Zero Punctuation: Halo: Reach

[CopperBoom]

Gay-lo Reach-around?
So immature, but surely it will be used at one point this week, I can feel it.

 

[blaquenoise]

The N-word was not necessary. Funny but not necessary.

 

[katsabas]

I am just glad that Yahtzee also liked the ending. If he didn't, I would definitely think there is something wrong with him cause it sounded like it was right up his alley.

 

[NKnight]

Repetitive gameplay? Are you kidding? Every headshot, every twitch kill is a completely new and different experience from the last. Like in the degrees you turn. And who you're killing. And stuff.

I smell sarcasm

 

[EightGaugeHippo]

Let me make that point more clear. The two films may have been different down to every detail. But I went to see it expecting more of the great story telling and epic battles I got from a new hope.

Mass Effect 1&2 both have great story and epic encounters.

The same can be said for Halo 1-Reach

Wait a second, are you actually saying you played Halo for the story? Really? Because i came in expecting a good story, but i haven't found it. It was simpler than the horrible mishmash that Halo 2 was, but it wasn't good.

No I dont play halo for the story, if I did I would be a complete fucking retard (its still better written than half of the bile most studios are churing out atm). I play it because its fun and I enjoy it.

A great example of sequel done better is Half-Life 2. New Weapons, new enemies, same enemies in new and refreshing disguise, new gameplay-elements like the gravity-gun, completely different setting and storyline, new characters, more depth, etc.

Halo is missing all that.

Spoiler: my reply

Halo 1 -> Halo 2:
New weapons:
Battle Rifle, SMG, Carbine, beam rifle, sentinal beam, fuel rod cannon, energy sword, brute shot.

New vehicles
Phantom, Gauss Hog, (drivable) Wraith, specter.

New Enemys:
Brutes, "defenders"

Same enemys in a new/referesing disguise
covenant heretic elites and grunts. (Shows their is opposition to the covenant other than humanity.)

New game play elements
Xbox live, bording vehicles, active camo ability (as the arbitor), Boss fights.

Completly different setting
Earth, Threshold Gas mining Plant, High Charity. (also the Halo ring in 2 is completly different but Im not going to mention it because you will throw a hissy fit)

New characters
Maranda Keyes
Lord Hood
3 Prophet leaders:Truth, Mercy and Regret.
Tarterus
Half Jaw
The arbitor
The Gravemind

More Depth
Expanded the Covenant's side of the story, not only through cutscenes, but through playable Covenant levels.
The flood are discovered to have a highly intelligent hivemind, making them a much bigger threat than just normal "zombie things".

Ok and that is just the difference between Halo 1 and 2. Just to make sure you understand what I have just done:
I have added something into every catergory YOU stated Halo's sequels didnt have.

 

[juffeee]

Best game ever! =)

 

[Neferius]

Interesting... I may have misjudged this Game.
And apparently so has Yahtzee ...something which he definitely made-up for through Video.
There is no greater compliment for your artwork than when a Critic is struggling to criticize it even though he actually enjoys it and/or thinks it's pretty good ...which is just tearing him up inside.

I feel your Pain mr. Croshaw ...I really do

 

[ZippyDSMlee]

I am surprised he didn't go after the AI more. other than that it sounds about right. Its half assed but a semi sexy ass so you can forgive it a bit till it shats on you.

 

[starwarsgeek]

Don't want to discuss multiplayer? Fine. Unprofessional to ignore a key component of the game, but fine...
But why not even mention Forge, Firefight, or Theater? Do those suddenly require backup?

 

[Netrigan]

He never said it was original. In fact, it plays just about every 'Last Stand' trope to a t. He said he liked it because it was a nice example of gameplay and story working to together to get a message across.

On Halo: Reach, and Halo in general, I find it a fascinating series because it's so... average. Like, Joe from Idiocracy average. The story, the gameplay, the characters, set pieces, weapons, vehicle sections, innovations... all remarkably unremarkable. Whether that's a bad thing or not I'll leave for my fellow consumers to decide, but I know for a fact that Bungie is better than this. Oni wasn't half bad.

It's tough for me to gauge the original Halo, since I had to wait for it to get ported over and Far Cry stole most of its thunder with vehicles. But at the time of its release, it did enough differently that it would have stood out from the crowd. The vehicles alone would have done that, but the nifty grenade and melee buttons gave the players a couple of non-standard combat options (both had appeared before, but not in a major hit). And the game itself was like the bastard child of Unreal and Half-Life, two games that reviewers and players loved.

The problem I see creeping in with the series is that they didn't take any real chances. Most of what's been done with the series can be described as "tweaks". Add an enemy type or two, add a weapon or two, add a new power-up or two, but make sure that most Halo levels look and play exactly like the fans expect them to. Looking toward the Gears franchise, which I like but don't love, I see them taking a few chances, expanding on what they do, but introducing elements that actually piss some fans off, who would have preferred the conflict stay exactly the way it was in the first game.

