Having to deliver a Macguffin to set up the original trilogy. The survival rate of the cast. The destruction of the planet at the end.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Halo Reach’s campaign is so good.
- Thread starter T-Virus
- Start date
It's fun to play for sure, the cutscenes and music are a step above what bungie had previously accomplished (and what they've done since). Unfortunately all the dialogue sounds like it's been ripped out of a call of duty game and makes me not really care about the characters or the situation they're in.
My favourite Halo campaign.
+ Sombre tone of grim inevitability
+ More cinematic art style
+ That level that starts with storming the beach, then the rocket, then the space battle, then the ship infiltration – just perfect
+ No flood!
- Setpieces don't quite top Halo 3's peaks
- No player vs AI vs AI battles
+ Sombre tone of grim inevitability
+ More cinematic art style
+ That level that starts with storming the beach, then the rocket, then the space battle, then the ship infiltration – just perfect
+ No flood!
- Setpieces don't quite top Halo 3's peaks
- No player vs AI vs AI battles
It's pretty good I really like Long Night of Solace. I think Halo CE-3 are all better overall though. Reach never reaches the heights of Assault on the Control Room, Silent Cartographer, The Ark, The Covenant or Halo level wise and its writing falls short of 2 and 3.
Also it has the worst multiplayer in the franchise but I still enjoy it.
Also it has the worst multiplayer in the franchise but I still enjoy it.
i didnt like it at all and i expected to really like it
however i LOVED ODST and i didnt expect to like it
weird
however i LOVED ODST and i didnt expect to like it
weird
I love the missions but I don't care about the characters at all. I've played it a few times but I can't remember any of their names. Even Team Osiris are more memorable.
Halo CE is my favourite. Halo's always better with Chief and Cortana.
Edit: And I hate the look of the Assault rifle so I'm annoyed Infinite's is similar. You'd think with all of the CE inspiration evident in Infinite they'd use that design.
Halo CE is my favourite. Halo's always better with Chief and Cortana.
Edit: And I hate the look of the Assault rifle so I'm annoyed Infinite's is similar. You'd think with all of the CE inspiration evident in Infinite they'd use that design.
Now that I've played through all the Bungie Halos (playing through Halo 4 with friends at the moment):
I legitimately don't get the praise ODST and Reach get. They are far, far weaker campaigns compared to Halo 1-3 and for the same major reasons that those two games really want to try making you care for particular characters but forget the part where they actually make you care about particular characters using information from the game itself.
They have some cool setpiece levels but story-wise I can't help but go "wait these are the games people praised for the story????" now that i've experienced themselves: ODST just came off as a game trying to do the band of brothers thing except the characters get like, 10-15 minutes of actual screentime where they try to develop them, and that's at best. A lot of moments I recall as being mentioned as people's favourites back in the day just came off as obligatory moments the writers wanted.
Meanwhile Reach is a game that was billed to me as "the fall of Reach, humanity's most developed fortress against the Covenant", and then it was pointed out to me that the actual campaign skips over the part you would expect to play from that premise, and commits both the same sin ODST did and compounds it with a feeling of having extraneous characters (why does Carter exist, for instance) for your squad compared to ODST, which is kinda baffling for the far more expensive game to have compared to the budget title.
The one exception being Jorge who's got a very basic premise, but the game actually does do enough with him for it to work.
I legitimately don't get the praise ODST and Reach get. They are far, far weaker campaigns compared to Halo 1-3 and for the same major reasons that those two games really want to try making you care for particular characters but forget the part where they actually make you care about particular characters using information from the game itself.
They have some cool setpiece levels but story-wise I can't help but go "wait these are the games people praised for the story????" now that i've experienced themselves: ODST just came off as a game trying to do the band of brothers thing except the characters get like, 10-15 minutes of actual screentime where they try to develop them, and that's at best. A lot of moments I recall as being mentioned as people's favourites back in the day just came off as obligatory moments the writers wanted.
