Wow. PA totally singled out Acert with one comic. Bravo.

And Acert, the hyperbole of the critics is completely apparent in their blatantly pandering reviews (big words in a series, important post to follow). The largest battles are no bigger than those found in Halo 2, Halo 3, or ODST. In fact there isn't even a battle as large as the one towards the end of Halo 3. For a game with six Spartans, you're not really put into an situations a group of ODSTs couldn't get out of. There is however a cutscene which shows dozens of warthogs on a collision course with covenant armor, but then it ends and there are maybe five elites around you.

I didn't hate Halo Reach by any stretch, but I am getting annoyed with Bungie's self referencing. They hype up their levels and stages with such elegant names that make you feel like they should be considered important. I'm sure for as long as it takes them to create it may indeed feel important, but it ultimately results in a five minute romp with a Brute pack. That's what separates these latest Halo departures from the main series (although they really showed signs of this in Halo 3). In terms of level design, they have no idea what it takes to make something feel important. A structure feels like just another set piece to be passed over. Halo 1 & 2 made each piece of architecture feel important by the ways the story (or at least the enemy placement) made them feel integral. The Silent Cartographer is so memorable because it involved exploring a structure that was overrun with enemies, not that I was trekking from Point A to B to press X.

I can't blame them. Many developers seem to be taking the IW approach to their campaigns. Just keep the player moving, get it over with, make them go "oh shit!" a few times. I'm just more critical on Bungie because for a few games in a series they were doing more. And quite frankly, Halo's "oh shit!"s are becoming "oh, this." I am however glad that this was their last game in the series. Maybe they just stuck with it too long. Granted, their previous franchises were nothing to write home about, but I hope they can rediscover that spark. With Activision involved most likely not, unless that spark is 1200pt map packs.

So yeah, I'm disappointed in the campaign and SP, but whoever they got to do their new matchmaking system needs a damn pay raise. Multiplayer has been a blast so far--feels more like a funky merger of Halo 1 & 2 (with the maps and lack of dual wielding) with that funky Shadowrun stuff mixed in.

One thing's for sure, these are one forgettable lot of characters. I like Kat a bit, because of her defining feature of.. being a woman. That's essentially it. All of them having such distinct accents is just hilarious too, and does in no way actually achieve what I have to imagine was the point of them; giving each dude proper characteristics.

Having Six talk with some sort of generic ken doll voice is also terrible.

Other than that it plays incredibly smoothly, and while some of the loadout stuff is a bit questionable in SP (why is sprint a pickup? WWHHHYYYY!?) it works in conjunction with the opened up (but still admirably streamlined) level design to create a really superb playing game. I think the setting brings back a sense of awe and mystery that has been gone since Halo 1 and with each entry as hoops have been jumped through and familiar locations have been revisited. It's not the dramatic stylistic departure that ODST was and hence not quite as inherently exciting, but it shares some - if not all - of that game's melancholy, which again proves to be a great tone for these games and their scenario/art design specifically.

ODST's biggest feat was how it jumped between entirely different locations quite deliberately to effectively deliver the "Best Of" of Halo's encounter types, and padded that with the hub/stealth/cooldown area. That made for a game that moved according to your own pace, and felt refreshing that way. if there's something about Reach that I feel is falling back into Halo 3's weaknesses, it's the frequency of token firefights.

Don't get me wrong, Reach has had moments of utter grandeur in that regard, starting especially strong and dipping frequently into inspired level design that informs the type of dynamic, on the fly awesomeness that Halo's gameplay can deliver, but it keeps pouring a new bucket of enemies on you around every corner and many of those instances are *not* as inspired. Done fighting in a large area with slabs of rocks/metal structures? Hop in a car and drive throug an opening in some cliffs and voila, look out over new area with plasma shots flying everywhere and rocks/metal structures placed in a similarly uninspired grid pattern.

This is the Halo 1 and 3 way to be sure, but ODST really addressed those issues by not being obligated to string levels together. It's in stringing levels together, that coherency to H3 and Reach's campaigns that drags you through "filler" areas that *can't* all be great to fight in, and Bungie seem hell bent on having long winded fights in succession completely regardless.

