Halo: Reach, Is there a point?

[Docbrown]

ok

1 reach is good if you have played all halo games
2 the gameplay is worth it
3 support bungie not microsoft
the better reach does the more bungie takes credit cause after reach its up to 343 industries(micorosoft) to make halo games and im sure halo 4(what ever it will be) will fail
and for once a good developer triumphs over the shitty publisher
Buying reach and MW2 while not buyiing there sequels sends a message to publishers
4 ignore the facts of halo as a fan of the books i can tell you they fuck up the facts
A spartan 3's were not made until spartan 2's where public aka all dead, this was after reach because spartan 2's were developed on reach
B it takes 15 years to make spartans
C spartan 3's are inferior and were made on ONYX
D there are 2 generations of 3's aprox 450 total
E there were only 71 spartan 2's only 50ish survived augmentation
F the first gen of 3's were all killed in one large battle
G 3's didnt wear MJOLNIR armour
H real spartans are 7+ feet 300lbs and can run up to 50mph, They are so advanced its beyond the ability to display in a game. In game the only diff between you and real men is your sheilds
5 the game is good
its short
but hell reach is a short battle
besides most campaigns are senseless gunfights anyway
Bungie admits when it has this much game
it makes a solid but not so large game and doesnt pad it with long extranious battles and repetitive missions
id rather lay a shorter game and love it rather then play a long game with stuff designed simply to waste my time

I Cortana is with john since his activation test and then handed over to keyes for the ship then back to john
Cortana is intended as an AI assist to john
J i could go on but noone cares

 

[The Procrastinated End]

It's enjoyable and adds to the Halo franchise, but you can't take my word for it because enjoying Halo is considered by some to be a sign of retardation.

 

[L4hlborg]

Reach is a good game. Good point enough?

To be more specific, they've polished all the mutliplayer things and combined them in one. Firefight, forge, good matchmaking and custom gametypes (in firefight too) will give you lots to do for a while. The campaign is fun, though a bit short. It's really hard on legendary though, it has taken me over 10 hours to complete.

If you are into achievments, this game is for you. Getting full achievments will take less than a month, if you work efficiently. I've already gotten most of the major achievments, after completing the campaign, I'll only have to level up in multiplayer.

 

[Erana]

I think you've been slightly misinformed. The protagonist is not "an average soldier." Noble 6 is a Spartan similar to the Master Chief with comparable abilities. In fact, the new armor abilities make the character more capable than the Chief from a gameplay perspective.

From what I've been told, Noble 6 is slightly less capable than the Master Chief ('lore wise', anyway) because he's a Spartan III while Chief is a Spartan II or something.

But yes, either way it's not like you're playing a basic marine.

Well yes, according to the Expanded Universe, Spartan-IIIs are not quite as good as Spartan-IIs. In the actual game however, your abilities are more or less the same. The game doesn't really follow "lore" much anyway. Indeed, it directly contradicts the earlier accounts of the Battle of Reach in the novels (I won't lie, I was disappointed by that). Of course, the original source material trumps third party interpretations for the official canon, so it's debatable now whether Spartan-IIs are actually better than Spartan-IIIs.

I hear (again, not got it yet) that you get reticle bloom in Reach which you didn't get in the previous games, which implies that if nothing else, Master Chief is much better at holding his hand steady while firing his guns

Good point. Perhaps the Chief's MJOLNIR armor has internal stabilizers that help steady his aim. Of course, the player characters in ODST didn't have reticle bloom either (except with the SMG). Acute observation, though.