Meanwhile Reach is a game that was billed to me as "the fall of Reach, humanity's most developed fortress against the Covenant", and then it was pointed out to me that the actual campaign skips over the part you would expect to play from that premise, and commits both the same sin ODST did and compounds it with a feeling of having extraneous characters (why does Carter exist, for instance) for your squad compared to ODST, which is kinda baffling for the far more expensive game to have compared to the budget title.
The one exception being Jorge who's got a very basic premise, but the game actually does do enough with him for it to work.
Yeah, there definitely are a lot of similarities. Interestingly, Gary Whitta (the writer of Rogue One) also helped out with the story of Halo 5.
Oh, didn't know that. This also means there's a movie that Gary Whitta has written that I actually like.
This is... not true. Mission 1 is about discovering that the covenant are on Reach, mission 2 is "random" (although meant to set up the finale), mission 3 is scouting the covenant's invasion force which directly leads into mission 4, attacking the covenant invasion force, discovering their super carrier, which leads into mission 5, destroying their super carrier. With the exception of mission 2, missions 1-5 have a clear "mini-campaign" progression meant to give the idea that the war on reach is winnable, culminating in George's sacrifice and then the reality that the war is lost when the rest of the fleet invades. Mission 6 and 7 then show humanity losing the war, where the missions are intentionally 'random' because you're supposed to feel helpless. The war is already lost, and you're forced to watch what that means for humanity. The last 3 missions only work because you've spent those previous 2 missions seeing just how far humanity has fallen before it gives your characters a sliver of hope with Cortana.
I guess I can agree in the context of the game but it doesn't really feel that way when you know destroying one covenant ship isn't going to do anything about the covenant destroying reach...
The main plot is set up for foreshadowing with the Hungarians at the end of the first mission then dropped until you find halsey the second time. I guess that's what makes most of the missions feel like filler to me but your perspective is true I suppose.
That said I Think 95% of people who played reach knew reach was going to be destroyed before they started playing it.
Just started a few days ago. The music is indeed incredible but everything else feels just okay to me. The story, so far at least, is nothing to write home about ("this unit needs our support", "defend this place", "Covenants looking for information"). The gunplay, well, is pretty average and okay; nothing feel particualy special about it.
I wanted to play all Halo games before 4 but if this is the bar I'm going to expect from the other ones I'm not sure if I should jump straight to part 4.
I wanted to play all Halo games before 4 but if this is the bar I'm going to expect from the other ones I'm not sure if I should jump straight to part 4.
When the update with the FOV slider dropped last week I started the Reach campaign just to "quickly" check out the changes... ended up playing the first four levels. I only recently completed it when it was added to the MCC too, but I just wanted to play it all over again. It has always been 3 followed by 1 for me with everything else bringing up the rear. The more I play Reach though, the higher it's rising in my estimations.
It's good, and it has gotten better over time.
I remember I was let down by the Squad mechanics (or lack of) which given Halo 5's just as if not more questionable ones...
And the narrative was still a bit too thin for me.
None of it matches 3's highest highes, but it's still good.
I remember I was let down by the Squad mechanics (or lack of) which given Halo 5's just as if not more questionable ones...
And the narrative was still a bit too thin for me.
None of it matches 3's highest highes, but it's still good.
Started playing MasterChef collection recently in chronological order and I forgot how good Halo was.
As someone who has never played a Halo game before, I played 3 hours of it and quit because it felt super lame.
I like 4more than most but I admit the level design is pretty bad, probably the worst in the series. It doesn't really even have any memorable missions aside from maybe that mission on the Mammoth.
I like Composer because of the thruster + shotgun in close quarters is a lot of fun and Midnight for the trench run but other than that I find Halo 4 to be poorly paced and boring at times. Halo 4 lacks the great sandbox moments of Halo 3 and thus feels regressive to me.
