Blend Games: What a lot of people probably aren't thinking about is what could go wrong with Halo: Reach. So, whether you're prepared or not, here is a top 5 for a few things that could potentially embitter gamers with the Halo: Reach experience.
Wow. I actually agree with this article, mostly. 1) Yes, the hype about graphics is something that can be really detrimental to the success of this game. The visuals in Halo games never really disappoint me. I play the game for other reasons altogether. But I agree that if people are hyped about the graphics of the game more so than anything else, they're going to be in for a rude awakening. That being said, I will probably be impressed with the upgrade in visuals because I was impressed with the upgrade in visuals in Halo 3 from Halo 2, even though a lot of other people were not. 2) I think Bungie always did a good job with giving the player the option to use a vehicle at certain points in their games. Whenever I felt that a level needed to be a vehicle section, there always was a vehicle. Especially in Halo 2, where I didn't need to slowly walk through Mombasa. I had a Warthog for much of the level. And Halo 3 also does that, with not only warthogs, but also a Pelican level, and on the levels with the Scarabs, there are always vehicles. I don't know why this article would think Bungie might not have enough. They've always had plenty in their games. Points number 3 and 4 sort of meld into the same issue. Yes, Master Chief is prone to being sidetracked into special missions that often remove him from frontline warfare. Some people have a problem with this, but I feel that it makes Master Chief a more significant figure. His missions have to do with finding objects and information and activating structures and killing Prophets and rescuing people. His job has never been to act like a grunt in the frontlines. It would be interesting to see him in a really epic battle like the ones we saw in those Halo 3 ads, but I just don't think the 360 would be able to pull off something of that magnitude. The most the Chief ever faced were small skirmishes. Point 5 melds more with Point 1. The hype about this game concerns graphics. People who think this game is going to surpass Killzone 2 in visuals will be disappointed. Bungie did not spend 3 years developing a custome engine and an extra 1,5 years on this game the same way Guerrilla Games did with Killzone 2.
Halo...Go Wrong...LOL funny
I am sad now, I may actually agreee with Bungie for once. No one can deny time is spent on Halo games they may not be perfect but it's fun online and let's be fair untill MW is defined FPS on consoles. I am not going to say Halo 3 is the best game, but it sure is fun co-op and I believe Halo:Reach will be atleast a solid experience my only fear is that it'll stay too close to the Halo formula.
Any game in development could go wrong, but do we really need an article about it each time? Some people just want to see something successful fail. It's really sad.
Halo Reach will sell to 360 owners regardless of quality. Bungie could make a new 4 hour campaign,redo Halo's multiplayer and releases it for 60 bucks and it'd STILL sell 2 million+ in a very short time. While that's great for Bungie, I feel kinda bad for all those gullible gamers. Anyways, I'm sure Halo Reach will be great. It's a full Halo this time, therefore expect it to be miles ahead of what ODST offered. @below I can see what you're saying and I agree. All I'm saying is that if these people keep buying cheap cash ins, devs won't try pushing for quality anymore and in the end it'll affect Halo fans as a whole.
Saaking, you call them gullible, but maybe they have different taste than you and think the game is worth the asking price. Did you ever think of that? Sorry, but your comment just sounded arrogant.
That might be true, but at least they are not arrogant enough to come out and say it like some companies in the past. Your post reminded me of this: "We have built up a certain brand equity over time since the launch of PlayStation in 1995 and PS2 in 2000 that the first five million are going to buy it, whatever it is, even [if] it didn't have games," Good thing the ps3 did not turn out to be a dud.
I think what Saaking is saying is the quality of Halo Reach will be low regardless of how good or bad the game will be, and despite what other gamers & fans think of it, or how well reviewers review it. If it's good Saaking will say it's over hyped, MSFT payed or they were being Biased. You can't win with Saaking. It's pretty impressive Pro Sony fanboys and media are speculating about a game's success One Year before it releases. Bu Bu Bu the other Halo games. bu bu bu bu PS3 PS3 games lol
I'm not saying Halo Reach is gonna be of poor quality, far from it. It looks like a great game. What I"m saying its, that Halo will sell regardless of quality. That's my point. Bungie devs don't need to worry about the sales, as it WILL sell a lot; therefore, they should focus on the quality of the game (which is what they seem to be doing).
It's funny when somebody says something is overhyped, because if you think about it all that really means is that THEY think it is overhyped. I know that sounds pretty self evident, but the way some people say it makes it sound like they think it is a fact instead of just their personal opinion. The REALITY though is that people buy Halo because they enjoy it and they think they will enjoy it more than anything else they could spend that money on. Nobody twisted my arm to make me buy ODST and it certainly wasn't an ignorant or blind purchase. I knew exactly what I was getting and I CHOSE to buy the game. It didn't disappoint me. In many ways the campaign is my favorite out of all the Halo games. If I like what I see with Halo Reach I'll buy it, if I don't I won't. But so far it looks great and Halo has never let me down before.