Still, just in basic terms of aim calibration and smoothness it's *obviously* the best playing Halo to date, and it's awesome to finally have image quality to back up the artistic design. It's such a clean and vivid looking game at times I just wanna lick it. I also think establishing new characters and a storyline that wraps up is a nice way to keep the franchise open to newcomers while still referencing the Halo universe. Halo 3 is just a big pile of tied up loose ends and putting things to bed, and about as accessible to new fans as a kick in the balls.

Just put a good six hours into MP. Good times. I'm rusty.

I've not finished it but I've not had what I'd call a huge battle, so far.

And never mind the Scarab I'm still yet to see this Super Wraith 0_0

I noticed that I was performing really poorly today and I started to be more patient with the DMR. The results were pretty good. It'd odd, because I think I actually have the opposite problem with the pistol. I'm a little too careful with my shots, and honestly it's only the kill shot that you need to be precise with. It's going to take a little more practice to get "good" again. I'll never be as good at Halo as I am at some other FPS games (specifically on the PC), but I'm holding my own and goddamn it's fun.

On the other hand, a couple of weapon complaints:

1) The Concussion Rifle; It's just not that great.
2) The Hammer; nerfed? Still awesome. Not really a complaint.
3) The Grenade Launcher; Buffed? Still don't care for it.
4) and... The Spiker. What the fuck? The same model from Halo 3? Disappointing.

It's not really the Chief's personality that made him memorable. I actually think the most memorable character in the entire franchise is Cortana, and by no small margin. I thought it was a bit of a bummer that they didn't take more chances with her weirdness in Halo 3. The whole plot of Halo 3 drives me a little crazy. It was a great opportunity to really prove that Halo is an epic, and instead, it was just the same ole shit. The gameplay, on the other hand, I still think is some of the best in the franchise. If I had to pick a pivotal Halo campaign this generation, it's Halo 3 without a doubt.I didn't get that out of ODST. I actually got pretty bored with ODST pretty quickly. I still haven't even finished the campaign which is a bit of a shocker for a Halo game. I sorta have to disagree about the level design too. I mean, the MP portion of the game holds up extremely well, despite being extremely lightweight (in terms of content it's definitely *not* a lightweight, but in terms of level variety it unfortunately is). But I'm having a little trouble believing that they just ripped portions of the campaign out and design MPed levels around them (as seen in other games, like Call of Duty). I mean, honestly, Ivory Tower is a fucking campaign level?!. That makes it seem like the design pipeline flowed the other direction.

I didn't love how armor abilities worked in the campaign either. But really.. it's still fucking great. I adored the scenery and the sense that we were fighting through certain defeat. I also loved how they made these characters so important in how future events played out, despite losing this battle so completely. Everything you're fighting for in Halo Reach makes sense.

And now.. now we'll have Halo 4. A game that Bungie considered making instead of Halo Reach. Microsoft has gigantic shoes to fill here. Can they pull it off? I don't know. I only know that they need to wait. They need to make a game that would make Bungie proud of the heritage they've left them with. And I honestly think that game should be on their next console. This game should end Halo's (fucking amazing) run on the Xbox 360.

ODST is pretty different and it's a very atypical Halo. There are things about that game most people prolly didn't even notice, like turning off the visor in the Hub world allowing you to sneak around patrols undetected, engaging enemies only when you need to (instead of lighting up like a christmas tree, spotted from a mile away), or the street lights, car alarms etc going off in succession actually being the Super Intendent guiding you to pieces of the mystery. It seems it has a pretty awkward bar of entry that way if you just try to brute force it, keep getting spotted and the hub just becomes a chore like travel distance, but I genuinely feel that once adjusted to its silent, subtle ways, it's a very cool experience. Its oppressive, sad tone and saxophone induced noir score linger with me in a way that most of the games don't.

I agree that the Chief didn't have much of a personality, but I also didn't think the series leaned on that foot then. ODST marked a pretty conscious choice to make it more intimate and about people (and I actually do fancy Mickey, Romeo, Buck and Dutch a fair bit) and Reach is no different. There's not much of an overarching space opera thing going on, sweeping and encompassing like the original trilogy's, but more about what's right there in front of you. It's too bad then that we get these hilariously multi-ethnical action puppets instead of people half embracable.