I just remembered I do like the jungle level and the one with the portals but the fact I can't remember there names bodes poorly. They just aren't very memorable. And I have beaten halo 4 probably babably 5 or 6 times.
All of the Halo games have one thing or another that I particularly like about them, but Reach continues to be my favourite.
It's one of the best for sure. I understand it may be a bit dull to some, not in a realistic sense but just Halo being a bit more dramatic, straight, punchy 'it's one noisy game' and less James Cameron/Halo cheese. The Firefight campaign parts were perhaps not that great after the first time or two. It's the variety of levels that I really like.
Bloom isn't even that big of an issue in campaign. In MP it's awful, but in campaign it's really inconsequential.
Lore inconsistencies are my bigger gripe. That said, I've learned to look past it and see it for what it is. Bungie's meticulously crafted a world they introduce you to, before burning it down. It's just a shame we didn't get to spend more time on Reach and with these characters.
Release order. If you're in invested in the story, Reach hits way harder than it does when you're playing it as your first Halo.
1/2/3/ODST/Reach/4/5.
Got it -- thanks! Quick followup. I'm aware that Halo has a rather sprawling expanded universe. Novels, comics, whatevs. I've heard the games are best enjoyed with supplemental material being taken into account. Do you have any recommendations therein by chance?
It is the one that stood out the least to me at the time of release. Over the years, 343i's work has made it look nicer, but it still not very interesting to me.
Things it did that made me care less
I could go on, but there a just a multitude of things about it that just really make it the least appealing Bungie Halo game. (And for this post, I am just talking about the campaign, I think the MP was worse)
Things it did that made me care less
- More of a focus on 'realism' in the way characters interact, the guns, and overall look of things. It felt like it was trying to eat some of the Call of Duty pie, and I really didn't like that
- Entire cast are basically character archetypes with nothing to make them stand out from the "Quiet Badass" "By the books leader" "Gentle Giant", etc. No one stood out to me, and I didn't really care what happened to any of the characters.
- While 'fine' none of the levels were as visually mesmerizing as levels on the Halo rings in Halo 1-3, nor were they as thoughtful as the levels in ODST
- It lost that 'camp' that I feel the bungie games were known for. Having serious stuff happen, but throw in a quip or two, "I know what you're thinking, and it's crazy" "So, stay here" "Unfortunately for us both, I like crazy" That level of slight silliness was completely absent in Reach.
- The muted color palette made everything sort of blur together for me, aside perhaps the one city level where you flew from place to place, and the one space mission.
- The focus on mid range weapons, and return of health packs made a lot of the combat, especially on harder difficulties be reduced to longer/mid range fights, taking melee basically out of the question. Melee was one of the pillars of gameplay in Halo, just basically sidelining it was moving away from what I liked about Halo's sandbox.
I could go on, but there a just a multitude of things about it that just really make it the least appealing Bungie Halo game. (And for this post, I am just talking about the campaign, I think the MP was worse)
I agree.
Story is also different in tone compared to previous games.
Narratively
Including the RTS games...
1. Halo Wars
2. Halo Reach
2. Halo: Combat Evolved
3. Halo 2
4. Halo 3: ODST
5. Halo 3
6. Halo 4
7. Halo 4 Spartan Ops
8. Halo5: Guardians
9. Halo Wars 2
i find it REALLY interesting how the series holds up, in SP and MP, between casual halo fans and the diehard community. its almost like you could take the general consensus ranking, for each group, and just flip it completely for the other. comical.
EDIT: for shits - h3 > h3 odst > h:ce > h2 > reach > h5 > h4 > every other fps shooter franchise (thats right)
poor 343. i dont envy you.
EDIT: for shits - h3 > h3 odst > h:ce > h2 > reach > h5 > h4 > every other fps shooter franchise (thats right)
poor 343. i dont envy you.
Last edited:
If you're intending to play them all, just play them in the order they released. Playing them in chronological story order is hugely overrated, and is going to lead to whiplash moments like going from Halo Reach to Halo CE.
