I was a fan of halo until I heard they were making another trilogy. Instead of making a new game with a new story maybe set in the same universe they just went the safer route of continuing the story, a story which had a pretty good end to it. Now you have things like dubstep in it which completely shit over Marty's work and destroys the atmosphere for the series. There has to be an end to a good thing otherwise it'll continue on and it can't be good forever. Unless you're just looking for a multiplayer fix then I guess halo 4 is for you.
Well, it's supposed to be a new story line, just the same character. It's not continuing the human-covenant conflict (as it ended), it's exploring the forerunners and getting closer to chief. I'm excited to see what they've done, and I hope it's good. The dubstep in the weapons trailers was kind of lame. Marty's music was awesome though, I'd put up there with Star Wars on memorable music.
That's what I meant by story, how the chief's story was ended in halo 3 was almost perfect. I don't expect this new trilogy to come anywhere close to what has already been achieved. I can only see halo 6's ending being a mere shadow in comparison to halo 3's, anything they do will be compared to halo 3's ending. Not to mention halo 9's ending, microsoft seems to have already reserved urls up to halo 12 so only a rumour I guess.
I really can't see it going past 6. Companies reserve URLs all the time just so people can't take them and spread rumors under their name. I thought the halo 3 ending definitely seemed to imply there would be a sequel, just nobody knew what to expect since the covenant war was over. But in less than a week I guess we'll see if 343 can deliver or not.
I'm pretty excited for the story, even though it will probably be disappointing, and I'm somewhat irked about the music. I'll miss Martin O'Donnell and Michael Salvatori's work, they wrote some amazing music - especially for ODST (ODST has the best atmosphere, at least nearer the beginning, because you're alone in the dark looking for clues and fighting the odd squad of Covenant, plus you have to conserve your ammo (like Fallout 3), whereas in all the others you basically just run around spraying). My housemate is getting it the day it comes out, and since the multiplayer and campaign are on different discs, I'm playing the campaign right after he finishes it (which will probably take like 6 hours judging by the general trend of modern games).
There's ample reviews out today for it. I read three of them and they were all good (Forbes, gamespot, and one other I can't remember). The direction of the multiplayer upsets me though. Halo had a distinct multiplayer that I think was great. And now they're going the more "modern" approach of you pick your starting weapons (which has it's issues in Halo. Mass BR anyone?) and not having hardly any weapons on the map. Reach had this issue and I guess Halo 4 has even less weapons on the map. From what I read, the only time you'll see them on the map is random spawns every now and then, when someone calls a weapon (killstreak type of thing) or when someone dies. And that just sucks IMO. Halo was all about map control and weapon control. Everyone knows where the power weapons are, you decide which you want to control and in turn which part of the map you control. That was awesome, and now it's gone. I don't know, I'm excited for the story because I love the Halo universe but the multiplayer has me skeptical.
Heh kinda true. But none the less, having power weapons on your team definitely helped. And according to a review a read, with the new weapon spawn system vehicles can just destroy a team. With no anti-vehicles to start with (obviously) and having practically no weapons spawn unless you rack up a bunch of kills, taking out anything other than a ghost or warthog is just unreasonable. Supposedly the new Valhalla/Blood gulch/whatever else it's been called suffers from this issue. If one team gets ahold of more than one vehicle it's pretty much gg for the other team.
Halo 2 is the best in terms of story and gameplay because (1) you get to play as the Arbiter (telling a story from two perspectives simultaneously is awesome) and (2) because of the new guns (some of which were repeated in Halo 3, but I missed the red pulse rifle and dual-wielded needlers (even if they were ridiculously overpowered)).
ODST, however, wins hands-down in terms of atmosphere, like I said before. It's a bit like Fallout 3 at the beginning. You're just walking around a ruined city by yourself with limited ammo and groups of enemies that can overpower you if you aren't careful.
