach's campaign, but it doesn't hold a candle to Halo 1/2/3/Odst.

I think Halo has a certain boundaries that shouldn't be crossed. Adding too many of those things would just mess with the Halo formula. Reach already had enough new things to be honest. Of course more space battles and large fights would be cooler.

 

Just think though, ALL of these mechanics could be utilized in whatever Bungie is cooking up next. I'm sure I'm not the only one who would be curious as to what that would be.

* Please try a lower page number.

* Please enter only numbers.

* Please try a lower page number.

* Please enter only numbers.