While going on with the whole Spartan II/III discussion, I'll explain 'em briefly (In what I hope is an amusing manner) for those who didn't read the books:
Spartan I's: standard, "Lets see what happens if we try to make supersoldiers in a secret guvment program!"
Spartan II's: The original Spartans kicked the ass of whomever the super secret portion of the space army told 'em to, so they took this formula, perfected it, and made a new generation of supersoldiers to do their bidding. Fight some bad space pirates or weird colonists or something like that. Then they develop these suits of armor with a 1337 name, and only after developing fully-functioning prototypes do they realise that any normal person trying to use it winds up breaking their own bones from the sheer power of it in what I can only guess would be the most traumatic fashion show ever.
Then the evil alien empire shows up going all, "We're gonna kill you 'cause the floating camel-men with ring fixations tell us to!" :V
And then the super space military's like, "OMG, we've actually got something to use these supersoldiers on!" and proceed to send them to fight the covenant. At some point here, they yoinked some alien shield technology and proceeded to do it better than the aliens somehow. At first, the super secret space army people are all like, "Nope, nothing to see here. You didn't just see a bunch of super soldiers doing super things," then realized that its good for morale to have 8-foot tall, seemingly invincible supermen running around, so they started showing 'em off, and later, they started insisting, "No, that supersoldier that just got 'asploded is just... MIA! Yeah! They can't die, silly."
Spartan III's: Eventually, as the supersoldier stores were a-dwindlin', they decided that they need more front-lines pro-humanity mascot characters. And seeing how humanity's in big trouble, they embrace their newfound popularity and proceed to mass-produce their hit IP. And you know what happens when things begin to be mass-produced, right?
Yeah, it turns out just like how that cheap-o microwave only lasted two years on you, when your grandmother has a 20-year-old model that's still working, though you wonder a bit about microwave radiation leaks at times...
So, they made a lot more guys that weren't as well trained, with a greater margin of physical error, with less-effective armor, and shove 'em out the door years before they ever field-tested their previous supersoldiers.
And they went, "Hey, peeps! Look, even more supersoldiers! Spartans 4 evur!!1!" \o/
And then a lot of 'em get killed to death.

So yeah, the Spartan IIIs are younger, not as well educated, and with weaker equipment than their predecessors. There's the very real possibility that the characters one plays in Reach is just so good, he overcomes these handicaps, but then again, I haven't gotten my hands on the game yet, so I can't see for myself. D:
And also, am I missing something? Its been years now since I read the Fall of Reach, (Or any Halo book for that matter) but did I just miss/forget a part about Spartan IIIs being there, or is this the ret-con I've heard some people muttering about?

 

[gmaverick019_v1legacy]

Of course there has been lots and lots of hype about the new halo game. But from the reviews comments always seem to stick out to me "there isn't much new content'. In fact I think there is only a single new aspect of the game. Even the idea of having the main protagonist as an average soldier was already done in the previous game (that I didn't buy btw) and apart from some new maps and story, what would I get out of this that I couldn't get out of Halo 3.
Is it actually a better game?

well you are misinformed than, besides new weapons and better AI (alarmingly smart assholes, the grenade throws they have pulled off on me...god dammit) there is also:

*the new classes, highly varying the game of halo as we once knew it
*the elite vs spartan debate, they are different now (for the better for sure)
* customizing in armor/etc.. (including them in cutscenes)


plus the new forgeworld, MUCH MUCH improved, plus firefight, all mixed in with the best campaign for halo, i dont see how its just "a little bit more content".

plus noble 6 is not an average soldier, not at all, if anything he is a somewhat different master chief that unfortunately was on reach when everything happened

also, in the nitpicky side, the aiming is much more accurate, so its more on how accurate you are depending on your distance rather than spray n pray

it is a MUCH better game than halo 3.

 

[MisterShine]

Is it actually a better game?

Taken from the view of solely the campaign:

No. Honestly the plot, characterization, pacing, and atmosphere all range from poor to average.

Since everyone who knows Halo already knows what happens at Reach, the writers had an uphill battle to make the story engaging and worthwhile, and they certainly failed at that challenge. Almost none of the characters have any meaningful personality other than one characteristic that defines them from each other, the mission objectives are mostly a waste (Go to fort 132-B and defend from Covenant. Go to Air Defense Tower 172-C to turn it back on. Hold off wave of covenant. Next level). Other than good set backgrounds (like when your character "Re-enters", you guys know what I'm talking about) and excellent music, Reach is very Ho-Hum. And as someone who was hoping that with Bungie's last at-bat with their beloved series that they would really try to push things, to make this an epic 'finale', I was pretty let-down. Though I suppose that is my fault for expecting a great experience, without at all investigating how it would play.

