> > > 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”