The Master Chief isn't side tracked into solo missions at this point in the HALO canon timeline. He is very much in command of the Spartans and with them on operations, usually in charge of one of the teams. The solo operations came after the fall of Reach when he believed, as did the UNSC, that he was the sole surviving Spartan II. Other than a few very spare incidents he was a team operator.
Guys don't let Saaking's supposed gamer tag fool you he is just as hardcore as any other PS3 fan on this site. Don't be fooled by his shaddy snake talk. He mentioned that Halo fans will buy anything Halo, regardless of quality. He has posted a ton of comments saying Halo 3 was overhyped and Halo Odst was crap. His comments are nothing more than shaddy double talk. His comment was suggestive and saying the other Halos sucked and Halo fans will continue to buy crap games known as Halo. EDIT @#5 You're Bashing other successful games because the gamers you prefer flop. People buy what is good to them. People buy Halo because the weapons are spot on, mytholigy, Multi player, Ground and sky vehicles, scale and support.
@1.6 Sorry, worthy of the asking price isn't why most people bought ODST. If that were the case, Borderlands would have sold more than 2 million instead of 400k. Borderlands' campaign probably lasts 30hrs, while ODST's campaing is 4-5. Different taste dosen't make much sense either since both games are FPSs. If anything, you're left with the argument that says 60 dollars is worth firefight mode. It was an impulse buy. @1.7 I don't see how using the comments of ONE person, who has since left SCEE, to label an entire crowd is any better than what Saaking posted.
Oh, so you want to try and prove the MC usually operated alone? You had better try looking at the canon which includes the books. I guess I hurt someone's feelings. While I don't think the MC needs to be a central figure, as the Spartan II commander he should be seen in the game although he does not need to be playable. There are plenty of other Spartans that would offer some great innovations in gameplay such as Kelly and Fred to name two.
@Saaking There is some truth to what you are saying, but for the most part I disagree. A lot of people will buy Halo Reach on day one just based on how much they liked past Halo games, but believe me, if Halo Reach turned out to suck it wouldn't sell nearly as well as previous Halo games. Moreover, it would make it harder to sell the next Halo. This is true of any successful franchise. Take Uncharted, for example. It has now built up a pretty solid reputation for quality and fun, so its only logical that many people will be ready to buy Uncharted 3 on day one. Does that mean those people are gullible idiots? No, it just means that they are going off past experiences and betting that the new game in the series will also be good. This is no different. I have enjoyed each Halo game a great deal and I therefor have strong expectations that Halo Reach will follow in that tradition. It has nothing to do with being blind or gullible.
it's not like any of us here is actually making the game and most of the time, devs tend not to let random polls or articles interfere with their game's development! bungie is no different! if they do, gamers wouldn't just got ODST! plus, what are we trying to kid here? it's another Halo, it will sell millions regardless! just hope that it will live up to the hype and deliver something amazing rather than just a half-arse effort like ODST!
@ShineBox No, again, you are being arrogant. Your opinion /= truth. Firefight was only one reason out of several that ODST was a good purchase for me. The campaign, while shorter than other Halo campaigns, was still longer for me than what you are claiming and more importantly it was one of the best campaigns I have played through. I spend $20 on a two hour movie if it's something I really like, so why wouldn't I spend $50 for a 7 hour game I really like, with a nearly endlessly fun co-op mode and loads of multiplayer entertainment? I also bought Heavenly Sword and I finished that in about the same amount of time and it had no co-op or multiplayer to lengthen the experience. Are you saying all us PS3 owners who bought that game were also making a poor decision? Who the hell are you to tell people what they should spend their money on anyway? I would take a good 7 hour game over a mediocre 20 hour game any day.
rofl I never told anyone to buy anything. Take it easy. Actually, you're being way more arrogant than I am. I tried making my comment as balanced as possible by leaving my own personal experience and habits out. Your comment, however, citing ur own personal preferences and experience with Firefight mode, Heavenly Sword, movies, etc., to argue against what I said, is a bit different. I'm actually not claiming anything about ODST's campaign length. I just cited what almost all of the reviewers said. I'm glad u asked me about Heavenly Sword though. To answer that, I'd have to do what you just did, and what you have been arguing against-- take the experience of one person and use it to label everyone else. Anyway, I still stand by what I said. It was an impulse buy.