Unless you've never experienced Halo and want to give it a shot now, or you just really love the way Halo campaigns play, I cannot recommend a Reach purchase to anyone.

edit: Fixed some stuff.

edit2: Removed opinions on multiplayer, I didn't put much effort into it, I don't want to state opinions on things I didn't really try to get into.

 

[Ertol]

From what I've played it is pretty fun. Nothing ground breaking or amazing yet, but it's good. Not sure if I would pay $60 for it, but I don't really like the whole FPS genre a whole lot. Personally I find it to be the best in the series. The story is unfolding nicely, and I hear its anywhere from 5-10 hours long (depending on your ability to stay alive). Seems like the average time for a FPS game that spends a lot of its energy on the multiplayer apsect, especially with forge world. Sure I can go out and find some games that take anywhere from 30 to 50 hours to beat, but that dosen't stop the campaign and multiplayer from being fun.

 

[sneakypenguin]

I enjoyed the game.
I found it fun and I liked the story.

How long is the campaign? I'm getting a 360 soon and I'm looking for some good single player exclusives.

It took me about 5-6 hours to beat in it in one sitting on normal difficulty.
Make of that what you will.

wow really? thats it, Im glad I didnt buy it
a good fps should have a 12 hour campaign, like the original halo did

Not to sound argumentative, but you could run through halo CE in under 2 hours co-op and under 3 hours single player on heroic. I really can't think of an fps that goes past 10 hrs.(for me at least lol) HL2 5-6, MW under 4, fallout3 4-6 hrs, MW2 under 3, bad company 2 under 4. So 5-6 on normal 6-7 on heroic would be pretty much above avg it seems for Reach.

 

[Ace of Spades]

Well, I was playing it at a friend's house today, and I and a colleague of mine both equipped ourselves with jetpacks and energy swords and had a mid-air duel. That's worth something in my book.

 

[rabidmidget]

Truthfully, it's forge that's hooking me into into it. Forge was fun in Halo 3, but they've now bumped it up several notches, where almost everything that took exploitations of glitches in Halo 3, are now proper features.

 

[rabidmidget]

I enjoyed the game.
I found it fun and I liked the story.

How long is the campaign? I'm getting a 360 soon and I'm looking for some good single player exclusives.

It took me about 5-6 hours to beat in it in one sitting on normal difficulty.
Make of that what you will.

wow really? thats it, Im glad I didnt buy it
a good fps should have a 12 hour campaign, like the original halo did

Not to sound argumentative, but you could run through halo CE in under 2 hours co-op and under 3 hours single player on heroic. I really can't think of an fps that goes past 10 hrs.(for me at least lol) HL2 5-6, MW under 4, fallout3 4-6 hrs, MW2 under 3, bad company 2 under 4. So 5-6 on normal 6-7 on heroic would be pretty much above avg it seems for Reach.

If fallout 3 took you only 6 hours, you were playing it wrong.

 

[Reep]

I enjoyed the game.
I found it fun and I liked the story.

How long is the campaign? I'm getting a 360 soon and I'm looking for some good single player exclusives.

It took me about 5-6 hours to beat in it in one sitting on normal difficulty.
Make of that what you will.

wow really? thats it, Im glad I didnt buy it
a good fps should have a 12 hour campaign, like the original halo did

Thats normal though, took me about 9-10 hours on legendary with each mission taking about an hour.

 

[Worgen]

I enjoyed the game.
I found it fun and I liked the story.

How long is the campaign? I'm getting a 360 soon and I'm looking for some good single player exclusives.

It took me about 5-6 hours to beat in it in one sitting on normal difficulty.
Make of that what you will.

wow really? thats it, Im glad I didnt buy it
a good fps should have a 12 hour campaign, like the original halo did

Not to sound argumentative, but you could run through halo CE in under 2 hours co-op and under 3 hours single player on heroic. I really can't think of an fps that goes past 10 hrs.(for me at least lol) HL2 5-6, MW under 4, fallout3 4-6 hrs, MW2 under 3, bad company 2 under 4. So 5-6 on normal 6-7 on heroic would be pretty much above avg it seems for Reach.

you can glitch or run your way tho most games in a pretty short time but that means missing out on a ton of stuff, you can actualy win fallout 3 in like 2 and a half hours, I think that was the time that the devs clocked a speed run at. The point Im making is that when I shell out 60-beyond for a game I expect a nice sized single player that I dont be able to beat in a sitting, yes cod 4 was really cool but it was also damn short and really the only reason I got it was because it came with a videocard I got, sure the multi was great but its the length of the single that sells me on a game, unless Im buying the game for multi like I did with bad company 2

 

[RowdyRodimus]

Spoiler: Why Reach was made

There's also the fact that it is awesome.

