- Spartan999
- |
- Intrepid Legendary Member
╔══╦══╦═══╦╗╔╗╔╦══╦══╦╗╔╗
║╔═╩╗╔╣═══║║║╚╝║╔╗║╔╗║╚╝║
║║╔╗║║║╔╗╔╣║╚╗╔╣╠╣╣║║╠╗╔╝
║╚╝╠╝╚╣║║║║╚═╣║║╚╝║╚╝║║║
╚══╩══╩╝╚╝╚══╩╝╚══╩══╝╚╝
I think Reach needs to be more like Halo 2.
Despite the fact that Halo 2 has the least popular campaign, I think it was the best. This opinion of mine is not meant to put down Halo CE, but games are supposed to get better with new technology and taking user feedback into consideration.
Yes Halo 2 changed things up more than people liked. But the only way for this not to happen is to just remake the same game every time.
Halo 2 greatest strong points are 1) its more rounded and refined gameplay, and 2) its vastly superior narrative, contributed to by the more intricate story and skills of its actors.
I don't know who the hell directed the acting in Halo 3, but it couldn't have been the same as the director of Halo 2's acting. I find it hard not to laugh at Ron Perlman's crappy acting skills in Halo 3, and all the sentence fragments(David Scully!) had me weeping for the English language.
You are definitely right about the quality of individual levels, But they need to be careful not to make levels feel like seperate mini games. Halo CE's levels were connected by the isolated, compact story. Halo 2's levels were connected by the fact that they actually run into each other. But even though Halo 3's 2nd, 3rd, and 4th levels are no farther than 100 feet of playspace away from each other, I can't feel it because gameplay shifts so radically between them.
Now lets talk about visual appeal. I think that the designers put all their time into Sierra 117 (beautiful level) and said, "oh what the hell," for the rest of Halo 3. Halo 2 was beautiful and Halo 3 was just boring to look at. There is no excuse for The Ark, and all that grey rock on The Covenant was like watching a 50's space invader movie. I love mountain climbing, but I have never seen a straight up greyscale mountain with any vegetation on it (point is, nature likes color, and the Forerunners like to copy nature).
I think the biggest hit to ODST was the fact that it had the same engine as Halo 3. ODST was better than Halo 3, but it has some aspects that feel just too cartoony and cliche. I had the highest expectations for ODST than any of the other games, but it let me down when I realized there is nothing to do in the hub city and that this city is just one huge mirror image of it's self (on multiple axes, which is just shameful and lazy.)
The enemies also need some changes. ODST improved on the drones, I've nothing to say there. Halo 2 Brutes > Halo 3 Brutes. The Elites need a redesign. They were made crouched over in Halo 2, and even more so in Halo 3, to be equal in height to Spartans in multiplayer. Elites are supposed to be a whole 12 inches taller than they are in Halo 3. One of the reasons they were so fun to fight in Halo CE was the fact that they are agile and mobile. Halo 2 managed to get rid of the jerky movements, but also slowed them down too much. Halo 3 makes this problem even more apparent as the Elites feel like they are wearing solid rock for armor. Jackels, Grunts, and Hunters are all ok.
All the Halo games are very fun to play; they are Halo after all. But considering that in Reach, the whole world will basically be coming to an end, we need to see a more serious attitude and a more realistic depiction of war. I think Halo 2 steers closest to this idea, which is why Reach needs to use Halo 2 as a model of basic deign.