Halo 3 is probably the worst, although I still like it because it's the first one I played. I'm not sure about CE because I haven't played very much of it, and even then it was only the anniversary version. As for Reach, I'm kind of torn over it. I love the ending, and the whole game was fun, but nothing else about it really stands out. The graphics were really great though (better than CEA, actually, which was odd since Reach came out a while earlier).
I still play halo 1 pc on occasion even though it suffers from bad network, even if you have 30 ms ping you need to lead. Blood Gulch wasn't really a problem, a grenade plus a few rounds from a pistol could take down any vehicle, the tank could be taken down easily with 3 pistol shots. Some might call that cheap but in everything post h1 they started adding homing one shot weapons. I mostly played 2v2 with a buddy so I can't say for sure what the problems with vehicles were, I only did stunts and shit with them anyway. Valhalla is an unbalanced map as one base can man cannon to the top of the hill and easily hold position but if the other team ever over took it, it's not a very good defensive point as it's a wide open field to the inland base. Kind of sucks they brought such a terrible map back but I guess most people don't notice these problems.
Halo 2 is the best in terms of story and gameplay because (1) you get to play as the Arbiter (telling a story from two perspectives simultaneously is awesome)
Agreed, though I didn't like actually playing as the Arbiter.
ODST, however, wins hands-down in terms of atmosphere, like I said before.
I really couldn't get into ODST. Only Halo game I never beat. Just seemed boring to me.
Halo 3 is probably the worst
I'd rate Halo 3 as the second best, behind the first one. I loved Halo 3 and the dramatic feel of the game. I thought it did a great job at delivering the feel of desperation, from both sides of the conflict.
Eh, when I say Halo 3 is the worst, I mean it's my least favourite, not that it's bad.
As for ODST, I was the same at first because I thought it was just like CoD set in the Halo universe. Eventually I realised it was the atmosphere that made the game good (at least for the first half) and now I like it. Maybe you should give it another go.
I've always thought the Elites were cool, so that's why I liked playing as the Arbiter. His missions were fun anyway, especially when you get to free the imprisoned Elites and Hunters and have them fight alongside you (although the Hunters seemed weaker than usual when they were fighting for me).
Oh man. My studies have kept me away from this board and away from this thread!
I wasn't bothered too much about Halo 4 until I watched the reviews. I felt like it had too much going against it; the last two games weren't great (ODST and Reach, that is) and the developer had changed hands (unsure on the personnel, but 343 didn't have a released game to their name).
I was absolutely blown away from the footage and reviews I've seen. First, I've never considered Halo to be much of a looker. Don't get me wrong, I'm a huge fan of the series and played Halo 2 and 3 to death, but this generation there's always been better looking games out there. Halo 4, I think looks fantastic. Again, at this stage in the console's lifecycle there probably are better looking games but it least it's up there now.
Campaign mode looks good enough but the proof is in the multiplayer. I'm a little apprehensive about load outs, but hopefully they've done a good job.
Have to agree with chrisname on the last level of Reach. Excellent. Very atmospheric and excellent storytelling without even having to tell a story.
I didn't really like ODST as much as the other games, Halo 3's multiplayer seemed slow to me. Reach was definitely an improvement for multiplayer. I figure you play single player one or two times, so focus on aspects like forge and matchmaking.
I probably buy games for the sole purpose of their single player, ie uncharted, assassin creed. Of course those have great gameplay as well. One thing that was great about halo was it didn't have sprint, you were basically always at full speed so there was no such tactic as "run and gun". You had to be careful of your movements and your positioning as you simply couldn't hold a button while you dash for cover hoping you don't get killed along the way. If that is what you mean by not slow (only thing that is really different from halo 3 and reach multiplayer is armor abilities).
Just wondering but is anyone into strategy games ? sc2, Dota 2, etc...
If dota 2 is like dota, I would not qualify it as rts but as rpg.
Giving special powers to the units is a mistake, in games like `impossible creatures' it puts too much weight in micro-control.
I prefer the style of aoe2c.
For other genres, `ssb' and a `fps based on ww2' (multiplayer)