Five games in, I think the franchise is pretty close to the edge. I think every game franchise that has gone on long enough has seen massive defections from their core fanbase, with old fans ruefully wishing that someone had just let the franchise die instead of becoming the shambling monstrosity that craps out half-ass games ever couple of years. How long can the same basic gameplay keep a series going after other games have taken the core gameplay and expanded on it in ways the original can not or will not? If the devs introduce a game changing plot element, would hardcore fans accept it? With Bungie out of the picture, will the new devs be treated much more harshly since they had nothing to do with the success of the franchise?

 

[Azaraxzealot]

Really? You do realise ONI stands for Office of Naval Intelligence...and its been referenced through pretty much every game. (Except the first I think)

for the second time:
this is STILL more than likely a reference because they COULD HAVE used different initials, but yet they CONSCIOUSLY chose to use a name with that acronym

 

[Dr. Dice Lord]

Great, entertaining review as always Yahtzee. As a Halo fanboy I'm glad you actually managed to eek some enjoyment out of the game... I'm totally with you on the space mission though, that was too much fun to have such a small part in the game.

More love for space games/missions!

 

[Lancer723]

I know the open inside of the hornet is pretty dumb, but to be fair real helicopters aren't really that protective anyway. Anything that uses a rotor can't be too heavy or it won't fly, thus they aren't very heavily armored. Besides have you ever seen a Huey? I'm pretty sure the sides of those things are made out of paper mache.

 

[Taisen]

Really? You do realise ONI stands for Office of Naval Intelligence...and its been referenced through pretty much every game. (Except the first I think)

for the second time:
this is STILL more than likely a reference because they COULD HAVE used different initials, but yet they CONSCIOUSLY chose to use a name with that acronym

Well maybe part way, but they sure didnt sit down and say the Acronym had to be ONI first, then think of the words for it. If we were to become a space faring species, it is the Navy who would be the major military presense in space. So from the start it had to be Naval to make any sense at all.

The other two words could be argued from several points so that really takes them out. The only thing left in my mind is why they would include a reference to a game that has no relation (that I know of) to the Halo universe. The Marathon references make sense, as the story and universe similarities are still being argued about amongst community members to this day.

All in all, I beleive that the acronym was created with no intention to be a shout out to a previous game but instead was a coincidence in our english language.

 

[Netrigan]

Recall that he has said that he really enjoys Team Fortress 2. I'm starting to think he might enjoy Halo a lot more if there were no single player campaign. Basically, if there's a single player mode, he's going to judge it based on that and the multiplayer is just extra. If a game is meant to be ABSOLUTELY nothing but multiplayer, then that's the only thing he can judge it on.

I know, someone else pointed that out so I clarified it. But you can't judge a game on only one aspect is what I was saying. If there's a multiplayer option, at least try it out. A game that focuses on multiplayer but has a single player like Borderlands isn't being fairly judged when the main selling point isn't even properly tried out.

It wouldn't be the most well-rounded review, but a game that sells itself as a single player game (and almost all of them do), it should stand up as a single player game.

In recent years, with metacritic and Tomato scores becoming all important, I've noticed how fans of a particular property have gotten much more hostile toward reviewers who don't like the stuff they like. But a reviewers job is not to tell you what you already think about something, but to explain what he thinks about something and why. If a movie reviewer goes into a horror movie, has a good time despite him not liking horror movies, then his review needs to say that. Because somewhere there might be a potential movie goer who doesn't usually like horror movies, find said movie intriguing, and decides to check it out because a like-minded reviewer gave it a thumbs up.

My big problem with video game reviews (and I actually did two or three video game reviews for the GameSpy network back in the dark ages of the Wages Of Sin add-on pack) is that far too often the ones doing the reviews are major fans of a given big-name franchise. A really great multi-player experience can cause them to completely gloss over major defects in the single player campaign... the latter being the only thing I care about. I wish more of them would do what one critic of Halo: Reach did, give two different scores: one for single player and one for multi-player. Because the two play modes are very different and need to be treated differently. In such a case, you could hand the single player off to someone who judges it *solely* on its single player merits, then hand the multiplayer off to another experienced on-line warrior and have him judge it *solely* on its multiplayer merits.

 

[GeorgW]

I was very unimpressed with Halo Reach, especially compared to Halo 3. It's basically the same game. But I would have loved to hear Yahtzee's thoughts on the multiplayer. Not only because it's the only good part of the game (I hate the story of halo.), but because I would have loved to see his reactions to the players. A spiritual successor of mailbag showdown, perhaps. Please make a new video like that!

 

[the_pleasure_is_mine]

Well maybe part way, but they sure didnt sit down and say the Acronym had to be ONI first, then think of the words for it. If we were to become a space faring species, it is the Navy who would be the major military presense in space. So from the start it had to be Naval to make any sense at all.

The other two words could be argued from several points so that really takes them out. The only thing left in my mind is why they would include a reference to a game that has no relation (that I know of) to the Halo universe. The Marathon references make sense, as the story and universe similarities are still being argued about amongst community members to this day.

