I want a galactic space opera.

I want a galactic space opera.

Halo CE - 3 were great and had the most replay value in the whole series - In regards to the campaign. There is a simple reason for this, and that’s because every level was unique. You literally explored every environment over completely different terrains.

With Halo 3 ODST and Halo: Reach, Bungie were quoted to saying that they wanted to steer away from the “Galactic Space opera” and make things more grounded.

What we got was boring environments and a mediocre campaign that lacked any kind of replay value…

I don’t want another Halo Reach in terms of campaign.

Thoughts?

I agree. Galactic Space Operas ftw. :slight_smile:

I agree, I miss exploring the incredible forerunner worlds.

I disagree. Halo 1’s levels were all completely unique and had by far the best variety in the series.
Granted, I realize the latter levels are revisits to old locations basically, but they still play very differently and feel completely different. I just don’t get why people say backtracking is bad…

I mean, backtracking as in quake 4 intro style is horrible, but Two Betrayals style backtracking is awesome. Same with 343 Guilty Spark and going back to the start point. Both very well done.

You know, it’s not just about having different settings and looks to the environment, but the actions and feel of the level as well. CE has a sense of pacing. I also think that CE’s doing flood by having dinstinct level designs from Covie style levels was smart (where in 2 and 3 there really wasn’t any distincion in design)

> I disagree. Halo 1’s levels were all completely unique and had by far the best variety in the series.
> Granted, I realize the latter levels are revisits to old locations basically, but they still play very differently and feel completely different. I just don’t get why people say backtracking is bad…
>
> I mean, backtracking as in quake 4 intro style is horrible, but Two Betrayals style backtracking is awesome. Same with 343 Guilty Spark and going back to the start point. Both very well done.

Erm… I’m pretty sure all of Halo 2’s levels were unique, and definitely had the most variety in the series. The closing levels in Halo 3 (the Ark, the Covenant, Cortana, and Halo) were all pretty unique and beautiful as well. ODST and Reach were the only games with horrible, ugly, repetitive level design.

> > I disagree. Halo 1’s levels were all completely unique and had by far the best variety in the series.
> > Granted, I realize the latter levels are revisits to old locations basically, but they still play very differently and feel completely different. I just don’t get why people say backtracking is bad…
> >
> > I mean, backtracking as in quake 4 intro style is horrible, but Two Betrayals style backtracking is awesome. Same with 343 Guilty Spark and going back to the start point. Both very well done.
>
> Erm… I’m pretty sure all of Halo 2’s levels were unique, and definitely had the most variety in the series. The closing levels in Halo 3 (the Ark, the Covenant, Cortana, and Halo) were all pretty unique and beautiful as well. ODST and Reach were the only games with horrible, ugly, repetitive level design.

I disagree. Both Halo 2 and 3 really just did open field, corridor. Largely. I mean, there isn’t the puzzly feeling of something like 343, the endlessness feeling of the Library, the unique feeling of the Maw (which felt like you were doing new things you didn’t in the rest), and so on.

Plus Halo 1 had way better pacing.
I mean, I think those levels you mentioned are good levels, but they’re simply solid. In terms of flow to the overall game, not including story, they could have been placed in any order. Halo 1’s order of levels makes sense.

> > > I disagree. Halo 1’s levels were all completely unique and had by far the best variety in the series.
> > > Granted, I realize the latter levels are revisits to old locations basically, but they still play very differently and feel completely different. I just don’t get why people say backtracking is bad…
> > >
> > > I mean, backtracking as in quake 4 intro style is horrible, but Two Betrayals style backtracking is awesome. Same with 343 Guilty Spark and going back to the start point. Both very well done.
> >
> > Erm… I’m pretty sure all of Halo 2’s levels were unique, and definitely had the most variety in the series. The closing levels in Halo 3 (the Ark, the Covenant, Cortana, and Halo) were all pretty unique and beautiful as well. ODST and Reach were the only games with horrible, ugly, repetitive level design.
>
> I disagree. Both Halo 2 and 3 really just did open field, corridor. Largely. I mean, there isn’t the puzzly feeling of something like 343, the endlessness feeling of the Library, the unique feeling of the Maw (which felt like you were doing new things you didn’t in the rest), and so on.
>
> Plus Halo 1 had way better pacing.
> I mean, I think those levels you mentioned are good levels, but they’re simply solid. In terms of flow to the overall game, not including story, they could have been placed in any order. Halo 1’s order of levels makes sense.