You can't really compare the reasons people bought Uncharted 2 to the reasons people bought HALO ODST. And to compare it to UC3 you would have to have ND produce far less of a game than which is their history. Regarding UC2 though, there are some unavoidable truths. First of all PS3 fans and 360 fans are for the most part different crowds. Second, Uncharted 2 was never billed as a mission pack. Third, no one on the dev team at ND suggestive it would carry a cheap mission pack price only to find the game suddenly elevated (through massive press) to the status of a full blown game. Fourth, Uncharted 2 brought more game (Co-op and MP) to the table than it's predecessor, not less. As an addendum, UC2 was never finished 6 months ahead of time so Sony could sit on the game and attempt blow it up into a game beyond it's proportions just because Microsoft announced a 360 revision and a price cut. Everyone that is honest knows that ODST was what Staten initially called it to be. It was MS (not Bungie) that realized they were in hot water and required anything they could salvage to throw at the forth coming Slim/price cut announcement. So MS held back a mission pack to their flagship, changed the name, pumped it up as if it were a full blown game (it apparently worked) and then pushed it as hard in the press as they could. I can't blame fans of HALO for buying ODST. If there were a MGS4 mission pack, regardless of the price I would buy it. Why? I love the Metal Gear universe. Contrary to many people's belief I am actually a big HALO fan. It's just having played ODST it didn't feel like HALO to me. There were too many "realism" (realism as the HALO world sees it) for me. And already owning HALO3 there wasn't enough incentive to re-play a non-Spartan II character.
@ShiNe-Box - and thats where marketing comes into play...its also a big aspect to a games success...if no one knows about it, how can they buy it or even want to buy it...i saw one commercial EVER about it and still didnt know what it was about, until i went online and saw some vids about it (yes i do want to get it, never had the time or money tho) and none of my friends even know or heard about the game halo odst was heavily marketed, and hardcore fans followed the news as much as possible, so im sure they knew what they were getting into as for this article, i also do believe that NOW if they dont deliver on graphics (because of the trailer) there will be countless talk about it on both sides...im not hyping myself up for that, its always been about gameplay for me (which is why i like bfbc over cod...teamwork over one man run and gun) and just today i had a blast playing social neutral bomb on h3 with my buddy, havent picked it up in quite some time, but it sure was fun to play again
Perhaps you should reread my post...if you are still lost, then I guess I can try my best to make the crystal even more clearer.
I don't know enough about what Halo: Reach promises to be able to say what would make it a disappointment. They really haven't start to "sell" this game to us yet.
Most people don't think what can go wrong with games, the only people that do this are fanboys of the competing platform.
Halo's designed around the arcade shooter at heart, referencing classics like quake and unreal with it high jump, man cannon, deathmatch style. IMO the only way that halo can go wrong is if they make it into a modern warfare clone, where people focus more on perks and upgrades then tactics and skill. And where camping and spamming becomes the focus of the game.
Xi, I agree, but I think Bungie know better. They will improve some things, but I think that it will all work within the basic framework that gives Halo its own identity.
I think the sales of MW2 just proved that devs can release pretty much anything with a big name these days and people will buy it regardless of flaws sadly. Thankfully, Bungie is FAR more talented than IW, so I don't think this will be an issue.
I doubt any of those 5 things listed will stop the game from being perceived as the second coming of Christ, Alah, etc.
it wont fail if master chief shows up high to his missions off the sticcy green, u feel what i mean?...sure u do cause im on point like a laser beam. now screeeeaaaam! i want some ice creeeaaam! damn im just a walkin party aint i? oh yea, bbws give the best lovin! seriously
the graphics are already disappointing looking. so make it 4 ways it can go wrong.
Hell no, far from it. It looks VERY impressive so far. If the gameplay looks anywhere near as good as the trailer it will be a top tier title for graphics.
I have a real problem with the lack of accurate information in this article. 1. Never was it said by Microsoft that Halo: Reach was suppose to be an answer for Killzone 2, that was something others have said. And the game looks great. 2. The Halo games have always had a balance of vehicles to walking levels, right off the top of my head I know Halo 3 had at least 4, and ODST had 3. Not to mention the choice to use them in Multiplayer. 3. MC is the greatest warrior they have, it would be stupid for him to be on the fictional front lines. Its usually a global war, and MC is used to take out or secure key people or places. Whats more important stopping your enemy from having a Galaxy killing weapon, or fighting in Europe? 4. This is wrong again, the first four Halo 3 missions are you landing on earth, meeting up with what remains of the human military, pushing through the enemy frontlines and attacking the enemy fleet directly. Even on the ark there are more then one situation where its you, 4 tanks, a dozen jeeps and mongoose trying to take out Brutes and a Scarab, or the epic dog fight level, or the level where you take on two Scarabs. 5. As for hype, sales and activity there are a lot of things to look at, for sales it has done way better then Halo 2, Halo 3 still shows up in the top 20 list in the first parts of the year, It was on the UK list a few weeks ago. Halo 3 ODST is a smaller title, and still is close to 3 million. As for activity, Halo 3 is still usually the number 1 played game, or number 2. ODST has two Mutliplayer modes, firefight is something that some people may just do offline with friends, and anyone who plays the Halo 3 MP from ODST, would be counted as playing Halo 3. Overall terrible article.
As long as it tops halo 3 ill be happy. halo 3 was garbage so it shouldn't be to hard
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.