Halo Reach Video

[C-Kwik]

Ran across this on the front page of youtube. So I had to click.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T0_jiB2hqeQ

Based on the alpha build and some of the things they are describing, it sounds like its gonna be a huge step up from Halo 3 and ODST. I definitely want to see some of the large scale battles from the first Halo come back. And I suspect it will have 4-player co-op. I can't friggin wait.

[MinisterofDOOM]

I'm actually looking forward to Halo: Reach. It seems to be what Halo should have been from the beginning (if technology had supported the original vision, or if the game hadn't become an Xbox exclusive partway through original development). I like that the dev team is being careful to ensure coherency with Halo as far as tech, weapons, and even the HUD design (hooray for the health bar). And I also like what multiple Spartans means for coop play.

[C-Kwik]

I'm actually looking forward to Halo: Reach. It seems to be what Halo should have been from the beginning (if technology had supported the original vision, or if the game hadn't become an Xbox exclusive partway through original development).

What do you mean? My understanding is that Halo was originally being designed as a RTS game then switched to a third person shooter prior to MS's involvement.

I don't know if I like the health bar. It can end up being a source of slowing down progression in a game as a player seeks to keep his health up by taking less risks and/or keeps going back through a level to find health that he may have passed along the way. I don't think it would play out well in a multi-player environment. There would be way too much camping from people with low health. Regenerating health tends to allow people to take more risks.

[MinisterofDOOM]

Yes, Halo did begin as an RTS. However, at the point I'm referring to as "from the beginning" (when major press materials began appearing) Halo was to be what you might refer to as a massively (albeit not by today's standards) multiplayer strategic shooter. In multiplayer matches, players would have been able to play either side (UNSC or Covenant) and vehicles would have played a much more critical role (I particularly recall imagining how fun it would be to play the role of dropship pilot, ferrying warthogs around the battlefield). Communication would have been critical and multiplayer matches would have been very team-oriented and strategic.

http://halo.bungie.org/presssc....0800I actually have this issue of PCG somewhere. Read this article and I think you'll understand why so many PC gamers are disappointed with what Halo eventually became. Our expectations were set quite high. Also note the TF2 reference in the article. Talk about LOLs.

You should try and track down the "10 minute Halo E3 movie" mentioned in that article if you can. I probably have the disc laying around somewhere...I'll see if I can find it.EDIT:Found it: http://blastmagazine.com/the-m...ailer/

[SkinnyKibbles]

I remember reading "The Fall of Reach" before I even bought the original halo. I really hope its turns out great.

Oh and mildly off topic, the RTS game (Halo Wars?) that was released on the 360. Was that any good?

[MinisterofDOOM]

Yeah, it was great. I'm a pretty hardcore PC RTS player, so it was definitely pretty simplified from my perspective. BUT I was very pleased (not to mention impressed) to find that the simplification didn't really translate into less fun. Ensemble did a good job with scaling gameplay to the smaller unit counts. They also did a BRILLIANT job with the base-building mechanic, turning a weakness into one of the game's most strategic strengths.

The game isn't perfect, though. While the controls work pretty well, they fall on their face occasionally, particularly when controlling multiple types of units together and trying to use their special abilities at the same time. Instead, you have to clunkily select individual groups when you want to effectively use special abilities, and that takes time and effort you might not be able to spare.

Still I'd say it's pretty high praise when a guy who grew up playing C&C can say he would recommend a console RTS.

It's worth noting that Ensemble is the studio that developed the early Age of Empires titles for Microsoft. So they definitely knew what they were doing. It's a shame MS killed the studio off after Halo Wars was released.

[SkinnyKibbles]

Yeah, it was great. I'm a pretty hardcore PC RTS player, so it was definitely pretty simplified from my perspective. BUT I was very pleased (not to mention impressed) to find that the simplification didn't really translate into less fun. Ensemble did a good job with scaling gameplay to the smaller unit counts. They also did a BRILLIANT job with the base-building mechanic, turning a weakness into one of the game's most strategic strengths.