All in all, I beleive that the acronym was created with no intention to be a shout out to a previous game but instead was a coincidence in our english language.

No they definitely made it reference ONI. They probably didn't start out saying 'We're going to reference ONI!' but they definitely eventually chose Office of Naval Intelligence because of ONI.

They didn't go 'Oh would you look at that, the initials are the same as one of our older games! Oh what a complete coincidence we hadn't realised before now'.

 

[Buckett]

There's a reason he probably ignores the multiplayer. Maybe it's the millions of homophobic, racist kids who take the game way to seriously and yell total bullshit whenever they get the chance. It's a good game component but a game needs to be able to have a story otherwise it gets bland.

Besides, some of the best games don't have multiplayer. Take Bioshock: it had an intriguing plot with interesting characters, good combat, and an amazing twist that would make M Knight Shyamalan shit himself. It did this all without multiplayer and when they brought multiplayer to the second one it didnt really add anything, it was just a way for the game to stretch out as long as it could.

 

[Taisen]

Well maybe part way, but they sure didnt sit down and say the Acronym had to be ONI first, then think of the words for it. If we were to become a space faring species, it is the Navy who would be the major military presense in space. So from the start it had to be Naval to make any sense at all.

The other two words could be argued from several points so that really takes them out. The only thing left in my mind is why they would include a reference to a game that has no relation (that I know of) to the Halo universe. The Marathon references make sense, as the story and universe similarities are still being argued about amongst community members to this day.

All in all, I beleive that the acronym was created with no intention to be a shout out to a previous game but instead was a coincidence in our english language.

No they definitely made it reference ONI. They probably didn't start out saying 'We're going to reference ONI!' but they definitely eventually chose Office of Naval Intelligence because of ONI.

They didn't go 'Oh would you look at that, the initials are the same as one of our older games! Oh what a complete coincidence we hadn't realised before now'.

That is probably a more realistic point of view that I would accept. Still, if instead of ONI they had another 3 letter game and they had a list of Titles/acronyms, one being the ONI we know, and the other being the acronym of the new game, I beleive they would take into consideration the legitimacy of the Title.

Obviously Office of Naval Intelligence fits nicely and sounds legit. Something on the other hand that might fit the other acronym but sound ridiculous wouldn't be used just because it ties in with the name of the earlier game. There was just some luck that the title worked well and fit the acronym. Otherwise i'm sure they would have fit it in there somewhere else, the Halo Universe is massive anyway.

 

[Scow2]

I find the fact that a game must be held up by only it's single player is complete bullshit because it removes a HUGE part of the game, multiplayer was made because campaign can only be played so many times before it becomes boring so ignoring the multiplayer completely is kinda bullshit.

Some games were purposely meant to be played multiplayer (Left 4 Dead) but the single player is there if you don't have an internet connection or friends.

Yes, yes it is. Even Yahtzee recognized that he couldn't review the game fairly without taking its multiplayer into account, as demonstrated by his overly-emphatic denial (Has anyone heard of a thing called subtext?) Not judging games by their Multiplayer Component is one of the Rules (Set in Concrete, and defined in Precedent) of his reviews, and he was forcing himself to keep it through that part of the review. Also, playing online (due to GIFT) kills the multiplayer's contribution to the game deader-than-dead.

Remember, he had to SHUT HIMSELF UP before reviewing the Multiplayer feature, which probably means it defied his expectations enough to be worth mentioning.

Ever since his Psychonauts review, he only focuses on the negative aspects of a game, unless it's a Counterpoint review for a week he has nothing to do (Such as his Retrospectiverice of Persia Sands of Time Trilogy). He doesn't mention the good unless it's a counterpoint to the bad.

Aside from his lack of objectivism in his review(He only focuses on the negative) and his use of hyperbole for making a point, he's a pretty unbiased reviewer when it comes to games within the Genres he plays. While he mocked the fandom mercilessly, I think he made it clear that what would annoy the fandom wouldn't be him trashing the game in front of their eyes, but the fact it's the last game from and Endorsed by Bungie. He only reviewed the game on its own gameplay, and in light of the elements the prequels had. He didn't review it based on Hatedom Impression.

I do disagree with his argument on "Same Guns" since I've seen that more as a matter of maintaining continuity than unoriginality (Unreal tried rebooting its Continuity in Unreal 2, but that game's never been acknowledged since) and each game has completely overhauled the weapons themselves.

What I got out of this review was, he liked it a lot more than he's letting on. But, it wasn't so special and/or revolutionary to him as games like Sands of Time, Half-Life 2, Thief 2, Shadow of the Colossus, or Silent Hill 2 for him to consider it a "Classic".

I'm also glad Bungie's done with Halo. 343 Studios can continue to keep the franchise alive while while the games stagnate, but polite folk can feel free to disregard those games and stick with the original Bungie games. Bungie, in the meantime, can go back to creating new, fun, and innovative games, no longer burdened by maintaining the Halo Franchise.