Everyone’s entitled to their own opinion I suppose, but wasn’t this originally about how great galactic space operas are, and how Halo should go back to being one? :slight_smile:

> > > I disagree. Halo 1’s levels were all completely unique and had by far the best variety in the series.
> > > Granted, I realize the latter levels are revisits to old locations basically, but they still play very differently and feel completely different. I just don’t get why people say backtracking is bad…
> > >
> > > I mean, backtracking as in quake 4 intro style is horrible, but Two Betrayals style backtracking is awesome. Same with 343 Guilty Spark and going back to the start point. Both very well done.
> >
> > Erm… I’m pretty sure all of Halo 2’s levels were unique, and definitely had the most variety in the series. The closing levels in Halo 3 (the Ark, the Covenant, Cortana, and Halo) were all pretty unique and beautiful as well. ODST and Reach were the only games with horrible, ugly, repetitive level design.
>
> I disagree. Both Halo 2 and 3 really just did open field, corridor. Largely. I mean, there isn’t the puzzly feeling of something like 343, the endlessness feeling of the Library, the unique feeling of the Maw (which felt like you were doing new things you didn’t in the rest), and so on.
>
> Plus Halo 1 had way better pacing.
> I mean, I think those levels you mentioned are good levels, but they’re simply solid. In terms of flow to the overall game, not including story, they could have been placed in any order. Halo 1’s order of levels makes sense.

I suppose. In any case, the story in Halo 1, 2, and 3 >>>> Reach. ODST went for it’s own feel, which was good. It still felt sci-fi, but not huge scale. Reach just seemed militaristic…

For the record, I enjoyed Reach and I do enjoy its mp quite a bit, but it’s just I think the tone of the campaign was wrong. It was all about the little things they were doing, never about the big picture. All just “we blew up a ship”, well done in that case, but in terms of story “cool story bro”

> > > > I disagree. Halo 1’s levels were all completely unique and had by far the best variety in the series.
> > > > Granted, I realize the latter levels are revisits to old locations basically, but they still play very differently and feel completely different. I just don’t get why people say backtracking is bad…
> > > >
> > > > I mean, backtracking as in quake 4 intro style is horrible, but Two Betrayals style backtracking is awesome. Same with 343 Guilty Spark and going back to the start point. Both very well done.
> > >
> > > Erm… I’m pretty sure all of Halo 2’s levels were unique, and definitely had the most variety in the series. The closing levels in Halo 3 (the Ark, the Covenant, Cortana, and Halo) were all pretty unique and beautiful as well. ODST and Reach were the only games with horrible, ugly, repetitive level design.
> >
> > I disagree. Both Halo 2 and 3 really just did open field, corridor. Largely. I mean, there isn’t the puzzly feeling of something like 343, the endlessness feeling of the Library, the unique feeling of the Maw (which felt like you were doing new things you didn’t in the rest), and so on.
> >
> > Plus Halo 1 had way better pacing.
> > I mean, I think those levels you mentioned are good levels, but they’re simply solid. In terms of flow to the overall game, not including story, they could have been placed in any order. Halo 1’s order of levels makes sense.
>
> I suppose. In any case, the story in Halo 1, 2, and 3 >>>> Reach. ODST went for it’s own feel, which was good. It still felt sci-fi, but not huge scale. Reach just seemed militaristic…

Reach should have been about the fall of Reach, not the death of Noble Team (and all prior established canon). The story of the planet Reach is poignant and tragic; the story of the game Reach is horrific, boring, and absurd.

I wouldn’t call the story bad, just sort of boring and without much detail. But you said it very well. Halo: Reach is a story about the deaths of Noble Team, not the fall of Reach.

Should be called Halo: Noble…

> I wouldn’t call the story bad, just sort of boring and without much detail. But you said it very well. Halo: Reach is a story about the deaths of Noble Team, not the fall of Reach.
>
> Should be called Halo: Noble…

This is a perfect word to describe the story of Halo: Reach - superficial.

