"Halo:Reach and Halo 3: ODST were misteps" ?!?

Read for yourselves, In my opinion, this was not accurate in anyway, in fact I think alot of us Halo fans wanted to play in the shoes of other Spartan II’s during the Halo: Reach campaign but Halo:Reach is probably the best entry since Halo:CE.

Another problem is the way they completely fail to mention Halo: Reach’s superior multiplayer.

Campaign in a Halo game is AS important as the multiplayer component.

Thoughts?

> Thoughts?

I disagree with ODST being a miss-step.

Halo Reach was an excellent game (and ODST) because they both focused on different stories, not just Master Chief.

Halo 3: ODST, and Reach were garbage and always will be. But it’s not for the reasons Microsoft seems to think.

The reason has little to do with Master Chief, they are missteps because they are gimmicks.

This really scares me on the future of Halo lore, if this keeps up we will probably have this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z30xwzTjXh0

I was a little taken aback when I read this, mainly because this was the first time I had seen anything along the line of someone from Microsoft stating anything negative with Halo in general. Well I guess this means they won’t deviate from anything with MC as the main character. This is unfortunate since I think there are so many different directions they can take this. Who knows…there’s a lot of time between H4-6. We’ll just have to wait and see.

> This really scares me on the future of Halo lore, if this keeps up we will probably have this:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z30xwzTjXh0

Little far fetched I would say, but hilarious nonetheless.

<4

> > This really scares me on the future of Halo lore, if this keeps up we will probably have this:
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z30xwzTjXh0
>
> Little far fetched I would say, but hilarious nonetheless.
>
> <4

ooops… I missed a word. I meant “something like this”

Reach the best Halo campaign since Halo CE? You gotta be kidding, it’s the worst Halo campaign yet. Although I disagree with Microsoft that it’s because of the lack of the MC.

> Halo 3: ODST, and Reach were garbage and always will be. But it’s not for the reasons Microsoft seems to think.
>
> The reason has little to do with Master Chief, they are missteps because they are gimmicks.

I disagree ODST had an awesome single player and it was fun to be an ODST. And reach defiantly have some flaws but its far from garbage.

ODST was entertaining although it was just a “best of” of Halo 3, or well, any other Halo game, moments, which are not even the best to me anyway. The way the campaign unfolded was neat, but the open level design of New Mombassa barely added anything at all. Besides giving you a space to walk around and pick or or leave encounters, choosing the order in which you play the missions is hardly anything worthwhile.

> Halo 3: ODST, and Reach were garbage and always will be.

Sales numbers and online activity disagree with you.

On Topic: I hope Mr. Spencer’s feelings about ODST and Reach do not influence 343’s decisions in future development. As happy as I am to see return to the Chief, it has been proven that Halo can stand without relying on the Master Chief.

ODST was certanly not a step in the wrong direction, it simply expanded the universe. I however agree it could of been much better… How did the brutes kill all the elites in five minutes???

I also disagree with the guy from Microsoft. Without ODST, we wouldn’t have Firefight, which is probably now one of the main pillars of the “Halo” experience (Single Player Campaing, Co-Op, Firefight, Forge, Multiplayer).

In fact, Microsoft has no right to say such things, because they are mostly thinking about corporate interests. Now if Bungie came out and admitted that the directions they took Halo with ODST and Reach weren’t the wisest, that’s another thing.

ODST was great in it’s own right. Reach is great in it’s own right. Maybe not the best, but certainly not the worst, especially in the Halo franchise. There is no “worst” Halo in the franchise.

> > Halo 3: ODST, and Reach were garbage and always will be.
>
> Sales numbers and online activity disagree with you.
>
> On Topic: I hope Mr. Spencer’s feelings about ODST and Reach do not influence 343’s decisions in future development. As happy as I am to see return to the Chief, it has been proven that Halo can stand without relying on the Master Chief.

Hahaha. Who cares about sales, this is irrelevant. Justin Bieber is probably the artist who has the most youtube views, does that make him good? McDonald is the most popular fast food restaurant, is it good? Hollywood blockbusters are still being made and sell like hot cakes, are they mostly good? Flawed logic is flawed. Appeal to the masses is an invalid argument anyway.

I liked ODST, but didn’t like Reach. But the reasoning behind liking/disliking them has nothing to do with Master Chief.

> > Halo 3: ODST, and Reach were garbage and always will be.
>
> Sales numbers and online activity disagree with you.
>
> On Topic: I hope Mr. Spencer’s feelings about ODST and Reach do not influence 343’s decisions in future development. As happy as I am to see return to the Chief, it has been proven that Halo can stand without relying on the Master Chief.

Almost 2 million people preordered Reach. Only roughly 700,000 are on it now in a 24 hour period. If it was such a success, why are more than half of just the pre-orders of it no longer playing. Unlike previous halo games it also failed to take and keep the #1 spot on xbox live activity charts for at least a year. Halo 3 kept it for almost 3 years. Halo 2 kept it practically all it’s lifespan. Reach kept it for a few months then dipped down to #3.

> http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/111582-Microsoft-We-Lost-Our-Way-With-Recent-Halo-Games
>
> Read for yourselves, In my opinion, this was not accurate in anyway, in fact I think alot of us Halo fans wanted to play in the shoes of other Spartan II’s during the Halo: Reach campaign but Halo:Reach is probably the best entry since Halo:CE.
>
> Another problem is the way they completely fail to mention Halo: Reach’s superior multiplayer.
>
> Campaign in a Halo game is AS important as the multiplayer component.
>
> Thoughts?

Hate to be a killjoy but there was already a thread on this, please search a bit more before posting, to prevent clutter. :slight_smile:

> Almost 2 million people preordered Reach. Only roughly 700,000 are on it now in a 24 hour period. If it was such a success, why are more than half of just the pre-orders of it no longer playing. Unlike previous halo games it also failed to take and keep the #1 spot on xbox live activity charts for at least a year. Halo 3 kept it for almost 3 years. Halo 2 kept it practically all it’s lifespan. Reach kept it for a few months then dipped down to #3.

I am not arguing Halo:Reach’s merits. I would like to say though that I am not sure I would use that as my argument against it. Take Mass Effect , wildly popular a success right?? However only half of those who started it finished it. Lesson I took from that is that people have short attention spans. Again not defending or detracting from Halo:Reach just saying that I am not sure using population that way is an accurate way to represent what is happening.

I like ODST but I don’t like reach. Halo 1, 2, and 3 is where it’s at though and I hope Halo 4 brings that epic trilogy feel back into Halo.