Not to mention the fact that it also pisses off all the indie/hipsters who hate anything that wasn't made by a guy using a Tandy in his basement while smoking clove ciggarettes and drinking non-fat lattes. Wait, that's just a bonus.

 

[Pearwood]

I've never seen Halo Reach and have only played one game in the series but I thought Halo was one of those series that don't really need new content. It's the same argument I defended Starcraft 2 with, don't fix what isn't broken or you'll end up with balance issues, fans who don't like the new content and on the whole a far inferior product

 

[sneakypenguin]

snip snip
you can glitch or run your way tho most games in a pretty short time but that means missing out on a ton of stuff, you can actualy win fallout 3 in like 2 and a half hours, I think that was the time that the devs clocked a speed run at. The point Im making is that when I shell out 60-beyond for a game I expect a nice sized single player that I dont be able to beat in a sitting, yes cod 4 was really cool but it was also damn short and really the only reason I got it was because it came with a videocard I got, sure the multi was great but its the length of the single that sells me on a game, unless Im buying the game for multi like I did with bad company 2

If you don't sprint past/ drive past any combat sections and you play reach on heroic i'd say you could get 8-10 hours at least. We did co-op on heroic and pretty much facerolled everything and beat it in 7. Plus its cool cause you get the weekly and daily challenges, scoring, skulls, and firefight to expand single player life. Its worth the purchase i'd say especially if you venture into firefight with friends, we've already sunk in 10+ hours in that, my fav being Gruntpocalypse.

 

[Worgen]

I enjoyed the game.
I found it fun and I liked the story.

How long is the campaign? I'm getting a 360 soon and I'm looking for some good single player exclusives.

It took me about 5-6 hours to beat in it in one sitting on normal difficulty.
Make of that what you will.

wow really? thats it, Im glad I didnt buy it
a good fps should have a 12 hour campaign, like the original halo did

Thats normal though, took me about 9-10 hours on legendary with each mission taking about an hour.

still its annoying to have to play it on a higher difficulty to stretch the game out, I only played halo 3 on heroic or legendary, never normal since it would be much too short

 

[Worgen]

snip snip
you can glitch or run your way tho most games in a pretty short time but that means missing out on a ton of stuff, you can actualy win fallout 3 in like 2 and a half hours, I think that was the time that the devs clocked a speed run at. The point Im making is that when I shell out 60-beyond for a game I expect a nice sized single player that I dont be able to beat in a sitting, yes cod 4 was really cool but it was also damn short and really the only reason I got it was because it came with a videocard I got, sure the multi was great but its the length of the single that sells me on a game, unless Im buying the game for multi like I did with bad company 2

If you don't sprint past/ drive past any combat sections and you play reach on heroic i'd say you could get 8-10 hours at least. We did co-op on heroic and pretty much facerolled everything and beat it in 7. Plus its cool cause you get the weekly and daily challenges, scoring, skulls, and firefight to expand single player life. Its worth the purchase i'd say especially if you venture into firefight with friends, we've already sunk in 10+ hours in that, my fav being Gruntpocalypse.

if ms didnt charge to play games multi player then I would have gotten it but I dont do the gold thing since I already pay isp so being charged on top of that is stupid especially when I have a gaming pc

 

[GammaZord]

Having not played Reach I understand the campaign is short--but vaired.

Honestly, I'd rather trade a short but varied experience than a long, repetitive one. Many games have nailed the long campaign succesfully. But with it's fourth game in less than 10 years that's probably pretty tough.

I respect Bungie for not allowing the game to get repetitive (from what I hear), which bothers me more than anyting about a game.

Needless to say...I look forward to playing this game no doubt.