Mix the ‘more human story’ Reach was supposed to have with the’ galactic space opera’ of the trilogy.

> Mix the ‘more human story’ Reach was supposed to have with the’ galactic space opera’ of the trilogy.

God no… if anything borrow from ODST, not Reach. Halo 4 is going to be all about forerunners and discovery, and then probably some Cortona- MC drama.

I see it more of a halo 1 mixed with character development.

> > Mix the ‘more human story’ Reach was supposed to have with the’ galactic space opera’ of the trilogy.
>
> God no… if anything borrow from ODST, not Reach. Halo 4 is going to be all about forerunners and discovery, and then probably some Cortona- MC drama.
>
> I see it more of a halo 1 mixed with character development.

That’s why I said ‘supposed’ to have. Reach failed at it, of course. You’re right, ODST did better. Basically, provide us with more emphasis on characters and their development, as we journey across the galaxy. Would be great if Halo 4 could capture the mystery and sense of discovery from CE, seeing as we’re now back to landing within the unknown. It’s gonna be ramped up a bit, though, as it’s now just 'chief and Cortana.

Personaly I found reach to be just a jump off point for more multi-player maps, The campaign was way to short, didn’t add a lot to the history of Halo, rather lack luster. I also want the Halo universe to get back to the grand themed campaign. Although I know multiplayer is popular, it has little appeal for me. I’d much rather spend days running a beuitiful campaign, then spending 1 hour getting ganked by a some foul mouthed 12 year old.

> Personaly I found reach to be just a jump off point for more multi-player maps, The campaign was way to short, didn’t add a lot to the history of Halo, rather lack luster. I also want the Halo universe to get back to the grand themed campaign. Although I know multiplayer is popular, it has little appeal for me. I’d much rather spend days running a beuitiful campaign, then spending 1 hour getting ganked by a some foul mouthed 12 year old.

Whilst I enjoy multiplayer, I’m very much a Campaign person, as well.

Halo CE had a very unique campaign from the other games. Although the level design was repetitive on many parts, I still simply don’t care because the gameplay is so awesome. The atmosphere is probably best in any Halo game, it’s a great hybrid between that feeling of an unknown alien world and fate of the universe on your shoulders.

Halo 2 and 3 never appealed to me as much, both didn’t share the repetitive design, but failed delivering the gameplay flow. The mood wasn’t the same as in CE because you had allies around you all the time and even though the ruins on Delta Halo were different from what we saw on Alpha, they still somewhat lacked a good atmosphere. The Ark, although more similar to what we had in CE, also lacked the atmosphere.

ODST managed to brought a different kind of campaign which after many years gave as a good atmosphere, different, but good. It also brought story that was the best story out of all the games because the characters were pretty deep. The ODST camapaign was definitely good.

Reach was a complete failure, it didn’t share the atmospheric enviroments of CE, nor did it share the colorful enviroments of 2 and 3 or the dark enviroments of ODST. It gave us color pallet that is known from all modern military shooter: grey, black, white, brown and all shades of these. Reach was grey and dark, but in a bad way. It also brought bad story with mostly bad characters and didn’t even have an atmosphere that would have been interesting on any level.

I want Halo 4 to have same kind of campaign to what we saw in CE, experiencing an unknown alien world, onyl with Cortana’s assistance. The atomsphere is very important and I would like it to be nearly identical to what was in CE. Something no other Halo has brought than CE is gameplay flow, I want Halo 4 to bring this back after many years. It’s half of what made halo CE campaign so good and replayable that I still play it after 10 years.

> Personally I found reach to be just a jump off point for more multi-player maps, The campaign was way to short, didn’t add a lot to the history of Halo, rather lack luster. I also want the Halo universe to get back to the grand themed campaign. Although I know multiplayer is popular, it has little appeal for me. I’d much rather spend days running a beautiful campaign, then spending 1 hour getting ganked by a some foul mouthed 12 year old.

O.O You took the words right out of my mouth!

ODST was great.

It was a city and you could explore it all, a city! There buildings here and there you could visit and small unknown alley ways…etc

Reach was really meh lol.

But I agree, H4 needs something big and different.