The game isn't perfect, though. While the controls work pretty well, they fall on their face occasionally, particularly when controlling multiple types of units together and trying to use their special abilities at the same time. Instead, you have to clunkily select individual groups when you want to effectively use special abilities, and that takes time and effort you might not be able to spare.

Still I'd say it's pretty high praise when a guy who grew up playing C&C can say he would recommend a console RTS.

It's worth noting that Ensemble is the studio that developed the early Age of Empires titles for Microsoft. So they definitely knew what they were doing. It's a shame MS killed the studio off after Halo Wars was released.

Yeah, it was great. I'm a pretty hardcore PC RTS player, so it was definitely pretty simplified from my perspective. BUT I was very pleased (not to mention impressed) to find that the simplification didn't really translate into less fun. Ensemble did a good job with scaling gameplay to the smaller unit counts. They also did a BRILLIANT job with the base-building mechanic, turning a weakness into one of the game's most strategic strengths.

The game isn't perfect, though. While the controls work pretty well, they fall on their face occasionally, particularly when controlling multiple types of units together and trying to use their special abilities at the same time. Instead, you have to clunkily select individual groups when you want to effectively use special abilities, and that takes time and effort you might not be able to spare.

Still I'd say it's pretty high praise when a guy who grew up playing C&C can say he would recommend a console RTS.

It's worth noting that Ensemble is the studio that developed the early Age of Empires titles for Microsoft. So they definitely knew what they were doing. It's a shame MS killed the studio off after Halo Wars was released.

Wow, to be honest there are two things I don't play on consoles that being FPS and RTS. I'll take your word for it.

Ok I'll stop thread jackin' thanks for the input.

[C-Kwik]

Yes, Halo did begin as an RTS. However, at the point I'm referring to as "from the beginning" (when major press materials began appearing) Halo was to be what you might refer to as a massively (albeit not by today's standards) multiplayer strategic shooter. In multiplayer matches, players would have been able to play either side (UNSC or Covenant) and vehicles would have played a much more critical role (I particularly recall imagining how fun it would be to play the role of dropship pilot, ferrying warthogs around the battlefield). Communication would have been critical and multiplayer matches would have been very team-oriented and strategic.

That seems a bit speculative to me. It sounds great and all, but implementing all those things in one game would have been quite a task back then. Considering the PC version released years later didn't run perfectly with systems available at that time, let alone at the time Halo was released on the XBOX. Albeit, it would be hard to say how much better it might run if the development was targetted for PC entirely. Its speculative either way. The loss of online multiplayer in CE sucked of course, but there wasn't much they could do about that since LIVE wasn't ready.

Halo is still a game that is most effective (multiplayer mode) when teams communicate effectively. Some of the biggest a**-kickings I received were when I was facing a team that was very organized. I seldom play with a large enough group to be that organized but occassionally, I will end up on a team that seem to communicate well and the outcome is much better as a result.

You should try and track down the "10 minute Halo E3 movie" mentioned in that article if you can. I probably have the disc laying around somewhere...I'll see if I can find it.EDIT:Found it: http://blastmagazine.com/the-m...ailer/

Cool trailer. But it was more cinematic so who knows what the actual game play would have been like. Or more specifically, how much of that was a playable part of the game? Hard to say. Certainly, it would be nice to have seen that and perhaps Reach will get us closer to it, but have there been any games since then that can do it and do so effectively? And if not, is it an issue of implementation?

[MinisterofDOOM]

That seems a bit speculative to me

It's not speculative. All of that is said straight out in the article. The PC game that came out and the PC game that I am talking about are not the same thing. That's my whole point.

[bigbadberry3]

I loved the first Halo. Everything else after that not so much. I know halo has become known for its multiplayer but the first one I loved so much just for the campaign, (maybe a little bit because no one knew how to do system link or Live didn't exist.) I hope this brings some of those good solid campaign days back.