My big problem with Halo 4, aside from the Prometheans not being fun to fight, and the overall Forerunner aesthetic being reconned into endless Tron hallways, was just that the story's lore is as dense as a dying star, but told about as poorly as humanly possible.
The story is filled with proper nouns - The Didact, The Librarian, The Composer, Prometheans, etc. - but to even fully understand who and what these things are you at minimum need to find and watch all of the terminals in the game, and ideally you'd have also read the trilogy of Forerunner books. Without them the Didact is just half-baked Bad Guy Man, and the Librarian is Nice Lady who does... something... to you. And the saddest part, is that all of the new lore introduced in the 343 era is actually really interesting! Those books are really dense and interesting sci-fi! The Didact is a really interesting character!
But you'd never know any of this from just playing through the game's narrative.
I also really didn't like the soap opera stuff between Chief and Cortana. I swear about 40% of Chief's dialogue is just him saying "Cortana" over and over.
343i said they want to focus on the sandbox more in Infinite but compare taking out gun batteries in Reach to the Infinite demo. In Tip of the Spear you can blow up the gun batteries with rocket hogs, wraiths, etc or you can go into the gun battery and destroy the core. In Infinite's demo it says to access the console and hack the gun battery to destroy it which essentially boils down to pushing a button. This is something 343i needs to work on that Bungie did so much better let us blow things up ourselves and forget pushing a button.
Awesome, thanks! <3 I'll play in release order instead but it's good to know everything that's relatively vital.
Aye-aye.
As someone who's read most of the novels: don't worry about 'em. If you find you enjoy the universe enough to delve deeper into the background lore, there's some excellent stuff out there like Greg Bear's Forerunner trilogy. But by no means are they mandatory
Halo Mythos is a good one if you want to learn more, as well. The Eric Nylund books are great too, though Fall of Reach was partially retconned by the game and First Strike has pretty much been forgotten.
If you find yourself lost going into Halo 4, check out the Kilo 5 trilogy (or rather read a summary online). Karen Traviss' work is rather divisive, but a lot of stuff she introduced has carried over into the rest of the universe.
If you like the ODST characters, you can check out New Blood and Bad Blood. The latter takes place post-Halo 5 however.
Also, stick to the shooter campaigns for now. If you find you really want more Halo, give Halo Wars 1 and 2 a whirl after you're done. Halo Wars 2 plays a role in the buildup to Infinite, but other than that the stories aren't really important.
As for Halo 4 Spartan Ops: just check the cutscenes online or read a summary after playing Halo 4. In no way is it worth playing through in 2020, and it was received so badly that its important plot points only got resolved in a comic.
Last edited:
It's definitely incredible the first few times but not the best for a lot of replays. Still, it's tied with ODST for my favorite in the series.
3-ODST-Reach were the peak years. CE gets hyped to ridiculous proportions (I was there day one as I was a huge Sega fangirl and the Xbox was the de facto Dreamcast successor in many ways) despite actually being highly flawed and 2 gets hated on to even more ridiculous proportions considering how gigantic of an improvement over CE it actually was but it's with #3 where the series really started peaking.
I'm not sure which I like most between 3, ODST or Reach but I have no qualms with accepting Reach as a definite contender for the crown even though on average I probably lean towards ODST's more intimate and atmospheric approach a tad bit more.
I'm not sure which I like most between 3, ODST or Reach but I have no qualms with accepting Reach as a definite contender for the crown even though on average I probably lean towards ODST's more intimate and atmospheric approach a tad bit more.
Man I thought I'd be the only one to think this. I enjoyed it but out of all the titles but I just could not get into the story of Reach. That ending sequence was really great though.
Truth. Unfortunately, I feel like the criticisms apply to many shooters. 1-3 are my preference as well.
It's a much bigger issue in MP for sure, but even SP feels significantly better with zero bloom for me. Inconsequential or not.
Agree with everything here.