In regards to a new Halo, when Reach was announced I kinda wanted a non Bungie developed Halo instead because I'm just really dying to know what the franchise will be like without them. It makes sense to have it be a launch title or maybe 2nd gen title on a new thing though, giving them not only the benefit of being "Halo 4", but also that of being on new tech again. You do get some free momentum and added impact by having a generational leap in there, and it won't just feel like someone else is wearing Bungie's Reach engine mask.

I think ultimately the best thing about Reach is that it's a cleaned up, near perfect version of the core of Halo the way Bungie made it. Halo 3 was always a little wonky engine wise, and Reach's framerate still stumbles disappointingly often during the campaign, but the calibration of the aim really is super smooth and it all just feels really solid at the core thanks to engine optimisation.

I was a bit disappointed in the Sabre fight, far to easy. I think they should have made it more like Project Slypheed but slightly less mental.

I happened to Master Chief at the beginning of Halo 3 too, and it was a longer drop. But he was pretty fucked up. They actually explain the mechanism that allowed Chief to survive a fall from Space to Earth. Remember. This isn't just a combat suite. It's an epic combat suit and these soldiers are cybernetic/artificially enhanced super-humans.That makes no sense to me. That's like hearing that Nintendo is going to hand Mario over to Rareware and anticipating it with bated breath.I do appreciate Reach's engine optimizations, but I don't think it's really anymore polished than Halo 3. I played Halo 3 this week. There's not a significant leap in these areas at all. I do prefer the gameplay in Halo Reach, but that's not a technical issue, it's more about the weapon bloom and armor abilities, and those are the things that make this game really stand out. I wish the latter was handled differently in the campaign, but it was still pretty cool.

And while I disagree that ODST has a better campaign, I do appreciate that some people can discuss this game without a ton of hyperbole. That's neat.

You must hate other shooters completely then.

What? So, if I pointed a gun at you, ALL you would do is stand there, and possibly shout "WORT WORT WORT!" I've got no complaints about the AI. I like how they actually seem to be fighting me instead of waiting to be killed by me. Regardless of the method, at least it's a scuffle to kill them. Unless of course you got a DMR or a Sniper hell yea.

Well that's not quite what I meant. I mean that non Bungie Halo was inevitable from the moment we knew Bungie was departing from MS, and since then I've pretty much been wanting proof that non Bungie Halo even works. The sooner MS prove that, the faster they'll put my mind at ease.


I can't for the life of me fathom why people keep asking for "bigger battles" because by far the most problematic and downright mind erodingly boring parts of Halo 3 and this are the open areas with a shit ton of enemies. Halo's combat works best in mid to close range situations in a dynamic environment allowing for cover, evasive maneuvers and cat and mouse style playing with the AI. ODST managed the open hub because you could stay hidden and create your own opportunities for battles, but here you're just spotted from a bajillion miles away and a hail of projectiles come launching towards you before you've even come close enough to engage anybody. The sense of "here we go again" is utterly palpable.

But then sometimes it simply decides to be all focused and interesting, geometry/encounter wise and suddenly it's blissful and all sorts of reminding you why Halo is awesome.

Finished it just now and I have to say it's prolly my least fave campaign in the franchise though. This should've taken the ODST character hopping thing to the extreme and had you play all sorts of different soldiers and characters across Reach. It should've been emotionally engaging beyond cueing stock burning skyline every 30 minutes, and perhaps more than anything it should've been more excited to be the last Halo Bungie get to make. You get a little bit of sense of that at the very end, but I've no idea where the meaningful references were at for the majority of the runtime. Ho hum.

I can totally appreciate and level with the notion that it's mechanically and technically the best one. However, I think the difference between the games in that regard is by and large so miniscule that the structure and the scenario design easily becomes paramount, and as such I think Reach is the weakest. It has bouts of inspiration, to be sure, but the lack of character/story investment and the subsequent feeling that nothing that you do is really all that meaningful (until almost the very end) is a thundering disappointment for me.

Combined, those factors conspire to make me the least excited about this overall.